Attorneys and Activists, Part 2

Introduction Unlike Malcolm X, John Brown was never beholden to anyone. While Malcolm was able to anticipate manner of his death, John determined the time and place. Although both John and Malcolm facilitated enormous strides in America’s journey towards racial equality, the difference between the two men is exemplified in their relationships with their clients. Malcolm was less effective as a result of becoming too indebted to and indoctrinated by the Nation of Islam. John, on the other hand, fiercely retained his independence, going and coming “under the auspices of John Brown and nobody else.” The differences between the two men can be instructive for attorneys-to-be.

The Convictions of John Brown John Brown was born at the turn of the 19th Century into a country in which nearly a fifth of the population was enslaved. Although, as he realized early in life, John was not a fighting man, he qualified his pacifism with an important exception: freedom.

In the mid-1800’s, as Americans settled the West and introduced new states into the Union, the country was finally forced to confront the issue of continued slavery. Thus, as a middle-aged man, John found himself in the midst of a country at a crossroads. His decisions would change the course of an entire nation.

Henry Thoreau once asserted that, “it was no abolition lecturer that converted [John Brown.” Thoreau’s words ring true. At a time in which thousands of men, women, and children were daily being raped, brutalized, and violently murdered, the majority of John’s contemporaries encouraged diplomacy, putting their trust in the democratic process. In Massachusetts, John attended speeches by Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass at his local church, but openly disagreed with their non-violent approach.

The Failure of Peaceful Abolition: a Prelude to Violent Action One result of the abolitionists’ patient political strategy was the slow erosion of the existing rights of free blacks in the North. In 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed, revolutionarily requiring that all citizens aid in the arrest of fugitive slaves. The Act threatened the freedom of Northern free blacks and fugitives alike, causing a mass exodus to Canada. Still, John Brown bided his time. He did not take action for another six years.

In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was introduced. Rescinding the Missouri Compromise’s guarantee that the land in the Louisiana Purchase would be free, the Act proposed that the issue of slavery be decided by popular vote within new territories. This final legislative attack on freedom heightened tensions between abolitionists and the pro-slavery movement. 1856, a pro-abolitionist newspaper was sacked by pro-slavery southerners in Lawrence, Kansas. Finally, John Brown decided to act.

Massacre at Pottawatomie and Capture at Harper’s Ferry In 1856, John Brown led the Pottawatomie Massacre in response to the pillaging of Lawrence. With the killing of five pro-slavery settlers, John finally split from the pacifist abolitionist movement, following his convictions to “fight fire with fire.” The success of the Pottawatomie Massacre was followed by the failure of the raid on Harper’s Ferry in 1859.

Against the advice of close friends, John led a small group of twenty-one men to West Virginia because he could only find a handful of men that lived up to his ideals. Captain John Brown would only allow men whose characters he respected to join his ranks. As his friends anticipated, the small makeshift army was unable to overwhelm its enemies. Following the raid, John was captured, tried, and hung.

John and Malcolm, Juxtaposed Unlike Malcolm X, John Brown’s source of conviction was internal. In some sense, the difference between the two men may merely be a matter of luck and circumstance. Malcolm X happened to become indoctrinated with the Nation of Islam when he was in a particularly splintered state. Young, a convicted criminal, and a new inmate, Malcolm’s soul had been whittled down to a fraction of its capacity. In this state, the teachings of the Nation of Islam, complete with a belief in the creation of white people through a mad scientist, seemed palatable, and took root firmly in his mind.

On the other hand, while the genesis of John’s beliefs are difficult to pinpoint, their origin is unmistakably individual. Malcolm was a man of his times, but John was ahead of his era. When John wrote, before his hanging, that “the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away, but with blood,” his views were revolutionary. His raid against Harper’s Ferry was strongly advised against by Frederick Douglass. Yet, John’s critical approach and unforgettable legacy took root in the minds of other people. He is credited with starting the Civil War.

The value of independent thought is that those that possess it have the ability to lead, whereas beholden people can only follow. Malcolm, despite the pureness of his character and intentions, was a follower. As a result, Malcolm squandered the majority of his talents by preaching the wrong message and finally died at the hands of clients whom had become too powerful. At the very least, being beholden steals one’s capacity for novel ideas and revolutionary leadership. At the worst, it can kill you. Advice for Attorneys-to-Be

Conclusion A comparison of John Brown and Malcolm X reveals both the follies that splintered personalities face and the strengths that are possible by avoiding becoming beholden. The two men reveal that it is possible to make even the ultimate sacrifice for the wrong cause if we have unhealthy relationships with the wrong clients. Thus, we must be cautious. As attorneys-to-be, the splintering of our characters and minds lends us to a fate similar to Malcolm—except rather than dying on the wrong side, most of us, like Carl Wylie, will never live because of it. In light of this danger, we should look to John Brown as an example of extreme independence. Like him, we must select our ideologies independently and our clients and collaborators carefully in order to avoid ever becoming beholden.