John Brown

Brady Gambone

John Brown was an abolitionist who committed violent acts of terror from 1856, until his execution in 1859. These attacks were deliberate, terrorist acts designed to cause fear and death. Motivated by the anti-slavery movement, John Brown resorted to violence and terror in an attempt to abolish and prevent slavery. Although John Brown’s motivation for his crimes would be seen by many as legitimate or justified, his actions were terrorist in nature and should be looked at and treated as such, regardless of their political motivation. John Brown was angered by the enslavement of blacks in the United States before the Civil War. He was not alone in this thinking, as many individuals, especially in the North felt the same way. However, Brown believed that armed insurrection was the only way to bring change. From the beginning, Brown had no intentions of attempting to change government policy with peace. He recruited individuals for the sole purpose of using violence and causing death and destruction.

John Brown is rarely labeled as a terrorist due to the motivation for his actions. Terrorists are typically regarded as negative individuals, with their motivation, ideology and acts considered unacceptable. But because his actions were to abolish and prevent slavery, many sway from labeling him as a terrorist. However, being classified as a terrorist does not have to be defamatory. Anarchists used to call themselves terrorists and were proud of the label. It was an accurate description of who they were, but they did not see it as a bad connotation. Carrying out brutal attacks that resulted in hundreds of deaths, anarchists are terrorist by their very nature. Terrorists were also referred to in the French Revolution. The Reign of Terror itself was part of the revolution in France in 1793, but these acts are remembered as revolutions using terror to bring about a better world. Many individuals are classified as terrorists based on how their enemy’s see them. Because of the common negative connotation, classifying an individual or group as terrorists can give one justification for their actions against them. It is not surprising that after the North won the civil war, Brown was not called a terrorist. Looking back in history we must classify him as a terrorist for his horrendous actions, whether justified or not.

An argument has been made by Nicole Etcheson that Browns actions should be looked at as guerrilla warfare, not terrorism. “While Brown did employ terrorist tactics, this is a common guerilla action. Further, Brown himself and his contemporaries saw him as a guerrilla fighting in the revolutionary cause of antislavery.” (Etcheson, 29) Etcheson suggests that the individuals he attacked were not, as Lutz and Lutz put it, “victims of indiscriminate violence.” I would agree, but can a guerrilla force never be terrorist? Osama Bin-Laden waged unconventional guerrilla war in the mountains of Tora Bora, using unconventional tactics and communications methods. But this is regarded as terrorism. John Browns unconventional war may be considered guerilla warfare, but this does not mean he should not be considered a terrorist.

John Brown was motivated by the anti-slave movement to carry out acts of terror. Although he was motivated by an ideology that many today believe was justifiable and reasonable, his actions should still be considered terrorist. Terrorism has a negative connotation, and this needs to be looked at in a different light. John Brown may have been justified in what he did, but his actions do not change the fact that they were terrorist in nature, violent, meant to cause fear, and politically motivated. The attacks he carried out may be considered guerrilla tactics, however, they can still be considered terrorism. Many groups were call terrorists today use guerilla tactics.