Talk:John Brown (abolitionist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Noted by Henry David Thoreau

It might be interesting to note that Thoreau comments on John Brown in his journals, though perhaps this is too tangential a comment to be included in the main article. Still, Thoreau as the author of Civil Disobedience does have a connection. Here's the quote, supplied from the Blog of Henry David Thoreau (which I browse now and again): Thoreau's Journal: 19-Oct-1859

"Some eighteen hundred years ago Christ was crucified; this morning, perhaps, John Brown was hung. These are the two ends of a chain which I rejoice to know is not without its links.

The Republican editors, obliged to get their sentences ready for the morning edition,—and their dinner ready before afternoon,—speak of these men, not in a tone of admiration for their disinterestedness and heroism, not of sorrow even for their fate, but calling them “deluded fanatics,” “mistaken men,” “insane,” or “crazed.” Did it ever occur to you that a sane set of editors we are blessed with?—not “mistaken men;” who know very well on which side their bread is buttered!" --Taitcha 04:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] probable vandalism

reference the photo of John Brown, 1859, below with http://www.kshs.org/places/johnbrown/history.htm. It looks like the picture here has been altered. I've seen others on wikipedia where the same sploches have been added to other historical figures. I don't know how to go about changing it though...

[edit] Rephrasing of Killing v. Murder

"On May 24, 1856, in retribution for a pro-slavery attack on the town of Lawrence, Brown led a party that murdered five proslavery settlers in Pottawatomie Creek. Brown later said that he had not participated in the killings but that he did approve of them."

"Murder." Did the five own slaves, or do something else that Brown considered to be a capital crime? Just what was the situation?

Changed word from "murder" to the less emotional word of "killed" as murder, by it's definition, implies wrongful death. --Duemellon 14:45, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. FET 05:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

unless there is a declared war,,,, if you drag someone out of their house in the middle of the night in front of their wives and children, and then kill them, unarmed, , and hack their heads to pieces, thats called murder.

they did not own slaves. they were pro slavery and belonged to a political party. look it up folks.

you might also want to talk about how this 'noble act' of john browns helped preciptate chaotic mass killings and 'guerilla warfare', look it up.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/HNS/Kansas/jbrown.html http://skyways.lib.ks.us/genweb/archives/1912/p/pottawatomie_massacre.html http://www.kshs.org/publicat/khq/1968/68_2_williams.htm

mob violence, lynchings, terror, and eventually, a civil war that would kill 500,000 people. yeah. what a hero.

Dear, 199.245.163.1
You should sign your posts, I feel weird talking to an IP.
But I'll disagree with you because of the word "murder" itself first. Murder, by it's very definition, means a criminal act. There are many situations where people are killed and whether it was an act of murder, mercy, social expectations, or whatever, is strictly POV.
ex: abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, suicide, duels, guerrilla wars, terrorism, civil wars, revolts, etc.
Killing is the most neutral terminology.
And your view of him not being heroic is also POV. As far as I'm concerned he was heroic, but if I wanted it POV I'd change it to say that he killed these ppl for their evil ways. --Duemellon 16:49, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I noticed someone changed the wording to read that he murdered them.

We can go back & forth changing the wording, or we can discuss it & finally settle. In the article it clearly states that Northern Abolitionists considered him a hero, heros do not murder. Killing is a neutral term. If I wanted to make it sound heroic I'd reword it as punished, enforced, got rid of, executed, or something like that. Please do not change the wording without a discussion otherwise it will just be a silly demonstration of who can log in to Wiki the quickest on that day. --Duemellon 15:09, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also note I'm considering changing the title of that section's heading as "Massacre" itself is POV. --Duemellon 18:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Just so very wrong... It ws murder according to dictionary.com. Murder -the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. Hmm? As for hero, the man was a lunatic, he didn't free any slaves and he helped spark the Civil War, a war that according to many historians never needed to happen to end slavery. As somone said earlier, look it up. And when I say lunatic I mean the man was actually crazy, open a istory book occasionaly. Eno-Etile 15:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Your insulting closing remark suggesting I am unaware of what he did is not conducive to a rational discussion. Murder, by it's definition, suggests it was illegal. What was illegal at the time is not necessarily illegal now, nor can we really judge how justified it was. Simply saying he killed them is appropriate as he was never tried for those crimes. The further wording in that paragraph, not just the title, smacks of POV statements. There are declarations that he "lied" followed by no testimonies or trials to support/prove otherwise. Saying he "killed" them is much different than saying "he began his war on..." The term: "Murder" suggests there was an objective trial done over the incident & there was not. I cleaned up that part of the article to reflect the more neutral terminology of "killed". ALSO: Whether or not his attacks prompted the Civil War is irrelevent to the degree of his possible crime. They might not have owned slaves but they were pro-slavery. --Duemellon 19:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A)Was starting the civil war horrific? (No disrespect to the horror of the war) John C. Calhoun stated that the south was willing to seceed over slavery, so war was the only option of keeping the union intact anyway. B)I do disagree with his means of killing none slave holders who were no key players in the pro-slavery movement in cold blood. But again, as a jew whose grandparents went through Auschwitz i would say that a german who not only did nothing to stop what was going on, but supported the Genocide,derserved to be hacked to death in cold blood. Wikipedia990 02:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Wikipedia990

A) Slavery was important to some (perhaps many), but far from being the main reason the south wanted to seceed. Despite that, and whatever constitutional arguments could be brought in, personally I do think it was better in retrospect to keep the union intact, even if that ment war. But 1) it need not be that horrific, and 2) the war did not need to be followed by 20 years of plundering of the south. The tragedy was that the only person willing and simmultaneously capable of stoping 2) has just been shot (Lincoln).
B) The only time when killing in cold blood can be "justified" is when the target is also engaged actively in killing in cold blood, i.e. solder vs solder. Otherwise, it's war crime, murder, etc. - that plain. As a jew whose grandparents went through Auschwitz you could do as normal jews who themselves or whose relative went through Auschwitz do: show mercy and forgiveness, not only to by-stenders, but even to supporters. That's why they are so respected in the world: not because jews were subject to holocaust (many other peoples at many other times went through horrible things, including genocide), but because they have the moral strength to rise above it. By choosing to hack someone to death in cold blood, you risk to make the same choice as Ossama bin Laden et Co is making: to choose death over life. People who went through Auschwitz know better than that, and that's why they will always be respected. Do not identify yourself with them unless you possess the same moral strength.:Dc76 18:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that what Brown did was wrong, how he went about it, hacking people to death in cold blood. But the reasons he might have did it i can understand. It was still murder though. I'm not saying we should have just murdered all the germans in WWII, but i feel someone like hitler deserved to be killed, but with a trial and a humane death, not hacked. And yes, jews forgave, but i still feel that for jews to forgive the nazi's had to change and apologize.Wikipedia990 19:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Wikipedia990

OK, I am starting to understand your POV.
However, just want to fix one detail. Being German and being Nazi is not the same thing. It is possible to forgive Germans who suspected or knew what was going on and chose to do nothing. In fact, a civilized person has no choice but to forgive in such situation. And Germans did show remorse for the fact that they allowed a group of their fellow countrymen to do horrible crimes. I wish all nations that had simmilar individuals or groups among them would do even half of what Germans did (primarily, to remind their children at every step to consider the lessons of the past - Germans are among the few who do not try to say "ok, now it's over, let's forget it, we don't want to ever hear about it any more"), that would already be an altogether different world.
As to demand a Nazi to change his/her views and appologize - it's impossible. Can a communist, an anarchist, or a fascist appologize and show remorse? How can one appologize for his/her political views, even the most radical and damaging? We can judge the actions, we can call upon care when passionate discourse fringes violence, but for the sake of freedom of speech and thought, noone can forbid anyone to have some kind of political view. A person has the right to say whatever he/she wants, even an a priori wrong thing. It is a different story when he/she starts to implement that. The society should have a developed immunity to these deseases (fascism, nazism, communism, anarchism), but the only way to have the immmunity is to be slightly exposed to the desease. If you have never been exposed to the desease, you will not have the immunity when the infection strikes hard. And, yes Hitler would have been judged if caught alive, just like his fellow leaders of NSDAP. Not for being the leader of Germany, but for ordering many crimes against humanity, for ordering war crimes, and for ordering genocide. It was not a case of nazies against jews, but a case of terror and vandals against civil society and humanity in general. I would always respect a person who listens to the neo-nazi and neo-communist propaganda today just to stay informed, but would have the strength to stand up to them if they stike hard again, than people who just go with the wave both now and then.:Dc76 16:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether John Brown thought that murdering people who were pro-slavery was justified punishment for their offenses doesn't mean that it is an acceptable act. Eric Rudolph thought that bombing abortion clinics was justified because he believed that abortion was a horrible act. It doesn't make his actions any more legal or admirable. If this is the only criteria for taking a life (only that you believe that person is wrong) then I fear for anyone in this country who disagrees with anyone else.Monstertrucker 06:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

One important thing to note is he was never tried for that incident & any declaration of "murder" is unfounded by a court of law & that, in fact, is what could determine if it was a murder, self-defense, act of passion, or even if he was the killer or even present! Beyond that, are we supposed to be applying our current moralistic view on historic actions or the views of the time? If we apply the view of the time period it becomes muddier as the North & South definitely differed on their interpretation of those events. The best solution, in this case, is to either chose truly neutral terminology OR present both sides in the same text then label that incident as "controversial" & move on. --Duemellon 13:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replaced "massacre/murder" again...

Intro

The killings that followed and Brown's subsequent capture, trial, and execution are generally considered an important part of the origins of the Civil War.

Actions in Kansas

He went into hiding after the killings, and two of his sons, John Jr. and Jason, were arrested.

replaced massacre--Duemellon 16:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actions in Kansas

Brown was particularly affected by the Sacking of Lawrence, in which a sheriff-led posse destroyed newspaper offices, a hotel, and killed two men.

replaced murdered--Duemellon 14:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) (I'll do this as long as it takes. Murder is a POV term.)

[edit] John Brown

I would just like to add that John was a abserd carzy person!

Strange, I think he was heroic. He goes out on a war on his own & he's crazy, but when people in the South did the same & ceceded from the Union, they weren't crazy? He was a man of conviction. --Duemellon 13:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

So, being opposed to slavery and supporting equality among all people makes you an "abserd" (absurd) and "crazy person"? John Brown was a hero in every sense of the word. --Burroughsks88 13:59, 08 October 2005 (UTC)

Not the sense where someone doesn't kill innocent people though

You ever read anything about the crazy shit hes said? He was freaking nuts, not everyone who was/is against slavery is a good person, and not everyone who does something 'brave (or stupid)' is a hero.Eno-Etile 15:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the person said before me.

Bold textHE was kind of crazy! I thaughtthat he killed his two sons.

  • you thaught wrong. Kingturtle 13:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Need a reversion

Someone removed the content. I hope it wasn't me, but it shows me as the last edit in history... I hope that isn't so. How do you revert? --Duemellon 15:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC) Brrrraaaaap!

[edit] abolitionists view John Brown as just

The general public in the North, however, especially in abolitionist sectors, viewed John Brown as a martyr who had been sacrificed in support of an unjust cause.

I read this to mean that abolitionists viewed John Brown's cause to be unjust?? --68.198.246.166 13:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No, Union public opinion, particularly among abolitionists, viewed John Brown as a hero and martyr of Biblical proportions, as it came to view Lincoln. Tom Cod

[edit] Controversy

Really, guys. This is a prime situation in which the NPOV policy can be used best. Aside from the little micro-edit war over "kill/murder, etc.", it appears that the larger issue at hand is how to approach such a controversial figure as John Brown. Even 150 years later, there is still not a consensus, and why should there be? The fact is, he really did ritualistically kill and mutilate unarmed men who had been charged with no crime. By the strictest definition, he was a murderer. On the other hand, how to compare this with the incomprehensible moral perversion that was chattel slavery?

For my part, I'm going to hit the books and see if there is anything resembling a modern consensus on Brown's motives and effects. We all know what people thought in 1859, and perhaps we shouldn't conflate these views with what historians say today. After all, though Emerson was a great thinker and a moral man, we are not obliged to take his judgment as the final word. Perhaps a division of sections into "Contemporary Reactions: North Vs. South" and "Modern Interpretations" and how each of these has bled into the other would help. For example, growing up near Kent and Oberlin, I learned in elementary school that Brown was a true patriot; a hero and a martyr. As I've said before, this sort of simplistic, mythical characterization does little in the service of actual history (except to note that in a particular time and place, the myth existed).

So, quit pulling punches. Calling the "Pottawattamie Massacre" his "Actions in Kansas" is a silly attempt to pull the teeth out of history.--62.44.17.74 16:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Damn, I wasn't signed in. Previous comment by--Jaurisova6 16:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The charges against him are for murder. I can't argue that he was tried, convicted, & executed for it. However, how much can we, according to our morality, look back & refer to actions done by the individual in their historical context & judge them by the laws of their time in their lands? If that was so there'd be no such thing as "Nazi War Criminals" except for Hitler who made it law for everyone else. We look back & easily denounce the Nazi's concept as evil and cruel, & would be quick to praise anyone who bombed, captured, or killed, whether they mutilated them or not. So, with slavery being "bad" & those people who were killed being active supporters of slavery, they were evil, but by the standards of morality of that era, Brown was evil. Which do we take? The more universal grandiose "now we know better" POV or the "at the time he was wrong" view? How do we faithfully represent that in Wiki is probably the better question. --Duemellon 13:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but let's not let our concern for academic rigor let us slide into a position where it seems we are drifting into an attitude of nihilism. Clearly, slavery was a moral abomination so that alleged excesses of those who resisted it by killing, or murdering if you will, a few people are of an entirely different character than the mass genocide of Hitler or of the horrors of the middle passage of the slave trade. Let's not forget also that almost three quarters of a million Americans died in the conflict, replete with all sorts of horrors, that shortly followed Brown's demise. Tom Cod 23:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] truth, and other casualties of the culture war

i guess we should redo the veronica guerin article to change 'mruder' to 'killing', because the poor drug dealers that killed her were just doing it in self defense.

truly, when some POV idiot like you gets some kind of standing in the little hirearchical bullshit order here on wikipedia, this is what is going to destroy the place. you are an intellectual dinosaur and have some kind of serious personal disorder to reclassify the killing of children as needing to be presented in a 'neutral fashion' by claiming there is some kind of motive like self defense or politics.

i can only assume that you are in the military or your parents/relatives are in the military and were involved in killing civilian children on purpose. because thats the only reason for someone to take such an idiotic and extreme viewpoint on the 'act'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.185.250.195 (talk • contribs) .

Murder is not a neutral term, it denotes judgement. You can say "kill" and still communicate the facts. If you say "murder" it places a subtle element of disapproval. No POV is here to keep fact seperate from interpretation or judgement. Ironically, instead of arguing over which POV is correct, we only end up arguing over what is and is not POV. Can you really say "murder" is not pejorative? Can you really admit that your desire to use "murder" over "kill" isn't driven by your desire to shade Brown a certain way and put a certain color and tone into the article regarding these actions? The word "kill" works perfectly fine, the only reason to object would be that you don't truly want it neutral, which seems clear since your post makes pretty blatant condemnation of neutrality. This is tiresome on Wikipedia, honestly. I don't contribute all that much, but I see this a lot. It's as frustrating as having elected U.S. officials who think that the Constitution is just "a piece of paper". Wikipedia is not perfect, far from it, but if you fundamentally disagree with one of the core founding principles of it, why continue to argue? NPOV isn't just a policy, it's one of the most fundamental to what Wikipedia was meant to be. Surely, objectivity is an ideal we will never meet, but we can do our best. There are, however, other sites which reject objectivity all together, and embrace POV. I am not trying to express a "Wikipedia: love it or leave it" mentality, I am merely pointing out that this particular disagreement pops up quite a lot, and that those who are so constantly pissed off with the whole NPOV thing have an irreconcilable philisophical difference. Rather than have the same types of arguments on every contraversial article, we could better use that energy to include all the facts and figure out how best to present those facts in a way which is as neutral as possible. However, that would first require that all those who reject objectivity to log on to a site where they can add in their own views to their hearts' content. I'm sure there's one out there where you can call John Brown a "cold-blooded madman terrorist murderer and traitor to the blessed Republic of the United States of America, one nation under God (our God, not yours)". Then maybe everyone could be happy!

Thelastemperor 16:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

what does this have to do with John Brown and skip the personal attacks. Tom Cod 23:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality of this article?

Not that I am proslavery in any way it seems that this article may not be entirely neutral.

Be bold and make changes as you see fit. Kingturtle 22:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole first article reads like authoritarian leftist propaganda:

"John Brown (May 9, 1800 – December 2, 1859) was a European-American abolitionist, and one of the first white abolitionists to advocate, and to practice, guerrilla warfare as a means to the abolition of slavery. He first gained national notoriety when he led a company of volunteers during the Bleeding Kansas crisis, in which he fought two major battles against pro-slavery terrorists, directed the Pottawatomie massacre on the night of May 24th, 1856, and liberated 11 slaves from slaveholders in neighboring Missouri. Brown's most famous deed was the raid he led on the federal armory at Harpers Ferry, Virginia (in modern-day West Virginia). Brown's subsequent capture by federal forces commanded by Robert E. Lee, his trial, and his execution by hanging are generally considered an important part of the origins of the American Civil War. Brown campaigned indefatigably against slavery, and he survived financial hardship, betrayal, death threats, and the torture and murder of some of his children all in the course of his campaign against the enslavement of African-Americans. Not even imprisonment and the certainty of execution would stop him from speaking out, unwaveringly, against the horrors of slavery. Brown refused to be rescued from his death sentence by his supporters; he was, it seems, clearly aware that martyrdom might help catalyze the anti-slavery movement. It did. The Civil War followed his hanging, 16 months later."


Slavery was & is horrible. Why would we not call it horrible & herald those who fought it? Can NPOV be used to dismiss claims that the Nazi's regime was cruel & based in generally accepted "evil" doctrine of destruction? Beyond that, which parts of that intro are inaccurate? Please be more specific how you would phrase it, it's quite possible we'd all agree with it. I am also concerned that you used the term "authoritarian leftist" which suggests specific political influence & wondering if you are not, in fact, projecting your own into the piece? --Duemellon 12:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOVs are non-negotiable; Read the rules. I'm against slavery just as much (If not more) than you Just because something is "generally accepted" doesn't mean it should go in an encyclopedia.

The article uses the word "terrorist" lots of times to describe Brown's opponents. It fails to ever use it to describe him. I don't see how this can possibly be neutral.
And some of it is just ridiculous.
"Critics have yet to properly balance the decision of the Browns (not just John Brown) to take action despite the more conservative admonitions of Brown's sons John Jr. and Jason." What? No critics anywhere? How can you possibly decide how well critics have balanced anything anyway?
"During their captivity, John Jr. and Jason were beaten and forced to march more than twenty miles a day while tied with ropes or chains; John Jr. suffered a mental collapse and remained psychologically scarred for the rest of his life." If statements about John Jr.'s psychology are sourced and undisputed, I'd be surprised.
"But Delany's reflections are not entirely trustworthy."
"They never materialized in the numbers he expected; but his expectations have been greatly exaggerated by critics. (Had Brown anticipated a large number of recruits to join him, he would hardly have rented a farmhouse in which to house them.)" Seems like OR to me.
"There were clearly tensions between the two friends that were never resolved, which Douglass obviously preferred not to explain in more detail writing so many years after the fact." Words like 'clearly' and 'obviously' are usually signs that it is neither.
"Brown may have been a prisoner, but he undoubtedly held the nation captive throughout the last quarter of 1859." This reads like a TV commercial, not a neutral article.
Ken Arromdee 14:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"He was also a terrible, terrible person." <---Not exactly a neutral statement befitting a reference source. By what objective or neutral standard was John Brown a "terrible, terrible person"? Why does this sentence not appear in the entries describing Robert E. Lee, Ernesto Guevara, John Mosby... or, for that matter, Jeffrey Dahmer or Adolf Hitler? This statement has no place in a source attempting neutrality, objectivity, or integrity. John Brown's actions may not be immune to criticism, but the absolute statement that he "was also a terrible, terrible person" is completely inappropriate. Please remove it right away. Thanks very much.

These are all valid critiques. If I have time this week I will address them. Feel free to beat me to the punch. Kingturtle 03:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help !!!

I tried to add a "Reactions in the world" section. However, everything that followed that addition seems not to appear anymore. I tried to check the text itself, and everything nevertheless seems to be in place. Did I goof somewhere ? Can anybody correct it, whatever happened ??? Thank you and apologies :-( 81.65.26.186 15:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like all the rest of the article was considered as a comment, instead of just the comment itself. I uncomment everything so the text will be visible... but the comment too, now. Still needs help. Thank you. 81.65.26.186 15:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contact with the Mormons

I am reading a book about a woman who was converted to the Church of Latter Day Saints in England and as a consequence emigrated to Salt Lake City. The book says that her group of emigrants was, when they got to Iowa or thereabouts, was guided by John Brown. Can anyone confirm or deny this? I would really appreciate the information. The date would have been about 1855. Thanks.

Toni Williams -- tonicw@yahoo.com entirely plausible. See below Tom Cod

Actually, that was a different John Brown, confidante of Brigham Young, who was from Tennesee and spent much of his time in Mississippi and Alabama before emigrating to Utah in 1846. Our John Brown was not one of the Mormons and would have disapproved of the racist views of blacks they held during this era. Tom Cod 20:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] chronology?

some of the dates just don't match up in this article...this needs to be checked out

e.g.--"gathering forces"...the "october elections" were in 1859, so this would have happened after "brown left his men in springdale, iowa" in january 1858 --"raid on harpers ferry"...ok, how could brown visit his family for the last time in june(1859) and then arrive in harpers ferry on june 3, 1859? is that really correct? _________________________________________________

I read somewhere that John Brown had surveyed Oberlin College and also, according to Ron Chernow in "Titan", had been a teacher at the Oread Institute which existed circa 1854-56 and that one of the students there at one point was Laura Spelman before her marriage to John D. Rockefeller, a yound lad who also admired Brown. (Later they would found endow the founding of Spelman College for black women in Georgia) As I recall, Elizabeth Cady Stanton in "Eighty Years & More" in reflecting on the history of the women's movement from circa 1900 described the Seneca Falls Conference in 1848 and John Brown' attendance there in addition to Frederick Douglass. Tom Cod

[edit] contradictory info in article: was Brown influential or not?; POV

Which is it?

(intro) Most historians depict Brown as a bloodthirsty zealot and madman who briefly stepped into history but did little to influence it.

or

(Aftermath of the raid) The raid on Harpers Ferry is generally thought to have done much to set the nation on a course toward civil war. Southern slaveowners, fearful that other abolitionists would emulate Brown and attempt to lead slave rebellions, began to organize militias to defend their property, both land and slaves. These militias, well-established by 1861, were in effect a ready-made Confederate army, making the South more prepared for secession than it otherwise might have been.

Also, the passage from the intro seems to have been written by someone with an axe to grind (emphasis added):

Most historians depict Brown as a bloodthirsty zealot and madman who briefly stepped into history but did little to influence it. Some scholars, however, glorify Brown, giving him credit for starting the American Civil War and even the Civil Rights Movement a century later, arguing "it is misleading to identify Brown with modern terrorists."

I'm probably going to tone that down eventually if no one objects.--Birdmessenger 19:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not condtradictory, it just says what some historians think and what other historians think. T REXspeak 20:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it says that "most historians" think he "did little to influence history." Later, it says that "[t]he raid on Harpers Ferry is generally thought to have done much to set the nation on a course toward civil war."--Birdmessenger 21:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I thought that you were talking about the historians calling him a zealot and a few others glorifying him. T REXspeak 16:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So now the passage reads:

Many historians depict Brown as a bloodthirsty zealot and madman who briefly stepped into history but did little to influence it; that is, the Civil War would have happened without him.

I agree that this minimizes the contradiction, though it doesn't eliminate it. I have added a citation needed tag to that sentence. Which historians depict him as bloodthirsty and as a madman? Modern historians? Southern historians in 1870? A citation is important here.--Birdmessenger 14:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate/Unnecessary Phrases

In the section Early Years, the sentence 'He was very brave.' is not needed and is strictly subjective. Removed. ."--Maz2331


In sections "Early Years" and "Actions in Kanans" two lewd commends had been tagged on to the section headers. I removed them. --Marion

[edit] Economic motive to fight slavery missing?

Maybe I missed something here, but the article doesn't give a compelling reason for John Brown to become an activist in anti-slavery. Why did this man with a large family - who was obviously often very poor - "waste" his time on anti-slavery conventions and risk his life - when poor people mostly don't have the time to talk about ideals unless it's directly affecting their own lives? There must have been some economic motive (slave-owners as stronger economic competitors maybe?) that made it so important that Kansas rejected slavery.

[edit] NPOV

Before I comment my edits, I would like to note that I am not an American, and that as 99.99% percent of people, I dispise both slavery and murder, as some of the most evel things that mankind had and has. I recently learned who John Brown was, and was obviously currious to find out more on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I found a very long article, rather suitable for a sermon, not a short and down-to-facts description. Sure, the topic must be still controvercial in your country, but I can not understand when people find time to learn and write so much about a subject, but are not able to learn to do it in a concise, informative way, that is useful for everyone else, who's not a specialist in the subject. I read through the talk page, and NPOV issue was raised here, but not many specific observations to the text were made. In my edit, which only refers to the first 2 sections, I tried to single out words and statements that I, as an outsider without any oppionion about Brown, see as non-fit for an encyclopedia.

At the begining, the article is written in a more neutral tone, from section 2 it becoumes very passionate. I added:

  • [citation needed] where I expect the statement to hold, but it would be nice to have a link to the sourse right away in the text
  • [dubious — see talk page] where the exposition becomes too passionate, and in the heat of the word, it states strange things, in situations where a simple re-wording would make the thing sound neutral
  • [verification needed] where I saw claims somewhere else to the opposite, and hence several scholarly, preferable peer-reviewed sourses were better to be present
  • [not specific enough to verify] where the text contains no information but only oppinions. Such parts must be re-written, and shortened. It is logically to assume that the general reader would not be completely stupid as not to be able to form an oppinion from given facts (hence it is not necessary to give coments in an encyclopedia article). It is also logically that the general reader would not be some pro-slavery insane person (such person anyway would not be convinced neither with solid facts, nor with elaborate althogh sometimes uncenessary comments)
  • I also erased some weasel words and re-arranged some sentances, where it was obvious how to make a passionate text more neutral

I have tried to do all edits in good faith. It would be nice, if the article could be shortened. Sometimes the same fact is repeated 3-4 times throughout the text, and instead of emphasizing the point, this gives to a non-American the (most probably wrong) impression that that's the only supporting fact for a conclusion that the editor wants to support. Wikipedia is usually read by people who like to see facts, and draw their own conclusions, while comments and oppinions are in the links at the bottom of the article; calling someone "thug" or "terrorist" gives the opposite impression than providing a cool account of the deeds. It is strange that because of a passinate non-factual exposition I am in the situation to "defend" the right of people with whose oppinions I strongly disagree not to be called "thugs" and "terrorists". We are not stupid to deduce each for himself/herself that a person or a group of persons are "evel", "thugs", "badly intended" etc - it is not necesary to convince us by writing in a semi-propaganda style. I hope you understand. My critique might sound to you too harsh, but I hope that it will generate a move towards more cool and factual exposition. :Dc76 17:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I will make myself clear if I give an example. At the very top of the article:

His attempt to start a liberation movement among enslaved[verification needed] blacks in Virginia in 1859 electrified the nation. He was tried for treason (to the state of Virginia) and hanged, but his behavior at the trial seemed heroic to millions of Americans.[citation needed]

  • My comment [verification needed] is there because I have read also that he was planing to raise a rebelion of enslaved blacks in oreder to undermine the southern states, and that such a course of action was part of a bigger plan to diminish the influence of southern states in the union, even if necessary to brake the union. So my question is: did Brown wanted only to free slaves by his rebelion (in which case the text as is is perfectly ok), or he wanted (also) to undermine the southern states' position in the union (in which case the text must be changed accordingly), or maybe even he wanted the dissolution of the union alltogether, so as not to have to deal with southern states at all (in which case even more must be editted). Now, to me the second seems more likely - but since I don't know, I ask, what were the exact motives and aims of Brown? Eere they only limitted to liberate the stlaves?
  • My comment [citation needed] refers to the fact that when in one state a person is tried for treason and hanged, in anouther he is a hero, and these two states live in the same country in peace and (at least partially) in harmony, any logical person wants a well-referenced citation. Surely some viewed him as a hero, it will be very nice to know who, and in what terms they described him. A person like Brown surely was not viewed as black or white during his time. To know who during that time viewed Brown and how, is to indirectly learn about Brown himself. Also I read that many of the future northern generals were present at Browns trial, and that they considered him a trator, too, and not only to Virginia, but to the Union as a whole. Is that true? :Dc76 17:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


Without adding anything new to the section, I'd just like to say that I've been using Wikipedia for a long time and I've never been confronted with a page so much in need of help. The conflicting POV's make it almost intelligible what he actually did. I think there needs to be a compromise between the two parties as to how to form a factual, informative page without going on leftist or rightist rants. I'm personally kind of dissapointed. 24.44.93.136 23:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/Talk%7EJohn_Brown_%28abolitionist%29_50c4.html"