Thoreau called John Brown, “the most American of us all.” This made me wonder what type of obligation he was trying to imply that we have to act on behalf of our fellow human beings. What form of civil disobedience and protest for injustice is appropriate in society? Do the means justify the end or should we be viewing Brown's actions not from a modern moral perspective but within its historical context?

I admire John Brown greatly and I am a realist about what type of action can actually achieve results. His dedication to such a worthy cause seems to counterbalance any reservations over his use of violence. I still cannot help thinking that what he did is qualitatively different than marching on Selma, Alabama, however. Further, I find it troublesome that he was an individual acting violently, rather than the state.

I understand that the state condones violence every day, and I believe in Browns case the individual was right and the government wrong. Faced with such a terrible institution, like slavery, and the belief that ‘moral suasion’ and political action would never achieve results, to what level should an individual be allowed to express his views through violence. What type of protest should society, or does society, continence, and what form that would take today as opposed to then.

Thoreau said, "Be not simply good -- be good for something." How can we take a man like Brown, who was extremely courageous and principled, and translate his idea of action into a modern context? One has to question whether the individual killing fellow citizens of America is a form of protest that is ever acceptable to society. Is this intellectually different than the government declaring war, or non-violent civil disobedience.

-- SuzanneSciarra - 24 Feb 2010