The subject of terrorism is extremely touchy, particularly in the US where it is especially since 9/11, the nation's number one fear. It is seen as a threat incompatible with the ideals of a free country which laws are supposed to be respected by all individuals. Only negatives connotations come to people's minds when this "taboo" word is pronounced. Therefore, the number one priority of the US is today to prevent its manifestations at any cost.
Considering this pejorative use of the word, is it even possible to consider its association to the positive, and therefore contradictory, adjective "good"? David S. Reynolds makes it clear throughout his biography of John Brown that is he is very defensive of the controverted abolitionist, praising him as a good man devoid of racial prejudices and as a fervent defender of his ideas. He doesn't only believe that John Brown was a terrorist, which is already quite a strong and destabilizing term to describe the latter, but he tries to soften the term by adding the nicer term "good" to it. Both statements are questionable. First, is it legitimate to use such a complex term as "terrorism" without agreeing on a proper definition? It seems that what is seen as a terrorist today and what was seen as an "act of terror" back then wasn't the exact same thing. The fear and emotion associated to this term are very contemporary. Then, the simple idea of a good terrorist is a contradiction in term, an oxymoron, it doesn't even seem possible.
[...] John Brown was very passionate about his antislavery ambitions. His passion led him to kill innocent people in order to get closer to his goal. In what cases can violence be legitimate? As “legitimate” (in a contemporary light)as his intentions were, can his actions be excused and considered good anyways? Answering favorably to that interrogation is admitting that the end should justify the means. Should it be so? John Brown's crimes were never questioned. Being crimes they were wrong, both the North and the South agreed on that, but some argued they were necessary crimes. [...]
[...] Conclusion Regarding all the previous elements, it seems clear that it is no easy target to put a label on John Brown. But one thing is certain, admitting that John Brown was a good terrorist, are admitting that terrorism can be a good. In other words, it is considering that using violence for the highest goal is acceptable. Accepting that the end should justify the means doesn't seem to be the safest thing to do for universal security. It can be seen as an invitation for anyone having extremist ideas to just express his/her opinion through violence. [...]
[...] He also justifies John Brown's actions by saying that the Pottawatomie affair was a crime committed against proslavery settlers by a man who saw slavery itself as an unprovoked war of one race against another.” These statements make sense and throw a new light on the ambiguous character. To some extent it is possible to consider that as he was responding to already existing violence, he wasn't really interfering with a peaceful system, but rather with a system that was based on violence and fear. [...]
[...] And his violent actions gave them an excellent alibi to associate anti-abolitionists to fanatical murderers. Any act of violence from abolitionists would only confirm their saying that anti-slavery actionists threaten the peace and quietness of the South as we can see in James Henry Hammond that foresaw abolitionist as a threat to the South prosperity: only thing that can create a mob [ is the appearance of an abolitionist, whom people assemble to chastise.” (p7 perman) Regardless of his cruel actions, Frederick Douglass a former slave called Brown noblest American hero”p492. [...]
[...] His life was a succession of economic failures. Even what should have been his biggest rebellion against slavery, the Harpers Ferry raid didn't get a glorious ending. In spite of that, Brown is now seen as a heroic figure, Man Who Killed Slavery”. Associating Brown to the image of an anti-hero seems accurate as he really wasn't likely to be considered like a hero. Especially because of the path that he used to obtain the status of a hero: violence. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
