Most Helpful Customer Reviews
61 of 70 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
"I have only one death to die, & I will die fighting for this cause", July 20, 2005
This review is from: John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights (Hardcover)
John Brown is an American enigma. His life presents a serious challenge to a simple black and white interpretation of ethics, history, and by extrapolation, even current events. He was a man a hundred years ahead of his time in racial ethics - not only opposed to slavery, but unlike almost all other abolitionist of his time, actually a believer in the equality of the races. He was praised honestly by Ralph Waldo Emerson, who wrote of him that he "believed in two articles - the golden rule and the Declaration of Independence." Another contemporary, the black reformer Charles H. Langston praised him saying, "he was a lover of mankind - not of any particular class or color, but of all men...he fully, really and actively believed in the equality and brotherhood of man. ...He is the only American citizen who has lived fully up to the Declaration of Independence." Yet this man who was so dedicated to racial justice was able to direct the cold blooded murders of five pro-slavery men in Kansas who he had ripped from their families in the middle of the night and hacked to death with broadswords without any qualms or regrets. He chillingly stated that "it is better that a whole generation of men, women, and children should be swept away than that this crime of slavery should exist one day longer." Brown's life presents an open question on what if any limits should stand in the way of those attempting to right great societal wrongs and bring about justice. David Reynolds biography may not fully answer that question, but it goes a long way toward putting it into a proper perspective.
Reynolds' biography of Brown is both detailed and fascinating, and is sympathetic without attempting to hide the dark and troubling aspects of Brown's actions. He delves deeply into Brown's Puritan heritage and just what that meant to his life and actions. He makes clear what a unique individual Brown was. While most of the famous abolitionist who were his contemporaries never questioned the basic racism of their time despite their opposition to slavery, Brown believed firmly in racial equality. Black men and women dined with his family, and he worked intimately with them, giving them real positions of authority in the endeavors that he organized - actions unique for his time. Reynolds also explores the fact that Brown was in favor of equal rights for women and humane treatment of American Indians. He notes that while he was a fervently committed Calvinist Christian, he worked closely with others who did not share his faith, including Jews and agnostics. He shows us a man who was not a typical fanatic, but a man who believed fanatically in one basic principle - the literal interpretation of the Declaration of Independence and the Golden Rule. Reynolds also puts Brown's most troubling violence, the murders at Pottawatomie, Kansas, back into the historical context in which they happened. He writes, "Pottawatomie, gruesome and vile as it was, was John Brown's impulsive response to equally vile crimes committed by the proslavery side."
Beyond all of this, Reynolds explores in some depth the importance that the Transcendentalists had in securing John Brown's place in American history. He points out that had not Thoreau and afterwards Emerson come to Brown's public defense, Brown very well could have been forgotten by history - viewed as just one more aberrant crank with misguided and wild schemes. He spends more than one hundred pages exploring the effect Browns actions, capture, and death had on both his contemporaries and on posterity, showing the immediate impact Brown's life and death had on the country in helping to spark the Civil War, and the way it impacted future generations who have both lauded and reviled him.
John Brown's life is a testimony to one man's uncompromising commitment to his ideals, and to the ethical morass that can result from an unrelenting pursuit of those ideals. It makes us question how far one can justifiably go in an attempt to right societal wrongs, and if violence can ever be considered a righteous answer to entrenched evil. Reynolds' book may not answer all of these questions, but it most effectively poses them for our consideration. It is an outstanding biography of a crucially important figure in American history. I highly recommend it, both to those interested in American history, and for anyone who wishes to examine a practical study of the consequence of principled violent action against authority.
Theo Logos
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
51 of 61 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A good biography of Brown with important cultural issues, May 23, 2005
This review is from: John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights (Hardcover)
When I was a child the name of John Brown was a grotesquerie. We sang about his body a moulderin' in the grave, but it was generally understood that he was some kind of crazy man who killed some people over slavery, had something to do with the Civil War, and we just shouldn't talk about it. And I am from Michigan rather than the South so this avoidance wasn't based on region.
In the sixties I was about as removed in time from the Civil War as today's young people are from the First World War. That is, the people who were alive during the war were all but past and the children born to those who had lived through the war were now old. Still, some of the received knowledge of the war came from tradition of those who had life experience rather than from books and scholarship. However, with the Great War in our Grandparent's lives, the Second World War in our parent's lives and the echoes of Korea all around us and Vietnam getting under its bloody way, the Civil War just seemed too long ago to worry about in real life.
I took extra time with this book because I wanted to wrestle with the idea of when a cause is important enough to justify personally initiated violence. In our present state of affairs, it is hard to conceive a wrong so great that righting it would involve action outside the political and judicial processes. At bottom, no matter how certain of the rightness and goodness of our cause, there is still some possibility that there is more to the issue than we understand and that those whom we would kill or murder might actually, in the cosmic view of things, not merit the death we would inflict on them. We have doubts enough with the state rendering a judgment of death, how much more would we doubt the rightness of a private judgment that concluded in the death of a human being.
The author, David Reynolds, does a solid job in telling the story of John Brown. We see Brown as a human being within his time. We see his faith in God, his Puritan sense of destiny, and his fury at the injustice of slavery. As we follow him through his life we understand why he acted as he did and the enslavement and misery of four million souls makes his actions in Kansas and at Harpers Ferry make some sort of awful sense. The last two chapters make clear that this author agrees with W.E.B. DuBois that "Brown was right". Reynolds does take on the modern terrorism of the left and the right. He takes on abortion, the environment, the Islamofacists, and more. He argues that Brown was different and exceptional. He notes the power Brown's words and how his cause was taken on by so many leading into, during, and after the Civil War.
Yet, in my own mind, if I grant that Brown is an exception I have to ask what was he exceptional with? And I note it was his eloquence in words. I still cannot help but disqualify his violence as just. His cause in freeing the slaves was certainly just, but if we allow his violence under what premise do we make that allowance? Abortion has taken millions of lives, environmentalism claims they are saving the whole planet, animal rights claims they are sparing billions of animals, and on and on the fever goes until it reaches into insanity. Whose conscience do we grant the privileged position of spilling everyone's blood?
There is also a difference between the events in Kansas where the anti-slavery people were the victims of pro-slavery aggressors. Many of these murders were committed by Missourians and other non-Kansans to impose their agenda of Salvery Everywhere. While the Kansas events cannot be called self-defense per se, they were at least direct retaliation with self-preservation in mind. Harpers Ferry was an aggressive act by Brown as a complete outsider with the view of starting a national slave rebellion.
Brown had the passion, conscience, and eloquence that he could have used to make a powerful case against slavery as he did after his trial. He would have had, I believe, an even greater impact against slavery with his preaching than with his sword. Remember, every other country in the world abandoned slavery without the violence of our Civil War. And even if we grant that the War freed the slaves in 1865 while a nonviolent approach would have taken decades longer, we also have to admit it was another century of work and too often bloodshed before the descendants of those slaves got close to the civil rights promised them. And don't forget that the man who did the most to move society to accepting those rights was Martin Luther King, Jr. who preached nonviolence. Thurgood Marshall won Brown v. Board of Education with his mind and a briefcase rather than a gun.
Yes, there is more to do. Certainly, there is cruelty and injustice almost more than we can bear in the world. But bear it we must as we work towards a better world. Our methods in that work do matter and we must not become deluded that our personal sense of righteousness actually grants us a special position from which we can deal injustice in the name of a higher cause.
This is a thoughtful book and deserves to be read. You will gain a lot from it and wrestling with these awful events will help you clarify what exactly it is you do believe.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
13 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Insane Madman or Staunch Defender of the Constitution?, September 10, 2005
This review is from: John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights (Hardcover)
In his book, David S. Reynolds addresses the historical problem of why John Brown had an impact on the course of national events in America even well after his death. Reynolds weaves an intricate analysis of his historical problem by incorporating cultural, social, political and economic history of antebellum America. Reynolds makes a strong case for his argument, and instructs the reader how the social and cultural climate of antebellum America offered the prime conditions under which Brown became infamous.
Reynolds' work is set apart from his contemporaries in that he presents a positive portrait of Brown in contrast to other scholarship that tends to depict Brown as an insane madman who briefly stepped into history but did little to influence it. Reynolds' positive representation of Brown may seem contradictory considering his position that Brown was a terrorist. However, as Reynolds states, Brown was not a terrorist by the same definition that we use today. Reynolds defines terrorism as "violence that avoids combat, is used against the defenseless (often civilians), and is intended to shock and horrify, with the aim of bringing about social change." Brown committed what Reynolds classifies as "good terrorism" by carefully selecting his victims (pro-slavery white males) which sets Brown apart from modern day terrorists whose violent activity is intended to kill anyone. Reynolds' interpretation of Brown is presented in such a way that the ends justify the means; and while Brown's tactics were horrific and brutal, it was for the common good of society and to uphold divine law.
Reynolds offers a very in depth analysis of the life and events surrounding John Brown. He offers detailed accounts of how the lives of well-known antebellum figures such as William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, and Ralph Waldo Emerson intersected with John Brown. However, I found this book to be challenging in places because Reynolds often digresses on other characters and events of the antebellum period. While informative and interesting, the digressions were a little overwhelming to the overall story of John Brown. What I appreciated most about Reynolds' book was that it made me question how far one can justifiably go in an attempt to right societal wrongs, and if violence can ever be considered a righteous solution to correct those wrongs. To take it one step further, can the use of violence be justifiable in upholding the Constitution. When one considers this question, it is easier to identify with Reynolds' portrayal of John Brown.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|