John Brown Hero Or Terrorist Essay

Referred to as a “antislavery zealot” by some and as a “heroic hand” by others, John Brown was certainly one who stained history with blood. John Brown’s conduction of anti-slavery raids to fight “fire with fire”, triggered by his radical ways to fight the tyranny that was slavery,Brown impacted the whole country. During this time most anti-slavery supporters were peaceful and only tried to fight slavery “morally”, however John Brown lead many anti slavery raids his most famous and the one which he would have to pay with his life being, the Harpers Ferry Raid. The seizing of federal armory and arsenal with a group of men with just a mere hope of the local slave population helping him in order to reach success and create a nation wide effect failed miserably when the slavery population frightened did not join his raid. Captured, John Brown delivered one of the most enticing and alluring speech during his trial, his last speech, his address to the court in which he admits his actions in his “crusade” to fight slavery as well as patronizingly accepts his punishment without regret or remorse. In his speech he address one objection, being that if he was fighting on behalf of the rich, high class and those who supported and benefited from the tyrant slavery system,he would have been rewarded and praised instead of punished, proving that once again the tyrant, oppresing, racist and discriminating federal government was being run by bias men who aimed to keep the inhuman hierarchy

This is the valid quote from a miserable mother fighting the loss of her family, as a result of John Brown’s actions, expressing her hatred towards John Brown (Document E). John Brown was a popular abolitionist, who did not agree with the idea of enslaving people. He was a part of a lot of violent conflicts, and attempted to start a rebellion at a US arsenal. This topic is very important because it shows the significance of the role of John Brown, and how he contributed to his beliefs and how his actions affected other people. John Brown was a villain because he committed treason, killed innocent people, and lied as well.

Brown's attack on Harper's Ferry affected American culture more than can ever be understood. Tension between the North and South was building in the 1850's. Slavery among many other things was dividing the country into two sections. Brown was executed on December 2, 1859 for his murderous out-lash on society. Was his mind so twisted and demented that he would commit cold-blooded murder? The answer is no. John Brown was a man with a goal and a purpose. When he said that abolition could not be achieved without blood he was right. It is one of histories great ironies; John Brown's struggle preceded the Civil War by only 17 months. Thousands of people were killed in the Civil War, yet John Brown

“John Brown (May 9, 1800 – December 2, 1859) was a radical abolitionist from the United States, who advocated and practiced armed insurrection as a means to abolish slavery for good. He led the Pottawatomie Massacre in 1856 in Bleeding Kansas and made his name in the unsuccessful raid at Harpers Ferry in 1859. He was tried and executed for treason against the

On the night of May 24th and early morning of May 25th, Brown murdered civilians because they were pro-slavery. Late in the evening of May 24th, Brown and his party ordered James P. Doyle out of his home along with his two adult sons, William and Drury. They were escorted into the darkness and killed with broadswords. Then, they made their way to the house of Allen Wilkinson, ordered him out, and slashed and stabbed him to death. After midnight, on the morning of the 25th, they pushed their way into James Harris’ house.

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.

“I have only a short time to live, only one death to die, and I will die fighting for this cause. There will be no peace in this land until slavery is done for.” John Brown John Brown is an abolitionist who desperately tries to end slavery once and for all. He knows he will break many rules, and he knows this is very dangerous, yet he still does it in order to free many, many innocent lives of the slaves. Although John Brown uses violence in his plans, he does try to end slavery and save many people from the horrors of whips and killing; ultimately, John Brown is not guilty of murder, treason, and insurrection.

Throughout history John Brown has been described as a terrorist, mentally ill, and a failure among other things. Because he stood strongly for what he believed in, and his goal was eventually achieved he can be seen for the most part as a hero. Brown was described as “an American who gave his life that millions of other Americans be free” (Chowder,6). Brown was a headstrong abolitionist who claimed that he was told by God to end slavery causing him to see himself as “a latter-day Moses” (Chowder, 6). With this, he stopped at nothing to fulfill these expectations. Brown’s heroism is displayed through how he was recounted by others during and after his lifetime, the actions though drastic he took when fighting for what he believed in, and

Timothy McVeigh committed the most deadly act of domestic terrorism in United States history. His actions resulted in both outrage and fascination, and lead to significant inquiry into why he did what he did. Many at the time, already scared by the rising trends of Jihadist terrorism felt that McVeigh’s actions were in large part something new, something atypical to the American experience. However, such was not the case. Terrorism has been prevalent throughout American history and tied to various trends and movements, including abolitionism. Ultimately John Brown and Timothy McVeigh have striking similarities, such as the presence of their action outside of the more established and organized groups of their respective movements and the media

Terrorism, a word most people fear, but so often misinterpret. The textbook definition of terrorism is “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims”. But how does that compare to domestic terrorism? Domestic terrorism or “homegrown terrorism” can be defined as “the committing of terrorist acts in the perpetrator’s own country against their fellow citizens”. Throughout the years, America as a nation has experienced quite a few occurrences of both types. An early example of homegrown terrorism would be the Haymarket Affair which occurred May 4, 1886 where in Chicago’s Haymarket Square, labor protesters detonated a bomb during a rally. Chicago police then responded by firing

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).

The terrorists do not perceive themselves as terrorists. They simultaneously refuse to be bound by rules of warfare and codes of conducting a conflict. They are also a fundamental altruists who believe that they serve a "good" cause designed to achieve greater good for a wider constituency - whether real or imagined - which the terrorist and his organization purport to represent, This is true because "a terrorist without a cause is not a terrorist", as Konrad Kellen said.

“Stairs narrow toward the top. It becomes harder to turn back with each step” (Kershaw, 2010). As said before, there is not a “cookie cutter” definition of what creates a terrorist. One thing is very evident, the radicalization process of an individual is complex, diverse, and is often comprised of idiosyncratic characteristics.

It’s not a good thing to be a hero of war. The whole point of war is to kill the enemy and the opposite side is meant to conquer. It’s like the same concept of there are no winners in a fight. I can’t understand the point calling someone a hero, for being a part of violence and destruction. Why be a hero of violence when you can be a hero for peace.

‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ is not a valid and tenable concept now.