Another Lesson from John Brown

Upon first hearing about John Brown, I remember wishing that he had succeeded in immediately starting the civil war. He would have been idolized as an iconic general that served as a great catalyst for society’s moral evolution rather than a marginalized radical with good intentions. Yet, upon reencountering John Brown via Thoreau, I had a more complicated reaction this time around.

Many different thoughts and feelings ran through my mind as I reencountered John Brown via Thoreau, but two feelings were particularly salient. First, I again felt admiration for his courage and sacrifice. He knew it was likely to lose his life in but refused to passively acquiesce to the uncontested continuance of slavery. Many people recognized the injustice, but most were in denial or simply chose to wait to rectify it. He forced people to slip further into their denial, to rationalize their complacency, or, in some, to reevaluate their attitudes. This feeling of admiration was naturally coupled with indignation at his being put to death despite fighting on the right side.

Second, I could not help but pity him. Initially, I thought that my feeling of pity was merely directed towards his hanging, but I realized that I pitied him for the zealous level of conviction he fought with. Upon reflection, this seemed like an appropriate reaction, at least initially, due to the sort of myopic, zealous impression he left me with. In fact, this was part of his portrayal by the news at the time and how many remember him (though, by itself, this is an obviously oversimplified and an unfair characterization; but, as any bit of propaganda and distortion of reality, it often has to have some semblance of truth in order to be effective). My pity directed at him for appearing ‘crazy’ is not a thought that he is not rational or sane, in the traditional sense, but in that his attitude implied that there was no presence of a reasonable amount of self-doubt in his methods. Lacking some self-doubt in one’s actions is unhealthy and cause for concern. Though it’s hard to know how one would feel in counterfactual situations, I doubt I would have felt pity had he displayed more reluctance and less confidence in deciding to take up arms in the manner in which he did. Taking lives as a means to achieving a greater result is almost always a risky bet, since it is almost always epistemically very hard to predict whether or not the end will justify it. In this case, it is entirely unclear that emulation of Martin Luther King Jr.’s or Gandhi’s nonviolent, peaceful style of civil disobedience would not have achieved the same or even better results. But, even if John Brown’s taking up arms was the best method to combat slavery at the time, how could he have been so sure about it at the time?

It might be unfair to label his killing of slave-owners as a means to eradicating slavery rather than as a foreseen, unintended consequence of trying to end slavery. This is probably true; yet, this is a side issue because whether or not one views his killing either as a means or as an unintended but foreseen consequence of his actions is irrelevant to whether or not he should have manifested some expression of self-doubt in the means he chose. Whether or not the killing was a means or was merely foreseen, John Brown knew that death was likely to result from the insurrection, and thus should have displayed more self-doubt about taking this approach.

Whatever one’s response to John Brown, he really forces us to learn about ourselves. It might appear that by focusing on the moral status of his action to fight slavery with violence means that we are missing the lesson; yet, I think that focusing on the moral status of his action is precisely the right issue to focus on. Properly emulating John Brown’s courage to confront systematic injustice, which is hopefully our goal, requires deciding how one goes about doing that. This requires properly developing and revising one’s moral values through careful, honest, and thoughtful reflection. That, in turn, can be done by learning from John Brown’s strengths and his weaknesses. Taking the appropriate action to remedy a wrong requires proper understanding of the nature and severity of the wrong, knowing the possible courses of actions available, knowing how the courses of actions might achieve the intended result and at what cost, and then weighing the considerations together in order to determine the best possible courses of actions.

As future lawyers, we should follow John Brown’s lead in adhering to and defending our core values when faced with strong opposition. Yet, there is an important qualification. We cannot become too convinced that we are correct in all aspects our of core values. Listening to the worries of others is essential to making the proper revisions to one’s beliefs and values in order to then be in a better position to choose the best means to bring about and defend those values. This requires being open to self-revision. To do this well, we are forced to do a difficult task: simultaneously both strongly clinging to our core values while also revising them in light of new circumstances and new information. Again, being able to revise and supplement one’s values and belief system requires some degree of self-doubt. Performing this balancing act is difficult and I do not mean to chastise John Brown for not performing it perfectly. In fact, maybe he did. Either way, building on his lead starts with realizing the imperfections in ourselves in addition to society’s imperfections. Having the courage to confront society’s imperfections is tremendous, but having the courage to confront these imperfections and having the courage to confront one’s own imperfections is what will enable us to meaningfully practice law and lead a fulfilling life.