Today is the 150th anniversary of John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry. By sheer coincidence, I will be teaching the raid today in my U.S. Survey course.
The New York Times features two op-ed pieces dealing with the event. In a rather odd but interesting piece, Tony Horwitz (of Confederates in the Attic fame) compares John Brown to al-Qaeda (Horwitz is working on a book on Brown’s raid). He argues that the South overreacted to Brown’s raid in December 1859 and thus began to mobilize for a civil war. In the same way, Horwitz wonders, if the United States has overreacted to 9-11, leading us to a long war in Afghanistan that, if Obama’s speech last night is any indication, is getting longer.
The other article is by Brown biographer and historian David S. Reynolds, who wants the state of Virginia and/or Barack Obama to pardon Brown for instigated the raid on Harper’s Ferry. Why pardon Brown? Because he had a legitimate and well-researched plan for disrupting slavery in the south, he was respected by men like Frederick Douglass, Henry David Thoreau, and W.E.B. DuBois, and there are many precedents of these kinds of pardons.
I am sympathetic with Reynolds’s arguments and find myself wanting to support them. Looking back, there was much about Brown’s raid and his efforts on behalf of abolitionism and racial equality that are admirable. But I am not entirely convinced. I am not sure I could bring myself to pardon a man who precipitated violence in a terrorist fashion and even committed murders in Kansas on behalf of the abolitionist cause. Brown defended the humanity of slaves, but his behavior at Pottawatomie and Harper’s Ferry shows that his respect for human life was incomplete.
Great post. Thanks for the links to the Horwitz and Reynolds articles. I'm not at all with Reynolds. Pardoning Brown would be like pardoning Timothy McVeigh. I see Brown more in Horwitz's al-Qaeda light, but I don't go for his full Afghanistan analogy. It's better than analogizing to Vietnam, but it's still insufficient. So, count me half-way with Horwitz and completely against Reynolds. – TL
Afghanistan was a haven for terrorists. We needed to go in there. I was wondering John, if you could be transported to say 1800 and live the same number of years and a similar quality of life that you have now, would you do it? I think I would. There was a lot better about that era.
Tim: Yes. I think we see eye to eye on this.
Jeff: Good question. I guess it all depends on what you mean by “similar quality of life.”
The life of an Upper-middle class academic in 1800.
Jeff: Sure, I would consider living in what might be described as a more simpler time, but I am not sure that I could live without certain trappings of modernity–medicine and dental care come to mind immediately!
Though I have always been a bit skeptical about certain dimensions of progress, I think that progressive causes like racial equality, women's rights, and labor rights make the 21st century a much better, more humane, and more Christian place to live.
On the other hand, I could do without big box stores, McDonalds, and suburban housing developments, to name a few!
It would also be nice to teach at a college where the students are engaged with things like history, theology, and moral philosophy because they believe these subjects are important and not because they are required to study them to fulfull general education requirements.
John, I think it's a trade-off. Sure the 21st century brought about those things, but look what we also have. The degradation of the family, rampant pornography infesting our society, and widespread abortion and disrespect for human life. We've traded past evils for new evils. We like to think we are more enlightened, but it's in the eye of the beholder.