Editor in Chief Bill | 07 Jun 2019 12:10 p.m. PST |
You were asked – TMP link Was the abolitionist John Brown insane? 41% said "yes, John Brown was insane" 38% said "no, John Brown was not insane" 2% said "who is John Brown?" |
14Bore | 07 Jun 2019 12:24 p.m. PST |
Madman or not but who was right about slavery? |
Wackmole9 | 07 Jun 2019 12:45 p.m. PST |
Cold blooded killer is a better description, no matter what the cause. |
Pan Marek | 07 Jun 2019 12:49 p.m. PST |
What makes anyone ask this question? Fanaticism alone is not a sign of insanity. And to pick Brown as the sole cold blooded killer in ante bellum Kansas is ahistorical. |
PJ ONeill | 07 Jun 2019 1:01 p.m. PST |
The historical record shows Brown to be a psychotic murderer, not the sort of character that should be celebrated in classrooms across the country, as I have seen done. To be fair, this particular classroom had posters about Ben Franklyn's actions during the American Civil War. |
deadhead | 07 Jun 2019 2:28 p.m. PST |
Can pollsters on a wargames forum really decide on whether someone was insane? That requires professional input and is a massive decision in any court of law these days. Certainly, in the US anyway, I gather that it might make the difference between meeting one's maker earlier than intended or serving time in a set up where the former might be better. Most of us would regard his cause as justified, but he might well have been insane, nonetheless. I would quote Orde Wingate or Lawrence of Arabia as modern day heroes, who might just have been on the edge of barking mad. Gordon of Khartoum meant well, but he was away with the fairies. How many leaders, (maybe even to this day?) are just on the edge of slightly weird and disturbing? |
Dn Jackson | 07 Jun 2019 3:50 p.m. PST |
This is what I wrote on the poll itself: He was a murderer and, by today's standards, could probably be classified as a terrorist. He and his group went door to door looking for political opponents who they hacked to death with swords. While some seem to find this man admirable, I do not. These are not the actions of a 'madman.' I do find it disturbing how many people dismiss his actions because they believe in his cause. Would they be so quick to approve for a cause they don't believe in? For example, people will happily wear Che t-shirts, despite the fact he was a mass murderer. I willing to bet no one on this forum would wear a Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph t-shirt, (McVeigh was the Oklahoma City bomber and Rudolph an abortion clinic bomber). Here's a thought experiment; The year is 2119, abortion has been outlawed as murder. Everyone in the country except a small fringe believe this was the correct thing to do and support it whole heartedly. Would any of the people who believe Brown was 'on the right side of history' say the same about Rudolph, who killed at least three people and wounded over 100, (he was the Atlanta Olympics bomber). |
lloydthegamer | 07 Jun 2019 5:08 p.m. PST |
Brown and his followers murdered proslavery citizens after a bunch of pro-slavery zealots butchered some free state citizens of Kansas (which clearly doesn't make his actions right). Lawrence Kansas was sacked and burned in the mid 1850s by pro-slavery terrorists, then it was sacked and burned a second time (with quite a few murders committed) by Quantril and his bunch. Were these pro-slavery terrorists insane? Why has history given them a pass on insanity while only holding Brown (murderer as he was) to be insane? It's an interesting question. Again I point out, Brown was not considered insane by those who knew him, he only became insane years after his death. Why? Disgrace the man and his cause is easier to discredit. |
Wackmole9 | 07 Jun 2019 8:18 p.m. PST |
Pottawatomie massacre, You don't hack people to death with a short sword and be anyone's hero. |
Northern Monkey | 07 Jun 2019 8:37 p.m. PST |
Lots of people seem to make heroes out of men like Bedford Forrest and he wasn't exactly a man with a kind heart and moderate actions. Mind you, it's interesting to see Dn Jackson's comments about abortion. It rather contrasts the views of the US with those in Europe where abortion is considered a basic right in most countries and supported by the majority of the population. Places like Northern Ireland where abortion is not available for religious reasons are generally viewed as barbaric. Likewise, Brown tends to be viewed as a man with a good cause here, albeit with extreme methods. I think we have very different bench marks about what is good and bad. |
Zephyr1 | 07 Jun 2019 8:56 p.m. PST |
I'd lump him in there with Charles Manson… |
Panzerfaust | 08 Jun 2019 8:01 a.m. PST |
|
donlowry | 08 Jun 2019 9:18 a.m. PST |
Why are the only choices "madman" and "hero"? Why can't he be neither? or both? |
Dn Jackson | 08 Jun 2019 6:37 p.m. PST |
"Brown and his followers murdered proslavery citizens after a bunch of pro-slavery zealots butchered some free state citizens of Kansas (which clearly doesn't make his actions right). Lawrence Kansas was sacked and burned in the mid 1850s by pro-slavery terrorists, then it was sacked and burned a second time (with quite a few murders committed) by Quantril and his bunch. Were these pro-slavery terrorists insane?" Lloyd, I think you have some of your facts mixed up. The murder of five pro-slavery men by Brown did occur as his response to the sacking of Lawrence in 1856. No one was killed at the sacking of Lawrence except one of the pro-slavery raiders. Quantrell and his thugs didn't appear until the Civil War was in full swing after Brown was dead. As such, Brown's claim of retaliation doesn't hold water. |
lloydthegamer | 10 Jun 2019 8:30 a.m. PST |
You are correct about the Lawerence raid, the only person killed in the first raid was one of the raiders. His claim of retaliation doesn't hold water, if the Lawerence raid was the only provocation. We can't go back and truly understand what happened, but from what I've read tensions were escalating and Brown did his bloody deed. Again, not excusing him, but the question that started this whole conversation, "Was John Brown a madman". His actions, while certainly reprehensible, were no worse than some of the pro-slavery folks who followed, but they remain sane, while Brown is judged insane in histories starting in the 1880s/90s and continuing on to the present. What's wrong with this picture? |
Lee494 | 10 Jun 2019 4:37 p.m. PST |
Madman. Evil Genius. Enigma. Perhaps Darkly Prophetic. Many facets. |
Bill N | 11 Jun 2019 4:31 p.m. PST |
I suspect todays professionals would find that John Brown was suffering from a number of mental issues. As I recall Brown was examined after his arrest though and was found to be sane. I think the reference was more an indication that Brown was a fanatic than that he was a lunatic. His actions, while certainly reprehensible, were no worse than some of the pro-slavery folks who followed, but they remain sane, while Brown is judged insane in histories starting in the 1880s/90s and continuing on to the present. I think it suited the purposes of the times. The short version is that allowing John Brown to be considered a madman allowed people in the north to believe they were on the side of angels, and it allowed people in the south to believe they didn't really have another alternative. To some extent that is still true today. |
McLaddie | 12 Jun 2019 8:03 a.m. PST |
As I recall Brown was examined after his arrest though and was found to be sane. Bill N: Found competent to stand trail, not necessarily the same as sane. I would think by any standard, the man was a psychopath…in the line of Manson. His actions in Kansas would indicate that. He just chose a more righteous justification for his murdering. He certainly wasn't alone in Kansas… which is why he moved on to slave revolts and didn't really get 'noticed' until Harpers Ferry. And obviously, folks on both sides of the issue picked conclusions that 'allowed' them to believe what they wanted to anyway. |
Bill N | 12 Jun 2019 12:38 p.m. PST |
For those interested this article provides a good summary of John Brown's trial. link One interesting item to note from this is the letter from Mahala Doyle, the wife of the men Brown killed at Pottawatomie to John Brown after the trial. |
Legion 4 | 13 Jun 2019 7:02 a.m. PST |
As the saying goes … One man's terrorist is another's hero/freedom fighter, etc. It's all in the eyes of the beholder. E.g. ISIS jihadis are heroes to some. But most just think they are lunatic murders, throw backs to past centuries. Just ask a Yazidi … if you can find one. And No I'm not comparing Brown to ISIS jihadis, I'm just using this as an example. And before some run to get pitchforks & torches. I don't and never did support slavery of any kind. |
EJNashIII | 30 Jun 2019 7:10 p.m. PST |
Interestingly, historically, John Brown wasn't called a madman or insane until the 1890s klan based revisionism. |
McLaddie | 01 Jul 2019 7:52 a.m. PST |
Interestingly, historically, John Brown wasn't called a madman or insane EJNashIII: Uh, where did you get that idea? Madman and insane were words that were applied to John Brown in Kansas and after the Harpers Ferry Raid. It depended on which newspaper you read. |
EJNashIII | 01 Jul 2019 3:52 p.m. PST |
Mrs. Brown testimony about her husband. "He is a clear headed man. He has always been, and now is, entirely in his right mind. He is always cool, deliberate, and never over hasty; but he has always considered that his first perceptions of duty, and his first impulses to action, were the best, and the safest to be followed. He has almost always acted upon his first suggestions. No, he is not insane. His reason is clear. His last act was the result, as all others have been, of his truest and strongest conscientious convictions." |
McLaddie | 01 Jul 2019 10:23 p.m. PST |
well, with all respect to Mrs. Brown, there were other opinions. [And that she married him could say more about her than him ] The question was whether historically, John Brown was called a madman or insane during his time. That Mrs. Brown had to come to his defense suggests there were opposing views on the subject. |