PDA

View Full Version : Life John Brown ... Was he a terrorist or a hero?


Gracie Dean
05-06-2009, 06:05 PM
This is the persuasive writing essay prompt my students have to do next week.


I am trying to give them all the info necessary to make an informed paper


let me add, this is not my prompt but the districts. All 7th graders are doing this same writing in the next two weeks. I think it is a fascinating subject, but also a little deep for these students as they really do not have an extensive knowledge of John Brown and we do not have the time to do a complete study as I would like to do.



http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cs.co...



what do you think?

Mr. Krab
05-06-2009, 06:08 PM
Pottawatomie Massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottawatomie_Massacre#column-one), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottawatomie_Massacre#searchInput)
<!-- start content --> <table class="infobox" style="text-align: center;"> <tbody><tr> <td>Part of a series of articles on...
</td> </tr> <tr> <td>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Slave_revolt_logo.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slave_revolt_logo.jpg)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="text-align: left;"> 1712 New York Slave Revolt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Slave_Revolt_of_1712) (Suppressed)
1733 St. John Slave Revolt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1733_slave_insurrection_on_St._John)
1739 Stono Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stono_Rebellion) (Suppressed)
1741 New York Conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Conspiracy_of_1741) (Suppressed)
1791–1804 Haitian Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution) (Victorious)
1800 Gabriel Prosser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Prosser) (Suppressed)
1805 Chatham Manor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_Manor) (Suppressed)
1811 German Coast Uprising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1811_German_Coast_Uprising) (Suppressed)
1815 George Boxley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Boxley) (Suppressed)
1822 Denmark Vesey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark_Vesey) (Suppressed)
1831 Nat Turner's rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Turner%27s_slave_rebellion)(Suppressed)
1839 Amistad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amistad_%281841%29)
1841 Creole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creole_case)
1859 John Brown's Raid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown%27s_raid_on_Harpers_Ferry)

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> The Pottawatomie Massacre occurred during the night of May 24 and the morning of May 25, 1856. In reaction to the sacking of Lawrence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacking_of_Lawrence) (Kansas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas)) by pro-slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States) forces, John Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_%28abolitionist%29) and a band of abolitionist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism) settlers (some of them members of the Pottawatomie Rifles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottawatomie_Rifles)) killed five pro-slavery settlers north of Pottawatomie Creek in Franklin County, Kansas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_County,_Kansas). This was one of the many bloody episodes in Kansas preceding the American Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War), which came to be known collectively as Bleeding Kansas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas).



John Brown was particularly affected by the sacking of Lawrence, in which a sheriff-led posse destroyed newspaper offices, private houses and a hotel,<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottawatomie_Massacre#cite_note-0)</sup> as well as by the brutal beating of anti-slavery Senator Charles Sumner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sumner) by Preston Brooks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Brooks). (Sumner had given a fiery speech to the U.S. Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) and in retaliation, Brooks caned him nearly to death.)

The violence against abolitionists was accompanied by celebrations in the pro-slavery press, with writers such as Benjamin F. Stringfellow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_F._Stringfellow) of the Squatter Sovereign proclaiming that pro-slavery forces "are determined to repel this Northern invasion and make Kansas a Slave State; though our rivers should be covered with the blood of their victims and 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" (quoted in Reynolds, p. 162). Brown was outraged by both the violence of pro-slavery forces, and also by what he saw as a weak and cowardly response by the antislavery partisans and the Free State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-Stater) settlers, whom he described as cowards, or worse (Reynolds pp. 163–166).


A Free State company under the command of John Brown, Jr., set out, and the Osawatomie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osawatomie) company joined them. On the morning of May 22, 1856, they heard of the sack of Lawrence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacking_of_Lawrence) and the arrest of Deitzler, Brown, and Jenkins. However, they continued their march toward Lawrence, not knowing whether their assistance might still be needed, and encamped that night near the Ottawa Creek. They remained in the vicinity until the afternoon of May 23, at which time they decided to return home.

On May 23, John Brown, Sr. selected a party to go with him on a private expedition. Captain John Brown, Jr., objected to their leaving his company, but seeing that his father was obdurate, acquiesced, telling him to "do nothing rash." The company consisted of John Brown, four of his sons—Frederick, Owen, Watson, and Oliver—Thomas Winer, and James Townsley, whom John had induced to carry the party in his wagon to their proposed field of operations.

They encamped that night between two deep ravines on the edge of the timber, some distance to the right of the main traveled road. There they remained unobserved until the following evening of May 24. Some time after dark, the party left their place of hiding and proceeded on their "secret expedition". Late in the evening, they called at the house of James P. Doyle and ordered him and his two adult sons, William and Drury, to go with them as prisoners. (Doyle's 16-year-old son, John, who was not a member of the pro-slavery Law and Order Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Law_and_Order_Party&action=edit&redlink=1), was left with his mother.) The three men were escorted by their captors out into the darkness, where Owen Brown and one of his brothers killed them with broadswords. John Brown, Sr., did not participate in the stabbing but fired a shot into the head of the fallen James Doyle to ensure death .

Brown and his band then went to the house of Allen Wilkinson and ordered him out. He was slashed and stabbed to death by Henry Thompson and Theodore Winer, possibly with help from Brown's sons (Reynolds 2005, 172–3). From there, they crossed the Pottawatomie, and some time after midnight, forced their way into the cabin of James Harris at sword-point. Harris had three house guests: John S. Wightman, Jerome Glanville, and William Sherman, the brother of Henry Sherman ("Dutch Henry"), a militant pro-slavery activist. Glanville and Harris were taken outside for interrogation and asked whether they had threatened Free State settlers, aided Border Ruffians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Ruffian) from Missouri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri), or participated in the sack of Lawrence. Satisfied with their answers, Brown's men let Glanville and Harris return to the cabin. William Sherman was led to the edge of the creek and hacked to death with the swords by Brown's sons, Winer, and Thompson (Reynolds 2005, 177).

Having learned at Harris's cabin that "Dutch Henry", their main target in the expedition, was away from home on the prairie, they ended the expedition and returned to the ravine where they had previously encamped. They rejoined the Osawatomie company on the night of May 25 (Reynolds 2005, 177).

Thig Lyfe
05-06-2009, 06:08 PM
That's really deep for a 7th grade class. That could be a prompt in a high-level college course.

I feel sorry for you if you're the one who has to read their papers. Because most of them are going to suck.

MoreLemonPledge
05-06-2009, 06:09 PM
No, because terrorism wasn't invented until September 11th.

Valiant
05-06-2009, 06:10 PM
Terrorist, but then again it depends what side you are on.. One of my thesis projects in college was on this.. It is a little deep for 7th graders but if they TRULY put a little bit of effort in it they will have fun..

You could also depending on your class have them split into two groups and have them lambast each other with the different viewpoints..

Mr. Krab
05-06-2009, 06:10 PM
He sure as hell wasn't a hero.

Gracie Dean
05-06-2009, 06:12 PM
I think they could handle it if I had more time, but I don't. I would love to be able to really do a lot more study about John Brown's life. As it is, they get a 3 page little spread in their Kansas History book about the Pottawatomie Massacre and a paragraph about Harpers Ferry.

Before we started, I spent a day of class just defining Hero and terrorist. I also asked them if someone could be both... wow, they really need more time...

Thig Lyfe
05-06-2009, 06:13 PM
He was a terrorist who happened to be on the right side of an issue.

Gracie Dean
05-06-2009, 06:13 PM
Terrorist, but then again it depends what side you are on.. One of my thesis projects in college was on this.. It is a little deep for 7th graders but if they TRULY put a little bit of effort in it they will have fun..

You could also depending on your class you teach split them into two groups and have them lambast each other with the different viewpoints..

I found some exerpts from documents and tomorrow I am going to have them pair up and read each document and decide if it favors the Hero argument or the terrorist argument

Mr. Krab
05-06-2009, 06:15 PM
He was a POS who happened to be on the right side of an issue.
FYP

Thig Lyfe
05-06-2009, 06:15 PM
I also asked them if someone could be both...

It depends on the perspective. Osama bin Laden is a hero to some people. He's still objectively a terrorist, but there are those who share his views who believe his terrorism is for a heroic cause.

You could argue that John Brown terrorized for a heroic cause. I'd say abolition is exactly that.

mikey23545
05-06-2009, 06:24 PM
A terrorist intentionally takes innocent lives. It doesn't matter how right or wrong their cause is.

Micjones
05-06-2009, 06:39 PM
A terrorist intentionally takes innocent lives. It doesn't matter how right or wrong their cause is.

Does that go for the Military Industrial Complex of the United States as well?
:D

GoHuge
05-06-2009, 06:40 PM
A terrorist intentionally takes innocent lives. It doesn't matter how right or wrong their cause is.I some what agree with your statement but this is far from a one-size-fits-all issue especially when you use the word terrorists. Slaves where born into a life of bondage so someone acting on their behalf isn't just killing or terrorizing innocent people. This was a group of people fighting for their ideals against the moral right in this situation. The moral right fought back with what they had available to them at the time. They didn't have a battalion of Union forces fighting the rebels. At the time Kansas was very much the frontier. You fought with what you had available at the time. One could say that slaves lived in terror everyday of there lives....unless you belonged to Thomas Jefferson in which he just had sex with you. Maybe that wasn't all bad?? Rumor has it he was a good looking very charming man :)

Frazod
05-06-2009, 06:45 PM
Terrorist psychopath. I'll bet Fred Phelps jerks off to his picture every night.

listopencil
05-06-2009, 06:47 PM
Domestic Terrorism.

Saccopoo
05-06-2009, 06:57 PM
Hero.

And Josey Wales was a fag.

Frazod
05-06-2009, 06:57 PM
Hero.

And Josey Wales was a fag.

Josey Wales didn't exist, you fucking idiot.

Saccopoo
05-06-2009, 07:04 PM
Josey Wales didn't exist, you ****ing idiot.

Really?


:rolleyes:

Frazod
05-06-2009, 07:06 PM
Really?


:rolleyes:

Don't roll your cyber eyes at me. Anybody dumb enough to think that lunatic was a hero shouldn't be allowed to drive a car or trusted with sharp objects.

milkman
05-06-2009, 07:19 PM
It depends on the perspective. Osama bin Laden is a hero to some people. He's still objectively a terrorist, but there are those who share his views who believe his terrorism is for a heroic cause.

You could argue that John Brown terrorized for a heroic cause. I'd say abolition is exactly that.

So you're saying he was both a hero and a terrorist.

Mr. Kotter
05-06-2009, 07:38 PM
I teach Junior American Studies/History...you can make an argument for both, but the most persuasive case by far was the he was a terrorist. It's not close really, especially when you pull in non-violent resistance, and 20th Century examples of successes like Ghandi, MLK, and others.

You can understand why some want to gloss over the fact, and show sympathy and compassion....but in the end, definitely a terrorist. I'd compare him to Fred Phelps--except Smith was much worse, he acted on his misguided zealotry.

Don't roll your cyber eyes at me. Anybody dumb enough to think that lunatic was a hero shouldn't be allowed to drive a car or trusted with sharp objects.


Yup.

Jenson71
05-06-2009, 07:58 PM
He did some good things and had some good ideas.

On the other hand, some of the things he did, you can't defend as heroic at all, and the raid was just mindless suicide and death.

Were the Quaker pacifists that helped the Underground Railroad more heroic than Brown?

I don't think John Brown was needed to end slavery though. I'm certain of that.

Gracie Dean
05-06-2009, 08:11 PM
I teach Junior American Studies/History...you can make an argument for both, but the most persuasive case by far was the he was a terrorist. It's not close really, especially when you pull in non-violent resistance, and 20th Century examples of successes like Ghandi, MLK, and others.

You can understand why some want to gloss over the fact, and show sympathy and compassion....but in the end, definitely a terrorist. I'd compare him to Fred Phelps--except Smith was much worse, he acted on his misguided zealotry.




Yup.


I agree, but am trying really hard to just give my students the info they need to make up their own mind. It is pretty difficult for them tho..they really don't have the skill set yet for this deep a subject.

Fred Phelps...I brought that up in a planning meeting and someone said ...but...Brown had a lot of followers...all Phelps has is his family... :rolleyes:

CrazyPhuD
05-06-2009, 08:17 PM
The answer to this is usually simple... who won?

If you win you're a hero...if you lose you're a terrorist.

To the victors write the history.

FAX
05-06-2009, 08:18 PM
Those were very different times. It's difficult, if not impossible, for modern peeps to put themselves in that situation or even imagine what it was like.

Still, he was, I think, a bit of both depending on who's opinion you sought. A hero to some and a terrorist to anyone who got in his way or who fostered his ire. I think Clint Eastwood rode with him so that makes it kind of hard to chalk him up as merely an early day Charles Manson. But that's basically what he was. We can only take solace in the fact that LSD hadn't been invented yet. John Brown on acid would have been hellish indeed.

FAX

mikey23545
05-06-2009, 08:28 PM
Does that go for the Military Industrial Complex of the United States as well?
:D

If you don't know the difference between a battlefield and civilian life then there really isn't much point in talking to you.

Braincase
05-06-2009, 08:56 PM
John Brown opposed slavery and did so with a gun in his hand. He was on the right side of an issue and believed he was doing God's work in preventing illegal settlers from influencing Kansas induction into the Union as a pro-slavery state.

He did more to free the slaves than anyone else did up until the time of his death in 1859. People can color it anyway they want to, but slavery is wrong, and John Brown approached the problem of slavery from an "end justifies the means" perspective.

duncan_idaho
05-06-2009, 09:09 PM
He did more to free the slaves than anyone else did up until the time of his death in 1859.

Try selling that line of b.s. to Sojourner Truth or Frederick Douglass or any number of other true abolitionists who fought for the cause of abolition without savagely murdering people.

Or to any of the people - innocent or not - who died in terrible ways at the hands of that crazy bastard and his followers.

Gracie Dean
05-06-2009, 09:15 PM
OH I hope I get good debate like this!!!

How would you frame your thesis?

that seems to be the hardest for my students to do, once they struggle with coming up with their thesis sentence the rest comes easier. UNTIL they have to do a paragraph with the opposing view.

Braincase
05-06-2009, 09:27 PM
Try selling that line of b.s. to Sojourner Truth or Frederick Douglass or any number of other true abolitionists who fought for the cause of abolition without savagely murdering people.

Or to any of the people - innocent or not - who died in terrible ways at the hands of that crazy bastard and his followers.

If you equate talking and writing to fighting, indeed Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass did a great deal. From my perspective, taking up arms against injustice is a less broad definition of fighting for a cause. John Brown went after the pro-slavery factions with a vengeance.

And in the end, his side won. At least one innocent person died during his attacks, but if you compare those numbers with those of the coward Quantrill, Brown looks like a saint.

alanm
05-06-2009, 09:30 PM
He was a terrorist who happened to be on the right side of an issue.Right or wrong Brown and his boys were mass murderers.

Redrum_69
05-06-2009, 09:35 PM
Wait...wasnt terrorism invented by the Muslims?

Frazod
05-06-2009, 09:43 PM
Wait...wasnt terrorism invented by the Muslims?

Substitute the Koran for a Bible, and John Brown would have made a fine Taliban.

duncan_idaho
05-06-2009, 09:47 PM
If you equate talking and writing to fighting, indeed Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass did a great deal. From my perspective, taking up arms against injustice is a less broad definition of fighting for a cause. John Brown went after the pro-slavery factions with a vengeance.

And in the end, his side won. At least one innocent person died during his attacks, but if you compare those numbers with those of the coward Quantrill, Brown looks like a saint.

So you want to play "my mass murdering bastard isn't as bad as yours" (not that Quantrill had anything to do with this discussion until you mentioned him). OK.

John Brown did terrible things (no matter what cause or justification he claimed).

William Quantrill did terrible things (no matter what cause or justification he claimed).

Neither is a hero. That kansas glorifies that p.o.s. Brown is just one of many reasons to look on the state as a whole with disdain.

ChiefaRoo
05-06-2009, 09:48 PM
John Brown opposed slavery and did so with a gun in his hand. He was on the right side of an issue and believed he was doing God's work in preventing illegal settlers from influencing Kansas induction into the Union as a pro-slavery state.

He did more to free the slaves than anyone else did up until the time of his death in 1859. People can color it anyway they want to, but slavery is wrong, and John Brown approached the problem of slavery from an "end justifies the means" perspective.

...and he hacked a bunch of people to death with machette's in their homes.

Frazod
05-06-2009, 09:49 PM
At least Quantrill was sane.

Braincase
05-06-2009, 09:59 PM
...and he hacked a bunch of people to death with machette's in their homes.

The people that his son's hacked to death were illegal settlers that were trying to get Kansas admitted to the union as a pro-slavery state. I'm not going to say that what they did wasn't murder - it was. But from Brown's perspective, the end justified the means. It helped to keep Kansas a Free State. History has shown that his methods were acts of terrorism in his day, but he was also on the right side of the anti-slavery debate. Slavery was eradicated in the U.S. sooner due to his actions.

Frazod
05-06-2009, 10:12 PM
Illegal settlers. Americans settling in American territory.

Yeah, that's illegal, alright. LMAO

Revisionist history passed down from one generation of dumbfuck beakers to another. Jaded, inaccurate and stupid, but entertaining.

Thig Lyfe
05-06-2009, 10:16 PM
So you're saying he was both a hero and a terrorist.

From an abolitionist perspective, yeah. From a pro-slavery perspective, he's just a terrorist.

Jenson71
05-06-2009, 10:25 PM
Try selling that line of b.s. to Sojourner Truth or Frederick Douglass or any number of other true abolitionists who fought for the cause of abolition without savagely murdering people.

I think Douglass was a fan of Brown. I'm not saying that justifies what Brown did, but he was seen as a hero by a number of good people, including Emerson and Thoreau (who himself was a non-violent resister). I think it was the Fugitive Slave Act that really heightened the pacifists to former-. That was a horrible Act for sure. It was a crazy, sad time.

ChiefaRoo
05-06-2009, 10:26 PM
The people that his son's hacked to death were illegal settlers that were trying to get Kansas admitted to the union as a pro-slavery state. I'm not going to say that what they did wasn't murder - it was. But from Brown's perspective, the end justified the means. It helped to keep Kansas a Free State. History has shown that his methods were acts of terrorism in his day, but he was also on the right side of the anti-slavery debate. Slavery was eradicated in the U.S. sooner due to his actions.

They just should of waterboarded them. :)

duncan_idaho
05-06-2009, 10:27 PM
The people that his son's hacked to death were illegal settlers that were trying to get Kansas admitted to the union as a pro-slavery state. I'm not going to say that what they did wasn't murder - it was. But from Brown's perspective, the end justified the means. It helped to keep Kansas a Free State. History has shown that his methods were acts of terrorism in his day, but he was also on the right side of the anti-slavery debate. Slavery was eradicated in the U.S. sooner due to his actions.

So being on the right side of an issue makes it OK to hack other humans to pieces? Point taken.

Brown's murderous actions might have accelerated the start of the Civil War slightly, but the path had been set for quite a while.

Braincase
05-06-2009, 10:29 PM
From an abolitionist perspective, yeah. From a pro-slavery perspective, he's just a terrorist.

I have no doubt that many pacifist abolitionists cringed at Brown's actions, but alot of those same abolitionists wouldn't stand up for themselves when the pro-slavery forces rode into town to kick their asses time and time again. Brown got tired of watching good people turn the other cheek. Everything would've been all hunky-dory if the pro-slavery factions had listened to reason and realized that slavery was wrong - but they didn't. The slavers were willing to fight and kill to keep their slaves.

Mr. Krab
05-06-2009, 10:32 PM
I have no doubt that many pacifist abolitionists cringed at Brown's actions, but alot of those same abolitionists wouldn't stand up for themselves when the pro-slavery forces rode into town to kick their asses time and time again. Brown got tired of watching good people turn the other cheek. Everything would've been all hunky-dory if the pro-slavery factions had listened to reason and realized that slavery was wrong - but they didn't. The slavers were willing to fight and kill to keep their slaves.Ya and million of radical Muslims believe that killing all infidels is the command of ALLAH and we all deserve to die. They also think that stoning a woman to death for being raped by someone other than a husband should get them mass raped again and then cut into little pieces.

u teh idiot

Braincase
05-06-2009, 10:34 PM
So being on the right side of an issue makes it OK to hack other humans to pieces? Point taken.

Brown's murderous actions might have accelerated the start of the Civil War slightly, but the path had been set for quite a while.

From Brown's perspective, he was doing what he felt he must do to keep Kansas a Free State. He may have been delusional, seeing himself as a deliverer, much like Moses. When people start to see themselves as such, in their mind's eye they are doing the will of God to protect their cause.

Regardless of his methods, I doubt anyone can say he wasn't on the right side of the issue. Slavery was wrong and it needed to be stopped. His actions accelerated emancipation.

Braincase
05-06-2009, 10:37 PM
Ya and million of radical Muslims believe that killing all infidels is the command of ALLAH and we all deserve to die. They also think that stoning a woman to death for being raped by someone other than a husband should get them mass raped again and then cut into little pieces.

u teh idiot

The argument is about freedom. Brown's actions were to create a FREE society, not a society with masters and slaves. The radical muslims control their societies in the same way slave owners controlled slaves. Slave owners believed that God made them superior, much like the radical muslims believe their faith makes them superior.

Mr. Krab
05-06-2009, 10:49 PM
The argument is about freedom. Brown's actions were to create a FREE society, not a society with masters and slaves. The radical muslims control their societies in the same way slave owners controlled slaves. Slave owners believed that God made them superior, much like the radical muslims believe their faith makes them superior.
For you to try and minimize and play off what he did as "means to an end" is downright sick.

You are trying to compare It to something trivial "Hey, Denver Broncos might of used illegal cut blocks but in the end they won Super Bowl so oh, um". This was a murderous sociopath the likes of Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler.

Anyone that drags basically unarmed people out of their homes and Decapitates them with hatchets isn't doing it for any great cause. They are doing it because they are sick and twisted.

I mean why stop with just killing when slaughter is so much more fun. :shake:

Boiled Chicken
05-06-2009, 10:50 PM
So you want to play "my mass murdering bastard isn't as bad as yours" (not that Quantrill had anything to do with this discussion until you mentioned him). OK.

John Brown did terrible things (no matter what cause or justification he claimed).

William Quantrill did terrible things (no matter what cause or justification he claimed).

Neither is a hero. That kansas glorifies that p.o.s. Brown is just one of many reasons to look on the state as a whole with disdain.

I'm looking all over the place. What city in Missouri was it again that Kansans rode into and burned to the ground? Before you cast your disdain, lets get some historical reference.

Spott
05-06-2009, 10:53 PM
I'm looking all over the place. What city in Missouri was it again that Kansans rode into and burned to the ground? Before you cast your disdain, lets get some historical reference.

Osceola

Boiled Chicken
05-06-2009, 10:55 PM
At least Quantrill was sane.

But was Charles Hamilton?

from the Wiki...

(insert wiki link here...I'm a newb, so guess I can't post links)


The Marais des Cygnes Massacre is considered the last significant act of violence in Bleeding Kansas prior to the outbreak of the American Civil War. On May 19, 1858, approximately 30 men led by Charles Hamilton, a Georgian native and proslavery leader, crossed into Kansas from Missouri. They arrived at Trading Post, Kansas in the morning and then headed back to Missouri. Along the way they captured 11 free-state men, none of whom was armed and, it is said, none of whom had participated in the ongoing violence. Most of the men knew Hamilton and apparently did not realize he meant them harm. These prisoners were led into a defile, where Hamilton ordered the men shot and fired the first bullet himself. Five men were killed.

Hamilton and his gang returned to Missouri. Only one man was ever brought to justice. William Griffith of Bates County, Missouri, was arrested in the spring of 1863 and hanged on October 30 of that year. Charles Hamilton returned to Georgia, where he died in 1880.

The incident horrified the nation, and inspired John Greenleaf Whittier to write a poem on the murder, "Le Marais du Cygne," which appeared in the September 1858 Atlantic Monthly. [1]

John Brown arrived at the scene toward the end of June and built a "fort" some 220 yards south of the ravine where the men had been shot, on land belonging to a local blacksmith named Eli Snider. It was reported to have been two stories high, walled up with logs and with a flat roof. Water from a spring ran through the house and into a pit at the southwest corner. The land was later sold to Brown's friend Charles C. Hadsall, who agreed to let Brown occupy it for military purposes. Brown and his men withdrew at the end of the summer, leaving the fort to Hadsall.

Hadsall later built a stone house adjoining the site of Brown's fort, enclosing the spring within the walls of the first floor. In 1941 the Kansas legislature authorized acceptance of the massacre site, including Hadsall's house, as a gift to the state from the Pleasanton Post, Veterans of Foreign Wars. In 1963 it provided funds for the restoration of the building, and in 1969 the entire property was turned over to the Kansas Historical Society for administration as the Marais des Cygnes Massacre State Historic Site. A museum was established in the upper floor of the building in 1964.

...please forgive a newb if it looks like I'm stirring things up. I'm not, just want to contribute to a good discussion.

Jenson71
05-06-2009, 10:58 PM
This was a murderous sociopath the likes of Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler.

That's a little harsh.

Mr. Kotter
05-06-2009, 11:00 PM
Illegal settlers. Americans settling in American territory.

Yeah, that's illegal, alright. LMAO

Revisionist history passed down from one generation of dumb**** beakers to another. Jaded, inaccurate and stupid, but entertaining.

I'm a beaker....and I agree with you. Braincase is off the deep end, here. :shake:

I think Douglass was a fan of Brown. I'm not saying that justifies what Brown did, but he was seen as a hero by a number of good people, including Emerson and Thoreau (who himself was a non-violent resister). I think it was the Fugitive Slave Act that really heightened the pacifists to former-. That was a horrible Act for sure. It was a crazy, sad time.


If you buy this crapola....I don't ever, EVER, want to hear you ever, EVER....question the ends justifys the means again. Never, again.

For example, Hiroshima and Nagasaki....or Vietnam, as 'means to an end'....both were, unquestionably, "justifiable."

Mr. Krab
05-06-2009, 11:00 PM
That's a little harsh.
If he had more power at the time you don't think he would of killed every person that disagreed with his political/social position?

Boiled Chicken
05-06-2009, 11:01 PM
Osceola

Touche. But Osceola was a response to Lawrence. What was the 1856 burning a response to?

Der Flöprer
05-06-2009, 11:02 PM
One man's terrorist is another man's hero.

Mr. Kotter
05-06-2009, 11:05 PM
Touche. But Osceola was a response to Lawrence. What was the 1856 burning a response to?

You mean, like the stupid ass....Kansas-Nebraska Act? Maybe? :shrug: :rolleyes:

I know, I got an idea...."Let's let the people decide...." and then sit back and wait for brutality, ruthlessness, and death to be dealt by both sides. Yup, sounds like a GREAT idea to me....

:shake:

That's a little harsh.

Only because Brown wasn't good enough to survive long enough to do the same sort of damage....intellectually and politically they are of the same mind and kind.

Jenson71
05-06-2009, 11:39 PM
If you buy this crapola....I don't ever, EVER, want to hear you ever, EVER....question the ends justifys the means again. Never, again.

For example, Hiroshima and Nagasaki....or Vietnam, as 'means to an end'....both were, unquestionably, "justifiable."

You missed my first post, where I said, "some of the things he did, you can't defend as heroic at all, and the raid was just mindless suicide and death" and also in the post you quoted, where I said, "I'm not saying that justifies what Brown did, but he was seen as a hero by a number of good people."

And everything I said was either fact or widely agreed upon. In fact, I bet if you carefully read my post once again, you will not find a single sentence to disgree with. I challenge you to it.

Thirdly and off-topic and irrelevant now, I can buy the justification of Hiroshima. Vietnam? Really depends. As a whole, I don't see why I'm forced to think Vietnam was justified. It's hard to say without you being more specific.

Ari Chi3fs
05-07-2009, 12:01 AM
Rock Chalk Jayhawk!!

Frazod
05-07-2009, 12:08 AM
...please forgive a newb if it looks like I'm stirring things up. I'm not, just want to contribute to a good discussion.

Not at all. Unlike some people here, I've actually read a book or two about this stuff. I know there were bad, crazy men on both sides, and the prevailing issues of the day meant little to most of them except for an excuse to commit theft and murder.

Frazod
05-07-2009, 12:16 AM
I'm a beaker....and I agree with you. Braincase is off the deep end, here. :shake:

:thumb:

The objective and informed study of history does not take sides.

Valiant
05-07-2009, 12:31 AM
The people that his son's hacked to death were illegal settlers that were trying to get Kansas admitted to the union as a pro-slavery state. I'm not going to say that what they did wasn't murder - it was. But from Brown's perspective, the end justified the means. It helped to keep Kansas a Free State. History has shown that his methods were acts of terrorism in his day, but he was also on the right side of the anti-slavery debate. Slavery was eradicated in the U.S. sooner due to his actions.

That is nothing but opinion.. Nothing wrong with your point, just opinion..

veist
05-07-2009, 02:26 AM
From Hugo's famous letter to the London News imploring for Brown's pardon:
Politically speaking, the murder of John Brown would be an uncorrectable sin. It would create in the Union a latent fissure that would in the long run dislocate it. Brown's agony might perhaps consolidate slavery in Virginia, but it would certainly shake the whole American democracy. You save your shame, but you kill your glory. Morally speaking, it seems a part of the human light would put itself out, that the very notion of justice and injustice would hide itself in darkness, on that day where one would see the assassination of Emancipation by Liberty itself.

Clearly by at least some of his contemporaries he was viewed as quite the heroic figure. In retrospect with much more perfect information in addition to whatever else he was, he was a terrorist. His conviction(delusion?) that slavery must be undone clouded his judgment to the point that he felt no wrong could be done that was done in the name of abolition of slavery.

Tactical Funky
05-07-2009, 02:49 AM
So you want to play "my mass murdering bastard isn't as bad as yours" (not that Quantrill had anything to do with this discussion until you mentioned him). OK.

John Brown did terrible things (no matter what cause or justification he claimed).

William Quantrill did terrible things (no matter what cause or justification he claimed).

Neither is a hero. That kansas glorifies that p.o.s. Brown is just one of many reasons to look on the state as a whole with disdain.
So, using your logic, I should look on the state of Missouri as a whole with disdain due to those who celebrate Quantrill's raid on Lawrence?

For the record, I don't.

Oversimplification and overarching statements are never good hand-in-hand.

Braincase
05-07-2009, 06:47 AM
I will concede that the pro-slavery Pottawatamie settlers that were killed by John Brown's sons may not have settled there illegally, but one cannot deny that the pro-slavery legislature that was elected to the territorial government was supported by illegal voting from pro-slavery Missourians. That's not an opinion, it's a historical fact.

I do take issue with comparisons of John Brown to Adolph Hitler. Hitler's final solution was the eradication of Jews, whereas John Brown was trying to eradicate slavery. Now I ask you this - at that point in time, was the eradication of slavery a noble cause? Would say that slavery is wrong? If you compare Brown to Hitler, you are comparing Hitler's cause to Brown's, and I see no way that such a comparison can be be morally justified. Hitler was about control, Brown was about freedom.

This is interesting, but I also find it funny that those that seem to take the most aggressive stance against Brown are some that have a problem with Kansas on a few other levels.

the Talking Can
05-07-2009, 07:36 AM
there is a book that came out in the last 2 years, I think, that takes up this topic...i.e. were the methods used essentially those of terrorists...

i've wanted to read it, got solid reviews even though the thesis was quite provocative...can not remember the name but I'll post it if I can track it down..

Amnorix
05-07-2009, 07:46 AM
He was a terrorist who happened to be on the right side of an issue.

That's about right.

oldandslow
05-07-2009, 08:25 AM
I look at him the same way I do people who bomb abortion clinics.

They may be on the right side of the issue (dependent upon your POV), but they are definately terrorists.

Frazod
05-07-2009, 09:21 AM
So, using your logic, I should look on the state of Missouri as a whole with disdain due to those who celebrate Quantrill's raid on Lawrence?

For the record, I don't.

Oversimplification and overarching statements are never good hand-in-hand.

I don't think you'll find anybody in Missouri attempting to prop up Quantrill as some sort of national hero. I know exactly what kind of man he was. He didn't believe in any cause but himself.

jidar
05-07-2009, 09:40 AM
He was a hero for killing the dirty bastards across the boarder. The anti slavery thing was all gravy

Frazod
05-07-2009, 09:54 AM
He was a hero for killing the dirty bastards across the boarder. The anti slavery thing was all gravy

LMAO That's the spirit!

Conversely, despite Quantrill's many flaws, anybody who burns Lawrence to the ground can't be all bad.

Too bad that tradition never caught on..... :(

jidar
05-07-2009, 09:56 AM
LMAO That's the spirit!

Conversely, despite Quantrill's many flaws, anybody who burns Lawrence to the ground can't be all bad.

Too bad that tradition never caught on..... :(

I'm going to resurrect John Brown and he's going to be Selfs hitman. Zombie Brown will sit on the bench until it's time to come in and kill Mizzou "players" by eating their brains, and then he will slam dunk their empty skulls.

http://searchingforquestions.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/ku_bkc_mu_04_t640.jpg

Braincase
05-07-2009, 10:03 AM
I look at him the same way I do people who bomb abortion clinics.

They may be on the right side of the issue (dependent upon your POV), but they are definately terrorists.

I understand that comparison, but it's only valid if you accept that there is a debate about whether slavery should be legal/illegal. Owning another human being is wrong, and the Free Staters knew it to be so.

mikeyis4dcats.
05-07-2009, 10:03 AM
the Kstater in nme says Quantrill was a hero.

;o)

Frazod
05-07-2009, 10:04 AM
Who says a century and a half of pure abject hatred can't be fun? :D

Braincase
05-07-2009, 10:15 AM
One other point that hasn't been brought up is that Lawrence was sacked in 1856 by pro-slavery forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacking_of_Lawrence).

Quantrill's Raid took place years later (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Massacre).

I'm using Wikipedia as a convenience.

wild1
05-07-2009, 10:19 AM
his body's been a-mouldering in the grave for more than 150 years, today's political labels don't apply to him

tooge
05-07-2009, 10:57 AM
No, he was not. He did what he did in a time of "war". Although there was no "war" per se, there was a war on slavery that contained elements familiar in times of war. He did what he had to do, just like those he killed did what they felt they had to do when they killed anti slavery settlers. It was a strange time to be sure, and I guess if you go by the definition of terrorists today, they all were. Back then, no.

Bearcat2005
05-07-2009, 11:28 AM
He was a terrorist who happened to be on the right side of an issue.

Yes, any deliberate attack against civilians as opposed to military personal to instill fear for political “reform” in my opinion would be considered a form of terrorism.

Braincase
05-07-2009, 07:43 PM
Thanks to the mods for taking out the trash.

oldandslow
05-07-2009, 08:01 PM
Yes, any deliberate attack against civilians as opposed to military personal to instill fear for political “reform” in my opinion would be considered a form of terrorism.

So you would argue that the US military/state militia were acting as terrorist units at Sand Creek or Wounded Knee or Bear River or Ywahoo Falls or even Little Big Horn (Custer attacked a very large gathering at Greasy Grass Sun Dance - stupid, but Custer really wasn't known for IQ)?

These instances were all attacking civilians to instill political reform...

Just wonderin'...

Brock
05-07-2009, 08:07 PM
Yeah, but so what? The Indians were swept aside by technology, what happened to them was inevitable.

oldandslow
05-07-2009, 08:21 PM
Yeah, but so what? The Indians were swept aside by technology, what happened to them was inevitable.

'cause terrorism is ok as long as its on your side...

BTW - Indians were done in by 3 things.

1) Disease - Europeans domesticated pigs and cows. None of that in the western hemisphere. Europeans developed some immunity to small pox, flu, etc, which comes from pigs and cows. Indians had none.

2) The Eastern Indian Bands were more civilized than the English settlers and didn't immediately attack once the boats pulled ashore. Had Comanche, Kiowa, Apache, Lakota, Shawnee, Seminole lived in NE, the world might have been different.

3)The Aztec empire was already crumbling when the Spanish settlers arrived. They would not have beaten them at their Zenith.

In 14/15 hundred there were several cities in the western hemisphere as large as Paris.

Diamond's Guns, Germs, & Steel tells the story quite well, actually.

Gracie Dean
05-07-2009, 08:22 PM
there is a book that came out in the last 2 years, I think, that takes up this topic...i.e. were the methods used essentially those of terrorists...

i've wanted to read it, got solid reviews even though the thesis was quite provocative...can not remember the name but I'll post it if I can track it down..

Oh please do. I would love to read it. I am sure the district will use the same prompt next year as well.

Gracie Dean
05-07-2009, 08:24 PM
Thank you all for the great information and debate. I had some great debate along the same lines with most of my students today only they were not as deep with the information, but they make pretty much the same points...

Brock
05-07-2009, 08:30 PM
'cause terrorism is ok as long as its on your side...

BTW - Indians were done in by 3 things.

1) Disease - Europeans domesticated pigs and cows. None of that in the western hemisphere. Europeans developed some immunity to small pox, flu, etc, which comes from pigs and cows. Indians had none.

2) The Eastern Indian Bands were more civilized than the English settlers and didn't immediately attack once the boats pulled ashore. Had Comanche, Kiowa, Apache, Lakota, Shawnee, Seminole lived in NE, the world might have been different.

3)The Aztec empire was already crumbling when the Spanish settlers arrived. They would not have beaten them at their Zenith.

In 14/15 hundred there were several cities in the western hemisphere as large as Paris.

Diamond's Guns, Germs, & Steel tells the story quite well, actually.

Yeah, I've read the book. You're not really saying anything new here. How you get that "terrorism's okay when it's on your side" from me is a mystery.