Skip to main content

The Enigma of John Brown

John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War and Seeded Civil Rights by David S. Reynolds (Vintage, 2006)

What to do with John Brown? Any historian or student of history interested in the Civil War or the lead-up to one of the greatest calamities in U.S. history must grapple with that same question. Or, perhaps, to re-frame the question, how does one explain the enigma of John Brown, this walking contradiction, a man who somehow managed to be both ahead of his time and behind the times, a militant abolitionist politically, a tolerant Calvinist religiously, a man who believed in the true equality of blacks and whites in a time when even the most progressive white abolitionists still embodied the racist sentiments prevalent in that period. In his magisterial biography of John Brown, the abolitionist who became infamous for the murders he oversaw in the fight over "Bleeding Kansas" and for his attack on Harpers Ferry, David Reynolds seeks to unravel this riddle of American history, and for that attempt alone this book is worth the effort needed to plow through over five hundred pages of sometimes densely written text and complex argument.

As much about John Brown the symbol and the historiography of Brown as it is about the man himself, Reynolds deftly places "Osawatomie Brown" in the context of his times and brings a balanced treatment to the topic, something that other historians failed to do (or, in the case of the early 20th Century revisionist historians with their pro-Southern sympathies, didn't try to do in the first case). Brown must surely rank as one of the most remarkable figures in our history, a man who embodied Calvinist attitudes towards religion that had long since fallen out of favor at the same time as he embodied views on race that were downright progressive. His view that blacks and whites were inherently equal, that the two races could live together in harmony and that blacks deserved the same full rights as citizens (he held the same opinion about Native Americans), while mainstream today were revolutionary for the time. Many abolitionists, while noble in their condemnation of slavery, were less noble in their views on race. Some held that the two races could never live in peace and advocated the removal of freed slaves back to Africa; William Lloyd Garrison famously proposed ending the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1863, suggesting that its mission had been accomplished. This action exposed his view that, at least initially, blacks should not have full rights as citizens and did not need post-emancipation protections against their former masters (51). Even Lincoln, while he spent most of his career as a pragmatist who abhorred slavery rather than an Abolitionist, made several statements in which he agreed that blacks were inherently inferior to whites, notably in his debates with Douglas (273). Thus Brown may be considered one of the few non-racists in the United States during the period, going so far as to begin a small town at North Elba where he put his beliefs into practice by living among blacks with his family.

Most interesting of all in the work is Reynolds' treatment of the role of the Trancendentalists in supporting Brown while he was alive and lionizing the man after his capture and subsequent execution for his attack on the federal armory at Harpers Ferry. It is a remarkable and overlooked fact that Emerson and Thoreau spearheaded the movement to rehabilitate Brown and make him a more potent force for abolition in death than he was even when alive. The reasons as to why these men, pacifists at heart, would embrace a radical like Brown who called for anti-slavery violence long before Harpers Ferry is a discussion interesting in and of itself, as is the final portion of the book where Reynolds' traces the legacy of Brown. While some may think that the subtitle of the work is going too far, given the complexity of the slave issue in U.S. history and the lead-up to civil war, I think that the author accurately makes the case that, at the least, the actions of John Brown and the subsequent glorifying of his intentions by many in the North accelerated the already-lit fuse that led to war. Reynolds' asserts that, as pro-slavery feeling in the South had only been strengthening for decades rather than the reverse, the war would have come at some point. The attack on Harpers' Ferry only helped to ensure that the war came in 1861 rather than a decade or two later.

John Brown: Abolitionist is the remarkable end-result of what must have been years of copious, detailed research, a fascinating look at a man who has too-often been sidelined (or completely ignored) in discussions of the Civil War, dismissed as a madman, or worse. Anyone with interest in the man or the period owes it to themselves to take a look at this work, which will help to develop a deeper understanding of the countdown to Fort Sumter. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...