The Classification of John Brown

Jon Rockwood

February 26, 2017

The Classification of John Brown

            John Brown, the pre-Civil War abolitionist, has been viewed from a variety of perspectives for his actions that he conducted within the Kansas Territory and Virginia. Due to his violent actions towards pro-slavery groups Brown has been categorized as a terrorist by some analysts and a guerilla fighter by others. His attacks on properties, killings of groups of peoples, and the raid at Harpers Ferry have been analyzed in opposing manners. Scholars Brenda Lutz, James Lutz, and Nicole Etcheson propose different opinions on how what terminology best fits John Brown. Etcheson saw Brown “as he saw himself, as the guerrilla leader,” while Lutz and Lutz saw Brown “primarily as a terrorist” (Etcheson) (Lutz and Lutz). Strictly assessing Brown based on his actions alone, I believe he was a terrorist.

John Brown has a specific target audience he wanted to influence when he conducted his violent tactics. As noted by Lutz and Lutz, “Etecheson has suggested that terrorist practice indiscriminate violence, and that John Brown was not a terrorist because his violence was more targeted,” however, “it is extremely rare that terrorism is actually indiscriminate” (Lutz and Lutz). For a specific group of people to feel terrorized, there must be some use of indiscriminate violence, within that target group, to make them believe the somewhat random actions could be done onto them. For example, the “IRA set off car bombs in Protestant neighborhoods, not Catholic ones; Shia militants in Iraq have attacked Sunni neighborhoods, not neighborhoods at random” (Lutz and Lutz). John Brown’s killings “at Pottawamie Creek, were a classic example of terrorist techniques” because those “who were killed were chosen because they were Southerners who supported slavery” (Lutz and Lutz). Furthermore, the victims “‘were well chosen by Brown not because they were guilty but because they were innocent… [grasping] the essence of maximum terror’” (Lutz and Lutz). The Southerners were the general group at large, but because they supported slavery they became the targeted focus group – sending a message that any supporters of slavery in Kansas were in danger.

            Though John Brown fought for a moral cause, the tactics he used are similar to tactics used by groups with immoral ambitions. As Lutz and Lutz acknowledge, “the violent tactics used by Brown in Kansas in a good cause were exactly the same as the violent tactics used by some of the pro-slavery bands in a bad cause” (Lutz and Lutz). After the Civil War, the KKK used tactics such as assaults, robbery, murder and arson in a less than virtuous cause. Somewhat ironically, “the same techniques that helped to keep Kansas a free territory were ultimately quite successful in permitting the old white elite power structures to regain control of state political institutions,” yet reestablishing the point that based off of his tactics, John Brown was a terrorist (Lutz and Lutz).

            The strategies used by John Brown are to be considered as terroristic in nature, even though he was fighting for a moral cause. Analysts struggle to categorize terrorists as terrorists because of their personal bias and perspective. “Brown’s actions were carefully considered ones, and they were anything but indiscriminate; they were, therefore, still terrorism” (Lutz and Lutz).