John Brown

[Burn A Flag]

First Nat Turner, now John Brown. This time our textbook actually claims that he has a deranged mind. My teacher claimed he was a "crazy wacko abolitionist" on the basis that he "hacked people to peices at the Potawamie Massacre. Even from his wikipedia article he sounds pretty fucking revolutionary, but I'd like to hear some defenses of John Brown from Revleft. Justify the Pottawamie Masscare. It's really disturbing me how agressively she attacks any violent revolutionary figures, while ignoring and even applauding institutional reactionary violence. Even other students who aren't leftist are concerned with her intense hatred for people who fought slavery from a revolutionary perspective. The ironic thing is she went to Hampton University which is a majority African American school yet she sounds like a fucking apologist for slavery.

The way I see it John Brown and the Pottawamie Massacre are comparable to ANTIFA action against Fascists.

[Pretty Flaco]

John Brown was a little bit loose in the head but his militant opposition to slavery certainly was commendable.

EDIT
Sorry, you wanted a long drawn out explanation of the historical factors and whatnot, but I've just got a short opinion for you!

[Jimmie Higgins]

If you can get your hands on a copy of "Lies My Teacher Told Me" there is excellent stuff about how textbooks treat John Brown specifically.

THe basic argument of that chapter is that the way John Brown has been presented in schoolbooks reflects the racial situation going on in society. So John Brown was a monster when he was arrested and executed to all but the abolitionists (and then only some of them) but 10 years later he was seen as a hero of liberation and northern soldiers sang "John Brown's Body" as they marched to the south. After the reaction to reconstruction and establishment of Jim Crow, Brown was again seen as a crazy madman and it wasn't until the civil rights movement that historians began to re-evaluate their views of Brown and many historical figures but now most textbooks have gone back to the Brown is crazy version. The book argues that by presenting John Brown as a madman textbooks are suggesting that it is a crazy thing to actively oppose oppressive system - particularly when they do not effect you personally.

[Jimmie Higgins]

John Brown was a little bit loose in the head but his militant opposition to slavery certainly was commendable.When I was in school they told us that he was crazy because he believed that God wanted him to end slavery. But in retrospect, I wonder how valid this charge is considering that many of the abolitionists were extremely religious and many religious people in that time thought that God gave them signs or messages about this or that. I'm sure there are quotes where Lincoln says something about divine guidance or something. Also most pro-slavery people thought that God wanted them to be in that position and that slavery was cool with God.

So, if you think that God wants you to end slavery, you are a religious fanatic... but if you think that God wants you to be a slave-master, you are just a normal slave-owner?

[gorillafuck]

John Brown was one of the greatest people ever

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html

[syndicat]

Well, Kansas was in the midst of a kind of civil war. the pro-slavery forces had promised bloody violence in their newspaper only shortly before the "Pottawamie Massacre." the "massacre" itself was a retaliation for the sacking of Lawrence, an abolitionist stronghold. in one of the cabins on the Pottawamie they searched, they interrogated people and let most of them go but killed a militant pro-slavery advocate. So, their efforts here were aimed at pro-slavery millitants, slave catchers and the like in the course of what was virtually a civil war. in that era use of swords as weapons wasn't exactly unusual. the slavers and advocates of slavery engaged in and advocated violence. and the abolitionist movement did so, as well, as part of its struggle against the slavers. the slaves were not going to be liberated without violence. the large active supporters of slavery, and the southern planter elite, would make sure of that.

at the time of the raid on the armory at Harper's Ferry, which resulted in Brown's death, he was regarded as a loose cannon because others weren't yet ready to consider an armed force of ex-slaves to fight for their liberation. but by about 1863 that's what the union government did...it started forming black regiments, and ultimately close to 200,000 black men fought for the liberation of their people in the union army. but by then this course of action was supported by much white northern opinion....so of course the opinion of Brown changed.

the white abolitionist movement was based to a large extent on the churches...congregationalists, unitarians, Quakers. my great-great-grandparents moved to northeast Kansas about the time of the Pottawamie massacre to participate in the abolitonist struggle there, and they were devout northern Baptists.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

John Brown was never even mentioned in any school that I went to.

I would suggest you remind your teacher that chattel slavery is based on the constant threat of violence... or at least I would if I thought it would have any effect.

[synthesis]

I support what he did, but I think he's overhyped. He's like an antebellum version of one of those movies where a white fuck-up goes to "the ghetto" as a high school teacher and turns all the non-white students' lives around, but with much bigger stakes.

[blake 3:17]

I knew a very brilliant 11 year old who asked the question, What would John Brown and Gandhi say to each other?

[Jalapeno Enema]

I'm sure there are quotes where Lincoln says something about divine guidance or something.Many, many times (see link below).

It's hard to say, however, due to difference in culture then and now, and tolerance of differing religious outlooks, whether he was committed to the idea of religion, or merely offering lip-service. Read more about Lincoln's religious beliefs here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_religion)

John Brown, on the other hand, I'm sure was very religious; I've heard nothing to contradict such claims.

When looking back throughout history, it's important to remember that as social animals, society around us shapes who we are and how people see us. Merely remembering dates and events is only part of understanding history. Try to understand how people lived their lives and you have a better understanding of history.

There have been times when religion has been more and times when less influential on people's lives then today. One trend I have seen, however, is atheist/agnostic apathy/despondence. It is rarely a bad political move to be perceived as devout, but it's often political suicide to been seen as non-believing. Even during times where religion is on the back burner, influential people often offer lip service.

[blake 3:17]

I support what he did, but I think he's overhyped. He's like an antebellum version of one of those movies where a white fuck-up goes to "the ghetto" as a high school teacher and turns all the non-white students' lives around, but with much bigger stakes.


He was playing for the highest stakes.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I support what he did, but I think he's overhyped. He's like an antebellum version of one of those movies where a white fuck-up goes to "the ghetto" as a high school teacher and turns all the non-white students' lives around, but with much bigger stakes.I hate these movies too and their liberal quazi-white-man's burden undertones. But really is someone who's not from an oppressed group but recognizes the oppression in society and wants to do something about it is a fuck-up? I think we want working class solidarity and recognition of economic and racial inequalities.

John Brown wasn't trying to get a band of white abolitionist insurrectionists together to save black people who he thought couldn't save themselves, he was trying to arm black people to create a liberation army.


It's hard to say, however, due to difference in culture then and now, and tolerance of differing religious outlooks, whether he was committed to the idea of religion, or merely offering lip-service. Read more about Lincoln's religious beliefs here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_religion)Ok, but just to be clear I wasn't arguing anything about religion or religious attitudes, my target was more about how the textbooks represent historical figures. I mean my High School teacher didn't just say that John Brown was religious, but said he was an irrational fanatic and compared him to Charles Manson and the Branch Dividians (which was an ongoing confrontation at that time just to date myself a little). Because, you know, thinking that slavery is an intolerable situation and wanting to help countless people liberate themselves is basically the same and just as irrational as having the belief that you are the new son of God or wanting to sneak into the homes of celebrities to kill them.:rolleyes:

[bailey_187]

I support what he did, but I think he's overhyped. He's like an antebellum version of one of those movies where a white fuck-up goes to "the ghetto" as a high school teacher and turns all the non-white students' lives around, but with much bigger stakes.

Wasnt the raid he was killed on an attempt to capture weapons to distribute to slaves though?

[gorillafuck]

I support what he did, but I think he's overhyped. He's like an antebellum version of one of those movies where a white fuck-up goes to "the ghetto" as a high school teacher and turns all the non-white students' lives around, but with much bigger stakes.
His story isn't reminiscent of white mans burden stories, because in those the white person realizes that racism is bad and convinces the racists to not be racist and learns a lesson about equality or something along those lines. John Brown was trying to startup a slave army for the slaves to use to overthrow their masters through an armed insurrection because he recognized that slaves needed to liberate themselves but he could help them.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I support what he did, but I think he's overhyped. He's like an antebellum version of one of those movies where a white fuck-up goes to "the ghetto" as a high school teacher and turns all the non-white students' lives around, but with much bigger stakes.

John Brown = Tom Berenger in The Substitute

[Burn A Flag]

Thanks for all the useful information. She made it sound like John Brown and his sons mutilated the bodies of their victims. Is there any truth to that? In my textbook it also said that there were 13 people related to Brown who were legally insane. Truth to that either? Either way Brown was revolutionary, but just curious.

[La Comédie Noire]

I support what he did, but I think he's overhyped. He's like an antebellum version of one of those movies where a white fuck-up goes to "the ghetto" as a high school teacher and turns all the non-white students' lives around, but with much bigger stakes. Dude he, cut people in half! That's more than Hillary Swank has done in her entire career.

Oh and I pass the John brown bell on my way to work everyday. mwhahaha history.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I guess it's hard to separate historically controvercial figures from the politically-motivated myths around them. Just think when historians go back and try and figure out what the left in this period was like: the evidence they will have will really only be our publications and what people like Glenn Beck say about us... so how the protests and groups of today will be seen by the future historians will depend on if there was a revolution or not:lol: (because if there isn't one then we'll be straight ignored.)

But anyway, even today Gerneral Sherman is portrayed as a monster by many people both north and south for the "march to the sea". But the same people who say it was barbaric for Sherman to try and sever the south from it's main points of military and trade infrastructure in a war that would end slavery and help liberate countless people also say it was totally justified for the US to drop a few a-bombs on Japan and threaten the survival of humanity with 50 year suicidal nuclear stand-off with Russia!

Really, who are the insane ones?

Edit: Also someone said that John Brown was killed at Harper's but he was hanged by the federal governmnet... I think he was the first official federal execution too, but I could be mistaken.

A PLEA FOR CAPTAIN JOHN BROWN by Thoreau (http://www.transcendentalists.com/thoreau_plea_john_brown.htm)

[gorillafuck]

Thanks for all the useful information. She made it sound like John Brown and his sons mutilated the bodies of their victims. Is there any truth to that? In my textbook it also said that there were 13 people related to Brown who were legally insane. Truth to that either? Either way Brown was revolutionary, but just curious.
Slaveowners were the ones who would mutilate and brutalize people every fuckin' day, even if it is true that John Brown did that, that is hardly a criticism to make against those who sought the liberation of the slaves.


the carcasses of the Abolitionists should be so numerous in the territory as to breed disease and sickness, we will not be deterred from our purpose
Whitewashing this while focusing on John Browns heroism and calling it "insane" is, well, insane.

[Burn A Flag]

I just can't get over how hypocritical this is. My teacher doesn't even talk about the slave owner's reaction to Nat Turner's rebellion when demonizing it. Now she doesn't say anything about John Brown other than "he was a crazy wacko murderer". Ugh

[Pirate Utopian]

I don't believe you. I don't believe your teacher nor your textbook exists.

What is the name of your textbook?

[synthesis]

John Brown wasn't trying to get a band of white abolitionist insurrectionists together to save black people who he thought couldn't save themselves, he was trying to arm black people to create a liberation army.

Disagree on this last point. The common thread between the John Brown narrative and those shitty "Dangerous Minds"-type movies, beautifully satirized by "Mr. Cartmenez" in South Park, is that black people can save themselves if only they have a well-intentioned white person to show them the way.

I'm not really talking about what he did so much as how he's perceived today. Every American student who paid attention in high school history knows his name, but how many could tell you a single name of someone he inspired to fight?

[Amphictyonis]

John Brown was one of the greatest people ever

A sane man in a crazy world.

[Burn A Flag]

I don't believe you. I don't believe your teacher nor your textbook exists.

What is the name of your textbook?
It's not at my house today, but I will bring it home or write down the name tomorrow. It also mentions something about an Anglo-Saxon sense of fair play lol.

[Nolan]

I support what he did, but I think he's overhyped. He's like an antebellum version of one of those movies where a white fuck-up goes to "the ghetto" as a high school teacher and turns all the non-white students' lives around, but with much bigger stakes.

I don't want to derail the thread, but can you give me some examples of what you're talking about?

[kasama-rl]

John brown was the first revolutionary who envisioned a plan for overthrowing the U.S. government on behalf of the oppressed. He envisioned setting up an independent slave republic by revolution in the deep south, and using the appalachian mountains as a kind of Ho Chi Minh trail for passing liberated slaves north and bringing arms down South.

He had developed a new flag and considered a radical new constitution. And he traveled to the great battlefields of Europe, studying how the revolutionary French forces had defeated reactionary armies.

And then (with a small group of devoted followers) Brown went to Harpers Ferry to seize arms to start a slave revolt. (The location was an armory precisely on the interface between slave plantations to the east and the mountains to the west, with free soil to the north, and the major slave areas to the south. It was the strategically considered opening shot of a possible slave revolt.

If he made mistakes it was in not understanding how to unite broadly -- he had a very strict and moralist view of who was worthy to unite with... and was not flexible in imagining different kinds of allies (needed for a real war and a real movement)l

In the end, his action was a manifesto that ended in his execution -- and never triggered the revolt he wanted. But it did (clearly) help trigger the civil war that DID finally end slavery, and lead to many thousands of freed revolutionary slaves in arms (under the Union flag).

I have written a piece that puts John Brown in the context of the larger abolitionist movement and underground railroad (of which he was a leading militant).

http://kasamaproject.org/2009/01/31/freedom-train-the-story-of-the-underground-railroad/

[gorillafuck]

How do people think that, if a Nat Turner or John Brown style revolution (two incredible men) had occurred, it would have affected the ability for the Jim Crow laws to occur and for the Klan to start their campaign?

[Burn A Flag]

I believe my textbook is the 10th edition of the American Pageant books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Pageant

[synthesis]

I don't want to derail the thread, but can you give me some examples of what you're talking about?

You mean which kinds of movies? Look up "Dangerous Minds" on Wikipedia and then look at the movies that the reviewers claimed it ripped off. Samuel L. Jackson had one relatively recently, but it obviously doesn't count for this analogy. There's also Pryzbylewski on The Wire, but they did it right on that show.

[gorillafuck]

I don't even see how that's even relevant to John Brown. Should John Brown not have been in solidarity with and tried to arm slaves because he was white?

That's the exact opposite of solidarity. I really don't see how John Brown was a white mans burden style story of white people needing to lead the way, he was a Che Guevara of his time.

[synthesis]

I don't think his story was of the "white man's burden" variety, and I don't think those movies are either. The implicit message - not from what he did, but from the narrative we tell of him - comes across as overly Carlylian to me.

[gorillafuck]

I think I might see where you're coming from then, but I disagree still.

The mainstream and common narrative of him is extremely negative and is one of a crazy man who was nothing but a violent nut. The radical leftist view of him is of a heroic man who tried to free the slaves through an insurrection, which isn't inaccurate at all. Also, sorry but I don't know what Carlylian means.

The contrast between how he's talked about and how Nat Turner are talked about is weird though, because of the (untrue) claim that Nat Turner killed all white people he found, Nat Turner is demonized much more than John Brown even though they're both demonized.

[synthesis]

Also, sorry but I don't know what Carlylian means.

Yeah, people should use that word more so I don't feel pretentious when I do; I used to think I made it up, but I forgot that "no idea's original." It refers to Thomas Carlyle, the historian who propagated the "Great Man theory of history."


The radical leftist view of him is of a heroic man who tried to free the slaves through an insurrection... The contrast between how he's talked about and how Nat Turner are talked about is weird though, because of the (untrue) claim that Nat Turner killed all white people he found, Nat Turner is demonized much more than John Brown even though they're both demonized.

This is more or less what I'm talking about. Very few people on the left will speak ill of John Brown, while support of Nat Turner is much less unwavering.

[Reznov]

He was playing for the highest stakes.

Look a little past the fancy "abolitionist" and you can see the underlying political powers and families competing.

Just like in the Salem Witch Trials.

[scourge007]

I don't think John Brown was insane , I think he was quite sane. I'm sure he was labeled as insane because even the Whites living in the North hated blacks. Their way of thinking is you had to be insane to inspire Blacks to rise up against Whites. Over the next 200 years it became fact.

[kasama-rl]

" The radical leftist view of him is of a heroic man who tried to free the slaves through an insurrection..."

uh, yes. Cuz its true.

[kasama-rl]

Very few people on the left will speak ill of John Brown, while support of Nat Turner is much less unwavering.

I am not familiar with this claim. In my experience, those who uphold Brown also uphold Turner.

Please share with me some sources of people on the left who are wavering on Nat Turner. Or even one source documenting your claim will do.

If you can't provide any example, please note that. OK?

Here is my essay on Nat Turner:
http://kasamaproject.org/interviews/the-slave-rebellion-of-general-nat-turner/

[synthesis]

I am not familiar with this claim. In my experience, those who uphold Brown also uphold Turner.

Please share with me some sources of people on the left who are wavering on Nat Turner. Or even one source documenting your claim will do.

If you can't provide any example, please note that. OK?

Here is my essay on Nat Turner:
http://kasamaproject.org/interviews/the-slave-rebellion-of-general-nat-turner/

There's a difference between "not being able to document a claim" and "not giving enough of a shit to do so." What's your point?

[Red Commissar]

I was reading through Wikipedia and it mentioned that Victor Hugo sent an open letter protesting the hanging. His views aside, it's an interesting read:


To the Editor of the London News:

Sir: When our thoughts dwell upon the United States of America, a majestic form rises before the eye of imagination. It is a Washington!

Look, then, to what is taking place in that country of Washington at this present moment.

In the Southern States of the Union there are slaves; and this circumstance is regarded with indignation, as the most monstrous of inconsistencies, by the pure and logical conscience of the Northern States. A white man, a free man, John Brown, sought to deliver these negro slaves from bondage. Assuredly, if insurrection is ever a sacred duty, it must be when it is directed against Slavery. John Brown endeavored to commence the work of emancipation by the liberation of slaves in Virginia. Pious, austere, animated with the old Puritan spirit, inspired by the spirit of the Gospel, he sounded to these men, these oppressed brothers, the rallying cry of Freedom. The slaves, enervated by servitude, made no response to the appeal. Slavery afflicts the soul with weakness. Brown, though deserted, still fought at the head of a handful of heroic men; he was riddled with balls; his two young sons, sacred martyrs, fell dead at his side, and he himself was taken. This is what they call the affair at Harper’s Ferry.

John Brown has been tried, with four of his comrades, Stephens, Coppic, Gree and Copeland.

What has been the character of his trial? Let us sum it up in a few words:—
John Brown, upon a wretched pallet, with six half gaping wounds, a gun-shot wound in his arm, another in his loins, and two in his head, scarcely conscious of surrounding sounds, bathing his mattress in blood, and with the ghastly presence his two dead sons ever beside him; his four fellow-sufferers wounded, dragging themselves along by his side; Stephens bleeding from saber wounds; justice in a hurry, and overleaping all obstacles; an attorney, Hunter, who wishes to proceed hastily, and a judge, Parker, who suffers him to have his way; the hearing cut short, almost every application for delay refused, forged and mutilated documents produced, the witnesses for the defence kidnapped, every obstacle thrown in the way of the prisoner’s counsel, two cannon loaded with canister stationed in the Court, orders given to the jailers to shoot the prisoners if they sought to escape, forty minutes of deliberation, and three men sentenced to die! I declare on my honor that all this took place, not in Turkey, but in America!

Such things cannot be done with impunity in the face of the civilized world. The universal conscience of humanity is an ever-watchful eye. Let the judges of Charlestown, and Hunter and Parker, and the slaveholding jurors, and the whole population of Virginia, ponder it well: they are watched! They are not alone in the world. At this moment, America attracts the eyes of the whole of Europe.

John Brown, condemned to die, was to have been hanged on the 2d of December — this very day.

But news has just reached us. A respite has been granted to him. It is not until the 16th that he is to die. The interval is a brief one. Before it has ended, will a cry of mercy have had time to make itself effectually heard?

No matter! It is our duty to speak out.

Perhaps a second respite may be granted. America is a noble nation. The impulse of humanity springs quickly into life among a free people. We may yet hope that Brown will be saved.

If it were otherwise, if Brown should die on the scaffold on the 16th of December, what a terrible calamity! The executioner of Brown, let us avow it openly (for the day of the Kings is past, and the day of the peoples dawns, and to the people we are bound frankly to speak the truth) — the executioner of Brown would be neither the attorney Hunter, nor the judge Parker, nor the Governor Wise, nor the State of Virginia; it would be, though we can scarce think or speak of it without a shudder, the whole American Republic.

The more one loves, the more one admires, the more one venerates that Republic, the more heart-sick one feels at the contemplation of such a catastrophe. A single State ought not to have the power to dishonor all the rest, and in this case there is an obvious justification for a federal intervention. Otherwise, by hesitating to interfere when it might prevent a crime, the Union becomes a participator in its guilt. No matter how intense may be the indignation of the generous Northern States, the Southern States force them to share the opprobrium of this murder. All of us, no matter who we may be, who are bound together as compatriots by the common tie of a democratic creed, feel ourselves in some measure compromised. If the scaffold should be erected on the 16th of December, the incorruptible voice of history would thenceforward testify that the august Confederation of the New World, had added to all its rites of holy brotherhood a brotherhood of blood, and the fasces of that splendid Republic would be bound together with the running noose that hung from the gibbet of Brown!

This is a bond that kills.

When we reflect on what Brown, the liberator, the champion of Christ, has striven to effect, and when we remember that he is about to die, slaughtered by the American Republic, that crime assumes an importance co-extensive with that of the nation which commits it — and when we say to ourselves that this nation is one of the glories of the human race; that, like France, like England, like Germany, she is one of the great agents of civilization; that she sometimes even leaves Europe in the rear by the sublime audacity of some of her progressive movements; that she is the Queen of an entire world, and that her brow is irradiated with a glorious halo of freedom, we declare our conviction that John Brown will not die; for we recoil horror-struck from the idea of so great a crime committed by so great a people.

Viewed in a political light, the murder of Brown would be an irreparable fault. It would penetrate the Union with a gaping fissure which would lead in the end to its entire disruption. It is possible that the execution of Brown might establish slavery on a firm basis in Virginia, but it is certain that it would shake to its centre the entire fabric of American democracy. You preserve your infamy, but you sacrifice your glory. Viewed in a moral light, it seems to me that a portion of the enlightenment of humanity would be eclipsed, that even the ideas of justice and injustice would be obscured on the day which should witness the assassination of Emancipation by Liberty.

As for myself, though I am but a mere atom, yet being, as I am, in common with all other men, inspired with the conscience of humanity, I fall on my knees, weeping before the great starry banner of the New World; and with clasped hands, and with profound and filial respect, I implore the illustrious American Republic, sister of the French Republic, to see to the safety of the universal moral law, to save John Brown, to demolish the threatening scaffold of the 16th of December, and not to suffer that beneath its eyes, and I add, with a shudder, almost by its fault, a crime should be perpetrated surpassing the first fratricide in iniquity.

For — yes, let America know it, and ponder on it well — there is something more terrible than Cain slaying Abel: It is Washington slaying Spartacus!

Victor Hugo

Hautville House, Dec. 2d, 1859.

It's also important to remember John Brown wasn't the only one hanged. I know two were ex-slaves and were also condemned to hang. Another was a sympathizer of his that managed to get away, and later joined the Union Army but died in the opening year of the war. One- Osborne Perry- was an ex-slave but was not in the actual raid- survived and died in 1871.

Marxists.org also has some of his writings:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/brown-john/

John Brown's interview in jail (http://www.marxists.org/archive/brown-john/1859/prison-interview.htm)


Mason: How do you justify your acts?

Brown: I think, my friend, you are guilty of a great wrong against God and humanity, — I say it without wishing to be offensive, — and it would be perfectly right for any one to interfere with you so far as to free those you wilfully and wickedly hold in bondage. I do not say this insultingly.

...

Vallandigham: Did you expect a general rising of the slaves in case of your success?

Brown: No, sir; nor did I wish it. I expected to gather them up from time to time and set them free.

...

An officer: Why did you not surrender before the attack?

Brown: I did not think it was my duty or interest to do so. We assured the prisoners that we did not wish to harm them, and they should be set at liberty. I exercised my best judgment, not believing the people would wantonly sacrifice their own fellow-citizens, when we offered to let them go on condition of being allowed to change our position about a quarter of a mile. The prisoners agreed by a vote among themselves to pass across the bridge with us. We wanted them only as a sort of guarantee of our own safety, — that we should not be fired into. We took them, in the first place, as hostages and to keep them from doing any harm. We did kill some men in defending ourselves, but I saw no one fire except directly in self-defense. Our orders were strict not to harm anyone not in arms against us.

Q: Brown, suppose you had every nigger in the United States, what would you do with them?

Brown: Set them free.

Q: Your intention was to carry off and free them?

Brown: Not at all.

A Bystander: To set them free would sacrifice the life of every man in this community.

Brown: I do not think so.

Bystander: I know it. I think you are fanatical.

Brown: And I think you are fanatical. “Whom the god would destroy they first make mad,” and you are mad.

Q: Was it only your object to free the negroes?

Brown: Absolutely our only object.



John Brown's last words at his trial (http://www.marxists.org/archive/brown-john/1859/last-speech.htm)


This court acknowledges, as I suppose, the validity of the law of God. I see a book kissed here which I suppose to be the bible, or at least the New Testament. That teaches me that all thing whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I should do even so to them. It teaches me further, to “remember them that are in bonds as bound with them.” I endeavored to act upon that instruction. I say, I am yet too young to understand that God is any respecter of persons. I believe that to have interfered as I have done — as I have always freely admitted I have done — in behalf of his despised poor, was not wrong, but right. Now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments, — I submit; so let it be done!
`

John Brown's last note (http://www.marxists.org/archive/brown-john/1859/last-note.htm)


Charlestown, Virginia Dec 2, 1859

I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think vainly, flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done.

[gorillafuck]

" The radical leftist view of him is of a heroic man who tried to free the slaves through an insurrection..."

uh, yes. Cuz its true.
Hence why I said it's true.


I am not familiar with this claim. In my experience, those who uphold Brown also uphold Turner.

Please share with me some sources of people on the left who are wavering on Nat Turner. Or even one source documenting your claim will do.

If you can't provide any example, please note that. OK?
I also haven't seen that either.

But the mainstream, non-left view (what I was taught in school) of Nat Turner is more negative than that of John Brown.

I think radical leftists are fairly consistent on it though.