Archive for Saturday, June 13, 2009

John Brown the bogeyman? Revolutionary’s legacy debated

150 years after Harpers Ferry, figure seen as terrorist, ‘cool’

June 13, 2009


The Jayhawk student section displays an enlarged and modified version of artist John Steuart Curry’s Tragic Prelude painting which features abolitionist John Brown holding a rifle and in this case the 2008 national championship trophy at the men’s basketball game against Missouri on March 1 at Allen Fieldhouse.

The Jayhawk student section displays an enlarged and modified version of artist John Steuart Curry’s Tragic Prelude painting which features abolitionist John Brown holding a rifle and in this case the 2008 national championship trophy at the men’s basketball game against Missouri on March 1 at Allen Fieldhouse.

— A century and a half later, we still don’t know quite what to think of John Brown.

Certainly, he aimed to be a hero. He believed his plan was the necessary means to a righteous end: Storm a federal arsenal, seize thousands of weapons, arm a gathering guerrilla force and start the revolution that would end the morally reprehensible and perfectly legal institution of slavery.

Yet the first casualty of his 1859 raid on Harpers Ferry was a free black man, a baggage handler who bled to death on the street while Brown’s raiders grabbed hostages and holed up at a fire engine house. Within 48 hours, Brown’s rebellion was dead, along with at least four civilians, 10 raiders and a U.S. Marine who helped retake the building.

John Brown the terrorist?

Brown’s methods have been debated ever since, the grandiosity of his plot and his willingness to kill or be killed a timeless fascination. This year, the National Park Service has declared that his raid was the opening salvo in the War Between the States, with sesquicentennial commemorations beginning in West Virginia.

But in 1959, as America began to contemplate the centennial of the Civil War, Brown was largely left out of the discussion.

Segregation of schools and public lynchings still made headlines, and many white Southerners feared civil rights activists would use retold tales of the raid to agitate. Blacks feared being marginalized, or worse. And so John Brown was pushed aside, and the centennial began in 1961, with the anniversary if the Confederate firing on Fort Sumter.

“John Brown was, in effect, a terrorist. Whether you agree that what he was doing was right or not,” says Gerry Gaumer, spokesman for the Park Service in Washington, D.C. “There are people in the Taliban who believe what they’re doing is right. Can you separate John Brown from what’s going on in Iraq or Iran or Pakistan or Afghanistan?”

This month, the Park Service is offering two-mile walking tours that retrace Brown’s footsteps through the picturesque town at the confluence of the Shenandoah and Potomac rivers. Descendants of raiders, soldiers and townspeople will gather in August, then return for the Oct. 16 anniversary to explain their ancestors’ roles.

Had his own been among the bodies in 1859, Brown might have remained a bit player in the larger drama of the war. But that was not his fate. On trial for treason, murder and inciting a rebellion, he refused to apologize and declared the fight for freedom sanctioned by God and the Bible.

Swiftly convicted and executed, he became a potent and enduring symbol — to the North, a heroic martyr willing to die for equality; to the South, a lunatic killer attacking a way of life. And so he remained for a century or more, a complicated man often dismissed with simplistic labels.

Slowly, says historian Jean Libby of Palo Alto, Calif., historians stopped dismissing Brown as a madman and began to put him in the context of his times, times when — to the undying outrage of Brown and his wealthy supporters — courts ruled that black people were not citizens but property of whites.

Textbook writers, Libby says, gradually began to acknowledge that slaves had come from Africa with culture and history of their own, in need of neither handlers nor teachers.

“Now slavery is portrayed differently,” she says, “and so is John Brown.”

Ahead of his time

Brown, a Connecticut native, had despised slavery since he was a boy and witnessed a slave being beaten. He spent months plotting to seize 100,000 weapons in what was then Virginia, retreat into the mountains and begin a guerrilla war with slaves who would join him, emboldened by his success.

“He was so ahead of his time,” says Alice Keesey Mecoy, who discovered she was Brown’s great-great-great-granddaughter in 1976.

Libby had come to Mecoy’s grandmother, asking to photograph the family. Mecoy found the story “kind of cool,” but she was 16. Only after her own children had left home did she grow so interested as to make her ancestor’s life her full-time research project. This fall, the 49-year-old former accountant and office manager is presenting a paper in Harpers Ferry on the women surrounding Brown. A book is in the works.

“He wasn’t only against slavery. He was for equality of all people, men and women, any color, any religion. He firmly felt everyone was equal,” she says. “And that was such a radical thought for the time.”

Mecoy, whose great-great- grandmother Annie Brown stayed with her father at a farmhouse near Sharpsburg, Md., as he planned the raid, is proud of her ancestor. She’s pleased that “he’s no longer looked at as the crazy guy standing on a hill ringing a bell saying, ‘Come to me!”’

“You may have grown up being taught that he was this awful, terrible person who killed without provocation and stormed this armory and caused death, and the person in the next state may have learned a very different thing,” Mecoy says.

Harpers Ferry park ranger John Powell has talked with descendants of Brown who, like Mecoy, are quick to disavow the violence but who also admire that their ancestor “tried to right what he perceived as a terrible wrong.”

“To this day, when people speak of John Brown, the veins bulge in their foreheads,” he says. Those raised north of the Mason-Dixon line tend to see him favorably, while to many Southerners, “John Brown’s the bogeyman.

“There’s an expression in the South: ‘I’ll be John Brown,’” Powell says. “It means I’ll be damned. Or I’ll be hanged.”

Still, many people will discover Brown only this year. And as they do, they may wrestle with how to categorize him. History often presents people as one-dimensional characters, known only for good or evil deeds. Brown confounds because he committed both.

“People don’t know what to do with John Brown. They don’t know what color he is. They don’t know if he was a good guy or a bad guy. They don’t know whether they should teach their kids about him. They just don’t know,” says Bob O’Connor of Charles Town, a local college instructor and author of “The Perfect Steel Trap: Harpers Ferry 1859.”

Pottawatomie Massacre

While many defend Brown’s attack on Harpers Ferry, few label the slaughter of five pro-slavery leaders in Kansas three years before as anything but premeditated murder. Brown’s raiding party on Pottawatomie Creek hacked the men to death with swords in an execution that University of Maryland professor Martin Gordon calls “probably the most misunderstood event of his career.”

“Why did he use swords? Not because he’s a barbarian, but because he didn’t want anyone to hear what he was doing. Rifle fire would wake up the town” says Gordon, president of the Council of America’s Military Past.

“This was a very selective act of terrorism, moral justice, take your pick. Criminal action, take your pick,” Gordon says. “But he wanted to teach the pro-slavery element in Kansas a lesson, so he picked five of their leaders, pulled them out of their house and killed them as silently as he could.”


mom_of_three 8 years, 10 months ago

I expected more from an Associated Press writer. A little inaccurate. And the article makes it sound like that his relative is the only one to discover that john brown believed in equality to all, but it's been in all biographys about him since his death. Just greatly disappointed in this article.

Janet Lowther 8 years, 10 months ago

Brown, like the Taliban and Al Qaeda, thought he was doing God's work.

But is that an excuse? When a man says God talks to him, I tend to start slowly backing away, while urging him to find a good shrink before he does something dangerous. . .

mom_of_three 8 years, 10 months ago

"But he wanted to teach the pro-slavery element in Kansas a lesson, so he picked five of their leaders, pulled them out of their house and killed them as silently as he could" It's still being debated as to whether the Wilkinson, Doyles or Shermans were killed because they were "leaders" of the pro-slavery party, (which I don't think they were necessarily leaders), convenient location, or the fact each of them had pissed off Brown in the past, because they were in the pro-slavery party.

Mel Briscoe 8 years, 10 months ago

john brown was a baaaad man! "bad" as in tough, fearless, courageous and terrible-- all rolled into one. i am proud of his legacy, being both a kansan and a person of color.

Studmuffin 8 years, 6 months ago

John Brown methods and purpose are no less controversial than they were 150 years ago. Frederick Douglass said that it was John Brown created the Civil War and that the Civil War did not start at Fort Sumter in Charleston, SC but at the US Armory Fire Engine House in Harper's Ferry, Virginia. That may be true.

From what I can gather through studying this for forty plus years; John Brown polarized opinion both North and South so they could be no more compromises after the Raid on Harper's Ferry and the statements he made at his trial.

The North believed him to be a new Moses ready to lead the black people to the Promised Land. To seek revenge against an unjust and corrupt system that would keep people from living out their dreams.

The South believed him to be a terrorist ready to kill them in their beds or fields and would take away their wealth and means to make a profit. His methods would not allow them to continue in their way of life and social order.

John Brown's note left for his jailer while he was on the way to the gallows says that he thought that things had needed to come to a fight. The issue of slavery would not be solved with anything else other than all-out-war.

"I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away, but with blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done".

I have been going to Harper's Ferry since 1966 when I was eight years old. I have met visitors who are completely for and against John Brown and no talking to them by anyone can convince them otherwise.

What I have seen are changes in the way the John Brown story is interpreted by the National Park Service ...

The standard party line at first was that he was a crazy man due to mental illness on his mother's side of the family. This made him go to extreme ends to get slavery done away with.

Then it swung almost one hundred and eight degrees in the other direction, he was a saint. Although his methods may have been a bit off, his heart was in the right place.

Now the party line is that there is no party line. The visitor is given both sides of the John Brown story as public opinion was stated during October and December 1859 and then the visitor is told to make up their own mind.

What helped John Brown's PR efforts? Well, the North winning the Civil War certainly helped. What else helped, the "Secret Six" and others helped with his image by writing opinions after his trial and execution.

What would have happened if the South had won the Civil War? He would be looked at as an American Taliban like terrorist who did not care who he hurt. The means justifies the end.

Studmuffin 8 years, 6 months ago

For those readers inside or outside of Kansas, that are not familiar with the story of John Brown, click on the URL below ,,,

Commenting has been disabled for this item.