A Behavioral Analysis Of John Brown 's Martyr Or Terrorist

Was John Brown a terrorist or was John Brown a hero? This question has probably not been asked many times but since the question has been aroused, let it be answered.

In “A Behavioral Analysis of John Brown: Martyr or Terrorist,” James N. Gilbert effectively argues that John Brown’s inhumane actions clearly conform to a modern definition of a domestic terrorist, proving that Brown was an irrational terrorist. Not only is Gilbert a professor and former chair of the department of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska-Kearney, but he is also an author who specializes in criminal investigative theory and has authored Criminal Investigation as well as numerous journal articles. According to Gilbert, Brown lived during a time when both the political process and democratic values had been destroyed by slavery. Brown was a radical abolitionist who believed violence and terror was the only way to overthrow

Similarly to the heroes of today in the military where they kill bad people for the rights of others, John Brown and his group killed slave owners in order for slaves to gain their natural and human rights. John Brown was obsessed about the issue dealing with the brutality of slavery and how wrong slavery is. Since slavery was the only thing that went though his mind, he quickly came up with the plan to free as many slaves as possible. John’s method included violence because he thought it was the only way. This plan included taking the federal arsenal, killing slave owners and arming the slaves to fight for other slave’s freedoms.

“Terrorist”, is defined as “a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.” Terrorists who conduct these heinous crimes usually justify their actions due to morals, religious convictions, or political views. John brown was an American abolitionist who believed and advocated that armed insurrection was the only way to overthrow the institution of slavery in the United States, which was a political aim. He considered the United States incapable of reform and he believed violence was the only solution to end slavery. Therefore John Brown was an Irrational Terrorist.

John Brown, recalled by some as a martyr for his anti-slavery stance, is also recalled by others as a madman. His legendary raid on Harper’s Ferry will live forever in history books, but what fueled the madness? In 1812, was his mind so deeply traumatized when he witnessed the brutal crime of a young black boy beaten with a shovel that he could never move past it? Did that single event shape his life and play, over and over, in his mind like a never-ending film? No matter what you believe, the undisputed fact is that he was one of America’s first domestic terrorists.

In John Brown’s case, he had killed 5 slaveowners, and although he killed them mercilessly, he still only killed people who would have been defined as guilty in his cause. John Brown’s attacks on slaveholders can be justified as an act of freedom fighting through the definition proposed by Walter Laqueur. “terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted”. Through this definition, it is evident that John Brown did not fit the qualities of a terrorist. Laqueur defined a terrorist as someone who targets innocent people to gain a political stand.

“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.” – John Brown (1859)

They elucidate that terrorism is a “premeditated, politically motivated, violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups of clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience,” (National Institute of Justice).

Butko (2006; Freedman, 2005) slightly reflects on Symeonidou-Kastanidou’s (2004) definition in less mechanical way by adding to it that there should be certain psychological effect on innocent victims. In case of the Gunpowder Plot, if the Plot would have failed to achieve its intended purpose, plotters expected at least to evoke condemnation of the society towards the King. The most definitive feature of terrorism in Butko’s (2006) opinion is the threat of violence or use of violence towards ‘innocent’ people, if all of the barrels with the gunpowder would have been ignited the casualties would have been enormous and it is not that hard to imagine, in light of the September 11, the state of horror it would have inflicted upon the London and the whole

Some describe John Brown’s acts in the 1800s as freedom fighting and others believe that he was a terrorist. A terrorist is a person or group who endanger others to prove a belief or political gain. He had the characteristics of a terrorist because Brown’s acts at Pottawatomie Creek and then again at Harper’s Ferry justifies the terrorism theme as they were unlawful and negatively affected many lives. In today’s world he would be defined as a terrorist.

The word freedom fighter comes to mind when people here the name John Brown. Another word is terrorist. I will be persuading you to think that john brown is a freedom fighter, and not a terrorist.

Namely, in that of terrorism and guerrilla warfare- the former being used to critique his actions, and the latter to justify. James N. Gilbert, citing the similarity in Brown’s actions and mentality to those so recently vilified as terrorists, holds to the former case, and argues for more caution in praising those who use unjustified means to achieve ends in line with the moral attitudes of today. With a similar conclusion but contrasting attitude, Ken Chowder agrees with the terrorist charge, but urges for historical context to be evaluated before dismissing the tactic as a necessary evil. Nicole Etcheson, however, argues that John Brown’s motivations prove not those of a terrorist, but of a guerrilla fighter on the frontlines of American values. In this comparison, it is revealed that ignoring cultural convictions of both the unshakable heroism of American icons as well as the inherent evil of acts such as terrorism, as Ken Chowder does, can lead to a more nuanced, objective, and truthful perception of the very human subjects of the

Additionally, John Mueller lambasts what he labels as the socially constructed ‘terrorist industry,’ which he attacks for artificially inflating concerns over terrorist attacks. Instead, Mueller confirms that the damage caused by terrorism is not materially significant but stems primarily from the fear that it creates. Violent retaliation is viewed as a form of ‘self-flagellation’ that provides the terrorists with exactly what they want. As mentioned, realist definitions of power, self-interest and rationality lack explanatory prowess when non-state actors are able to subvert states thanks largely in part to the use of suicide-terrorism. The proliferation of terrorist groups and their use of suicide-tactics in many ways defies realist expectations and conclusions.

A multitude of factors contribute to any type of reasoning or psychological makeup of an individual; whether it is a person’s history of behavioral problems, inability to maintain a functional relationship, or in this case becoming part of a terrorist organization. In Sarah Kershaw’s “The Terrorist Mind: An Update”, we are able to see what drives a person to commit acts of terror where it is praised in a given community.

There has also been long time assumption among professionals and average citizens that terrorists are ‘mentally ill’ individuals. However, there is yet again no evidence that supports that theory. As a matter of fact, there is countless examples in history that counters that said theory of being ‘mentally ill’ and this article provides those examples; as well as, providing the avenue in which an individual can and has been radicalized. Moreover, this article articulates and lays out a method in which could be used to counter the radicalization