HW for April 12: John Brown and Civil Disobedience for the Abolition of Slavery
Comment the actions of John Brown (anthology, pp. 206-207) and how legitimate they were. Compare his attitudes to Sojourner Truth's (p.228-231) or Harret Tubman's (do some research)
ReplyDeleteBoth John Brown and Harriet Tubman advocated for the liberation of slaves in the United States. Despite this common goal, the execution of their plan was completely different.
Starting with Brown, he was firmly convinced that the liberatio. would only be achieved through a violent insurrection. This aggression was directed not at the slaveholders, but also at any government officials that enabled them. In order to accomplish his goal, Brown led an raid composed by armed abolitionists on the federal armory at Harpers Ferry in Virginia. Althought this moment is seen as a catalyst for the slave uprising, the plan went unsuccesfully as John Brown and other members were caught. Before he was executed, in his last speech, John once again reaffirmed his ideas, showing himself extremely convicted as well as willing to die for what he believed in.
On the other hand, although Tubman had a very complicated background, as she escaped from slavery herself during her youth, her contribution was much pacifist in comparison to Brown’s. She worked as a nurse and cook for the Union Army. Morever, having the approval of President Lincoln for the operation, she was the first woman in the US history to lead a military expedition. She worked as spy, gathering information in virtue of freeing hundreds of enslaved people throught the Underground Railroad.
Eu considero interessante a forma como ambas as figuras lutaram as suas causa, recorrendo a métodos diferentes. Apesar de uma ser mais agressiva e a outra mais pacifista, ambas marcaram a história e tiveram as suas repercurssões, que, em conjunto com outras manifestçções, resultaram na abolição da escravatura no país. Na minha opinião, é difícil classificar qual a melhor execução: cada um deles tinha uma visão específica de alcançar o seu objetivo: Brown acreditava que uma abordagem mais agressiva seria o caminho correto, enquanto Tubman, certamente associado ao seu passado como escrava, decidiu adotar uma posição mais despercebida.
I find it interesting how both figures fought for their causes, using different methods. Although one was more aggressive and the other more pacifist, both marked history and had their repercussions, which, together with other manifestations, resulted in the abolition of slavery in the country. Also, it is curious how both are appreciated despite the fact that Brown’s raid failed. In my opinion, it is very difficult to classify which was better executed: each of them had a specific vision of achieving their goal. The important thing to have into consideration is that both paved the way for the Abolishion of Slavery in 1865.
Regarding John Brown's actions, the abolition of slavery is characterized by militant tactics and armed resistance against slaveholders. He believed in using force to defeat the institution of slavery, famously leading a raid on the federal armory at Harpers Ferry in 1859 in an attempt to instigate a slave rebellion. Brown's approach to civil disobedience was radical and aggressive, aiming to directly challenge the system of slavery through armed rebellion.
ReplyDeleteWhile Brown's motivations were rooted in a genuine desire to end slavery, his methods were highly controversial, raising ethical questions about the use of violence in the pursuit of justice. Some viewed his actions as heroic and correct, while others condemned them as reckless and counterproductive. Ultimately, Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry failed, and he was captured and executed. Nonetheless, his actions motivated abolitionist sentiment and contributed to the growing tensions that eventually led to the Civil War.
(I compared both Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman attitudes)
Comparatively, Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman also advocated for the abolition of slavery through civil disobedience, but their approaches were markedly different from Brown's. Truth and Tubman both engaged in nonviolent resistance and used their voices and actions to challenge the institution of slavery. Truth was known for her powerful speeches and advocacy for women's rights and abolition. Meanwhile, Tubman famously led numerous enslaved individuals to freedom along the Underground Railroad, risking her safety but abstaining from resorting to violence.
In contrast to Brown's militant tactics, Truth and Tubman represented a peaceful and strategic approach to civil disobedience. They focused on empowering enslaved individuals, promoting education and self-sufficiency, and sabotaging the system of slavery through acts of confrontation and resistance within the confines of nonviolence. While all three figures shared a common goal of abolition, their attitudes and methods toward civil disobedience varied significantly, reflecting the diverse strategies employed within the broader abolitionist movement.
Overall, all three are significant figures in the abolitionist movement, continuing to inspire movements for social justice and equality today. In my opinion, their commitment to freedom, equality, and human rights serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggle against oppression and the importance of collective action in pursuit of justice.
John Brown was a notable figure in the 19th century abolitionist movement and is often remembered for his radical actions against slavery. His most infamous action was the 1859 raid on the Union arsenal at Harpers Ferry, an attack he hoped would spark a slave revolution. Brown's actions raise complex questions about the legality of his methods and the morality of using violence to achieve social and political change.
ReplyDeleteBrown firmly believed in the justice of his cause and was willing to take extreme measures to advance it. He believed that slavery was a profound moral injustice and it could only be ended by direct action. Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry was a calculated attempt to seize weapons and spark an uprising among the enslaved people of the South. While his intentions were certainly noble, his methods were highly controversial and ultimately unsuccessful. The attack was quickly suppressed by Union troops, and Brown was captured, tried, and executed for treason.
The legality of Brown's actions is controversial among historians and scholars. Some considered him a heroic martyr who sacrificed his life for freedom and justice. They argued that Brown's willingness to resort to violence was motivated by the severity of the evil he was trying to combat. Others criticized Brown’s reckless and misguided tactics, arguing that his attacks would worsen resistance to abolitionists and increase tensions between the North and the South.
Comparing Brown's attitudes with those of other famous abolitionists, such as Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman, reveals different approaches to achieving social change. Sojourner Truth was known for her powerful speeches and advocacy, using nonviolent means to challenge slavery and promote women's rights. Also, Harriet Tubman played a critical part in the Underground Railroad, guiding oppressed individuals to freedom through a network of safe houses and secret routes.
Finally, although Brown, Truth, and Tubman were all committed to ending slavery, their strategies and tactics differed. Brown believed in the need for armed resistance, whereas Truth and Tubman advocated nonviolent protest and direct action. Eventually, these abolitionist legacies remind us of the complexity and layers of social change and the ongoing struggle for justice and equality.
John Brown and Harriet Tubman were two important figures in the fight against slavery in the nineteenth century (John Brown 1800-1859; Harriet Tubman around 1822-1913). They were indeed two abolitionists with different attitudes from each other. Despite living around the same period and knowing each other, John Brown's actions were decidedly more violent and radical. In fact, he believed that only a violent insurrection would bring freedom to the slaves. He is remembered for the insurrection he led in 1859, in which he was also captured and executed. This insurrection, which took place in the Virginia town of Harpers Ferry, aimed to establish a free state in the mountains where black slaves could escape. Unfortunately, he was captured by Robert E. Lee and during his trial, before being executed, he wrote his last speech stating that everything he did, he did because he was an instrument of God's divine justice, and that he accepts his fate with calmness and resolution without showing remorse for his actions. One can also notice a religious and spiritual background in which he highlights one of the teachings imparted to him by the Bible: "all things whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I should do even so to them" and also "remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them" meaning that we are all bound together and we must help each other. To add an important point for me, I would consider it right to mention that according to Brown, and according to now the evidence, if this help had been done in favor of opponents, the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, it would not have been considered evil, but rather praised.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, in my analysis, I would like to mention the extraordinary abolitionist woman Harriet Tubman. The first substantial difference between her and Brown is that unlike the latter, Harriet came from the bottom, she was a slave, she was considered a fugitive, and despite her situation not being the best, she still wanted to help the slaves who were in her same situation. She played a fundamental role in the underground railroad, a clandestine network of routes and hiding places that helped fugitive slaves reach freedom in the Northern United States or Canada.
Another substantial difference is that unlike Brown, she preferred to implement more discreet plans and use escape as a means to obtain freedom, she did not use insurrection. Moreover, it is curious to know that the two met for the first time in April 1858, then when Brown began recruiting supporters for an attack on slave owners at Harper Ferry, he turned to "General Tubman" for her help. After Brown's execution, Tubman praised him as a martyr.
In conclusion, it can be seen how these two abolitionist figures with such different attitudes, managed in one way or another to succeed in most of their undertakings, and are still remembered today as heroes of the fight against slavery
Sojourner Truth disavowed armed revolt against the oppression of women. “I do not want any man to be killed,” she reportedly declared (“Speech at New York City Convention”, p. 230). Likewise, John Brown stated in his last speech, “I never had any design against the life of any person, [...]. I never encouraged any man to do so, but always discouraged any idea of that kind” (“Brown’s last speech (excerpted from)”, p. 207). And although Truth never did partake in violent revolt, Brown did.
ReplyDeleteBrown said “I feel no consciousness of guilt” (p. 207). He had just been condemned to death by hanging for leading an armed slave uprising at Harper’s Ferry, all for a cause he found just. He had also previously killed five supporters of slavery. Brown had long held anti-slavery beliefs, but he had never thought of an armed revolution until he entered his fifties. Thus, it seems violence was Brown’s last resort. He fought against an unjust system, and rightly so. As a white man in 19th century United States, he could have chosen the path of non-violence, or of quiet disagreement. He could have avoided an armed fight against slavery entirely, but he chose to use his means and privilege to fight ‘the good fight’.
Although the use of violence can always be debated, it is true that this particular instance brought more attention to the abolitionist cause than ever. Such an extreme act of rebellion forced people to take a stance for or against slavery, if not for or against violence against an oppressive system. Extreme acts call for extreme responses: Brown was sentenced to death, but the discussion surrounding his choice and the legitimacy of his motives had already started. Many prominent abolitionists sided with Brown; supporters of slavery took a hard stance against him. Brown changed the course of American history forever, as his failed raid on Harper’s Ferry would lead to rising tensions between the two factions, which would in turn devolve into the Civil War. As the abilitionists took the ultimate victory, it could be said that in just six years Brown’s goal of fighting slavery with violence was at least partially accomplished, although the blood shed during the Civil War would stain American memory for decades – or centuries – to come.
(1/2)
A completely different attitude was that of Sojourner Truth. Truth’s position in the abolitionist and feminist movement was peculiar: “Sojourner combined in herself, as an individual, the two most hated elements of humanity. She was black, and she was a woman” (p. 230). She did not necessarily fit into either movement: she differed from abolitionists in that she believed women deserved the same rights as men; and from feminists in that she was, unlike many faces of the movement, black. In some way, Truth fought oppression just by existing as an independent, strong, enterpreneurial black woman. Her intersectionality made her unlikable to people on both sides, as whenever she took the stage “all the insults that could be cast upon color and sex were together hurled at her” (p. 230).
ReplyDeleteMaybe it was this inherent resistance, or maybe it was the particularly sensitive position she occupied as a black woman in post-Civil War America that caused Sojourner Truth to not support armed conflict. Just the fact that she was alive and famous, that she could successfully argue against men and ministers at feminist conventions, was rebellion enough. Truth fought the feminist battle through words, and time was supposedly on her side. “I have been forty years a slave and forty years free, and would be here for forty years more to have equal rights for all” (“Address to the First Annual Meeting of the American Equal Rights Association”, p. 231).
It is impossible to say which attitude was more legitimate, whether Brown’s or Truth’s. Both became symbols of the fight for freedom – Brown after his death; Truth for decades of her long life. In their own way, both permored actions that furthered their cause, and in the end their movements were successful. Brown and Truth, two figures joined only by their commitment to a progressive cause, perhaps serve to show that when fighting against oppression there is no wholly right or wrong way.
(2/2)
John Brown was a fervent abolitionist who believed in the violent overthrow of slavery. His most famous action was the raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859, where he and a small group attempted to seize a federal arsenal to spark a widespread slave rebellion. Brown's actions were radical, and he was willing to use violence to achieve his goals. While his methods were controversial, his intentions were to end the brutal institution of slavery. He was ultimately captured and executed for his role in the raid. As for his actions, legally, they were criminal as he led an armed insurrection against the United States. However, from a moral perspective, his efforts to fight slavery could be seen as justified, given the deep injustice of slavery.
ReplyDeleteAs for Sojourner Truth, she was a prominent abolitionist and women's rights activist. Born into slavery, she then gained her freedom and became an influential speaker. Her most famous speech was: "Ain't I a Woman?". It was delivered in 1851 and highlighted both racial and gender inequalities.
Harriet Tubman, like Sojourner Truth was born into slavery, he became known as the "Moses" of her people for her role in the Underground Railroad. She was known for leading numerous missions to free enslaved individuals, using stealth to guide them to safety. Tubman's methods involved risk and danger, but her focus was on providing freedom without direct violence. John Brown's methods, comparing to Sojourner Truth's and Harriet Tubman's were more violent and direct. Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman used more of a non-violent approach while John Brown legitimated violent acts for a moral cause.
Overall, each of these individuals contributed to the abolitionist movement in unique ways. John Brown with his more violent approach and Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman with their non-violent ways to challenge oppression and promote justice.