Brown led an attack on Harper’s Ferry to help arm slaves. He was executed afterwards. Despite knowing that he would probably die, John Brown was willing to lead this attack on Harper’s Ferry. John Brown’s kids accompanied him on his escapades and they usually died. Again, John Brown knew that his kids would probably die in the violence, but he let them come along because he really wanted abolition to
John Brown Did you know that John Brown planned to use slaves in a revolt at Harper Ferry? John Brown was an abolitionist who wanted to put an end to slavery. But he came across many obstacles in the process of removing slavery. During this time slavery was a very serious topic and would create fights against people and states. John Brown was a villain in my opinion because he killed three men, lied in court, then told the truth once he knew he was sentenced to death, and freed slaves and gave them weapons just so he could start a revolt at Harpers Ferry.
John Brown’s son, John Brown Jr. was the first to decide to head down to Nebraska and become a farmer and a soldier for the war on slavery. John Brown Jr.’s other 4 sons decided to join him, as well as his father’s brother in law. After his son wrote to him one day about how half of the people fighting for freedom were not even armed and there was no military John Brown then decided to join his son in Kansas. This was the beginning to John Brown’s escalation as a radical abolitionist. Almost as soon as John Brown arrived there was blood spilled by a proslavery Virginian who had killed a free state settler after a dispute.
In "'Unflinching': The Day John Brown was Hanged for His Raid on Harpers Ferry" from Washington Post, Brown explains that John Brown had led a slave revolt in Virginia which had lead to his execution. Brown was an abolitionist who was strongly religious. In this rebellion, Brown and the other slaves had murdered civilians and also raided Harper’s Ferry. On execution day, two of the guards watching him and they wrote letters to their wives about Brown’s last moments alive.
Today some people would say that John Brown is a terrorist, and some people would might say he isn’t. The dictionary’s definition of a terrorist is, “A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims”. An example of this would be if a man shot about 20 to 35 children because culturally diverse kids were all in the same school together, versus the shooting at Las Vegas. That man was shooting people just to shoot people. Which is why I would say John Brown isn’t a terrorist because, he only killed the slave owners.
He saw the wrong in owning slaves. He believed what he was doing and what he believed in was right not wrong. He was hung with the pleasure of knowing he made an impact on the world. John Brown tried very hard to do anything to please god and free slaves.
He was an abolitionist who believed that slavery was wrong. The reason why he is guilty is because even though he was just trying to help, he hurt many people in the process. It is understandable that he was just trying to follow through with what he was thinking but he brought innocent people into it. John brown is guilty of three charges. One of three being treason.
“They then took my husband away…A lady who saw my husband’s body, said that there was a gash in his head and in his side; others said that he was cut in the throat twice.” (Source 10) John Brown was an abolitionist during the period known as “Bleeding Kansas”. Meaning he wanted to abolish slavery. He went to great extents to try and stop slavery, even murder. It is argued that John Brown is either a hero or a villain.
Terrorism is the act of attacking a certain place or a person to get something out of it. Using modern features of terrorism John Browns actions on Pottawatomie Creek and Harpers Ferry, while unjustified define him as a terrorist. Using John Brown as an example of a terrorist. John Brown was born into a deeply religious family. Which lead him to becoming an abolitionist.
Defining the concept of terrorism has lead to many debates that have yet to reach an agreed upon universal definition. Throughout the study of political science and psychology many scholars have pioneered definitions for this term, yet none have emerged as universal. The most commonly used definition of terrorism can simply be defined as, a vicious act of violence domestic or foreign. Bruce Hoffman defines terrorism as the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the attainment of political objectives. Hoffman like many other scholars studying terrorism asserts the act of violence is carried out in attempt to reach political agendas.
Over the history of the United States, there have been many attempts of terrorism on our soil, many through domestic roots. One such political quarrel that marked the radicalization of the American public far enough to bring about terrorism were on the terms of certain legislations, the concept of abolitionism and anti-abolitionism. Legislations like the Missouri Compromise, and Fugitive Slave act were very controversial to the general public, both in the North and South. At this time, many abolitionists chose to perform pacifist demonstrations rather than violent conflict to achieve their dream. Generation of sentiment against slavery culmunated in John Brown was a calculated terrorist as he used extreme forms of violence against the populus
In order to decipher whether a violent act is one of terrorism the definition of terrorism must be clear. Most individuals would describe it as “the unlawful use of threat of violence against persons or property to further political or social objectives. ”(Taking Sides). In the case of the massacre Brown and his group of men attacked those who were pro slavery and saw his views as radical.
The issue of terrorism and global security has become a very important aspect of the debate in determining foreign policy among nations across the globe. This is because terrorism has become a great hindrance among a nation that has hinder fostering of a free flow of correlation among nations to aid in the socio-cultural, economic, political and technological development of nations globally. Terrorism has not yet been citified by the definitions presented by many as it has a controversy with it wide perspective according to (Hughes 2000). The reason to these controversies has been due to what terrorism is and who a terrorist is, the ideological beliefs held by some that any action directed towards capitalism is termed as terrorism, while on
This Year"). Terrorism is the illegal use of violence mainly towards civilians,
