It's interesting to note that it was still violence in the Civil War that ultimately led to an end to slavery in America, as I think Wendy was alluding to. It made me wonder about the abolishment of slavery in Great Britain, which occurred much earlier. My knowledge of history isn't great so I had to refer to wikipedia. :-/ In Great Britian, it seems that there were some judicial opinions early on, as well as public opposition (and the fear of slave revolts in the colonies... seems like these decisions are never made solely on morality alone) that led slavery to eventually be declared illegal throughout the British Empire. Slavery never got a chance to be really accepted and institutionalized in Great Britain as it was in the South.

I drew a small lesson from the comparison. As lawyers, our words can indeed have an effect, in that we are able to change judicial and public opinion against moral wrongs before they become entrenched and accepted as a natural consequence of society to be tolerated. It's even possible to overturn institutionalized wrongs through the political process, though that's a much harder task to accomplish.

As for John Brown, is there any place for violence when trying to achieve justice? There were a lot of interesting factors mentioned above trying to determine if our 'hero' was doing the right thing: the difference between state/private acts of violence; achieving just ends through violent means; the morality of his objective to end slavery. I'm not really sure which side of the fence to come down on for John Brown, but I agree that his intentions were in the right place. Wars can be 'just', but on the other hand private acts of violence in the name of justice are bad (some would call it terrorism). To me, the distinction between the state/private act of violence isn't that persuasive. After all, aren't state acts of violence in punishment of criminals, or in war, still violence? Doesn't that boil down the violence to a question of political legitimacy?

Further to that, I submit that since Brown didn't have that political support, and his failed raid never gave him a chance to gain it, his legacy is mixed. My question is, if he had succeeded in his grand plan to end slavery (as unlikely as that may have been) would he still be wrong in how he conducted the fight? Can violence be legitimized by politics, or success?

-- JeffKao - 06 Mar 2010