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.

This is undoubtably a very important question to pose. That being said however, our president has pointed out (and I believe correctly) that nonviolent movements are often more efficacious than their violent counterparts. Between moral considerations and the desire to do what achieves a more just social order, I personally find it difficult see how anyone can justify using violence to achieve justice. Tools like political action and moral suasion may seem useless, but when a skilled person (like a smart lawyer) use them, they can produce revolutionary change. So although I think its fruitful to debate the actions of John Brown and question their propriety, I believe that when we really weigh all the facts, it will be evident that Brown was right in fighting injustice, but wrong in how he conducted that fight.

-- TaylorMcGowan - 28 Feb 2010

I had a similar reaction to Thoreau’s adulation of John Brown – I admired it, and Brown, but I found his use of violence to be extremely unpalatable. That being said, I think John Brown is a hero, as I think MLK is a hero and Gandhi is a hero. I spent much of Thursday’s class attempting to pin down how I could mentally group these three together. The best I could come up with is that the latter two used non-violence because (morality aside) it was the most effective route to their respective finish lines; the former used violence for the same reason. Violence, like non-violence is a tactic. I can only assume John Brown used violence because non-violence would or could not work, or because he viewed the pace at which the work of his fellow abolitionists was diffused (Walker’s Appeal, etc.) and found it unsatisfactory. From a pure political theory perspective, then, his decision was contextually rational, which offers a decent explanation for the effectiveness of his results (effective insofar as they spread international awareness and spurred political change).

-- AerinMiller - 01 Mar 2010

The South preferred to fight and kill than entertain the idea of ending slavery. It's a difficult and perhaps a losing battle to fight violence with nonviolence.

-- WendyFrancois - 05 Mar 2010

-- SuzanneSciarra - 24 Feb 2010