Hero or Terrorist? A Case for John Brown A hero is admired for an act or acts of courage. A terrorist uses unlawful violence, often at the expense of civilians, to make a political point. Was John Brown a hero or a terrorist? Some historians think that he was a hero for saving multiple slaves and drawing even more attention to a growing problem in the South. Other historians may think that he was a terrorist for unlawfully killing slave owners and wreaking havoc in the Confederate States of America. Although, was it possible that John Brown was both or neither? The entire country was under a crisis during the 1840s and 1850s. After the Mexican-American war ended in the late 1840s, the country was in disagreement over the new territories
…show more content…
The South were furious by the actions of John Brown and tried to blame the abolitionist supporting Republican Party for the entire thing. Although some Republicans agreed with the actions of John Brown, the entire Party tried to distance themselves from the situation. Abraham Lincoln called John Brown a “misguided fanatic” (Today’s Fanatic, Tomorrow’s Saint). The Democrats called for an investigation into whether the Republican Party had anything to do with the state of affairs. The investigation proved nothing and ultimately drove the wedge deeper and caused the gap between the North and the South to become even larger. The South realized their vulnerability to these type of situations so they created “militias”. The militias became more organized and were basically turned into a military for the south by 1861. The Civil War start soon after and many people during that time, and even today, believed that the actions of John Brown was what inevitably started the war. I personally believe that John Brown was neither a hero nor a terrorist. John Brown was a revolutionary fanatic. John Brown did courageous actions that caused dramatic change but, according to the law, he was unjustified in murdering innocent people. I do not think he was a terrorist though. John Brown did not act like a terrorist in many ways. He didn’t order killings, but acted in self-defense; he didn’t purposefully destroy property; and he cared for his
The South were furious by the actions of John Brown and tried to blame the abolitionist supporting Republican Party for the entire thing. Although some Republicans agreed with the actions of John Brown, the entire Party tried to distance themselves from the situation. Abraham Lincoln called John Brown a “misguided fanatic” (Today’s Fanatic, Tomorrow’s Saint). The Democrats called for an investigation into whether the Republican Party had anything to do with the state of affairs. The investigation proved nothing and ultimately drove the wedge deeper and caused the gap between the North and the South to become even larger. The South realized their vulnerability to these type of situations so they created “militias”. The militias became more organized and were basically turned into a military for the south by 1861. The Civil War start soon after and many people during that time, and even today, believed that the actions of John Brown was what inevitably started the war. I personally believe that John Brown was neither a hero nor a terrorist. John Brown was a revolutionary fanatic. John Brown did courageous actions that caused dramatic change but, according to the law, he was unjustified in murdering innocent people. I do not think he was a terrorist though. John Brown did not act like a terrorist in many ways. He didn’t order killings, but acted in self-defense; he didn’t purposefully destroy property; and he cared for his