Kennedy Muise

February 26, 2017

John Brown: A Justified Terrorist

            Nicole Etcheson’s work, “John Brown, Terrorist?” and Brenda Lutz and James Lutz’s work, “John Brown as guerrilla terrorist” both explore how John Brown, a well-known anti-slavery fighter, can be categorized as a terrorist and/or a guerilla fighter. Etcheson describes John Brown as a guerrilla fighter while Lutz and Lutz describe John Brown as a terrorist who ultimately wants to be a guerrilla fighter. Through these descriptions, the line between a guerrilla fighter and a terrorist is extremely blurred and needs to be clarified.

According to the US Department of Defense (DoD), terrorism is “the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological” (1). The DoD also defines insurgency as “an organized resistance movement that uses subversion, sabotage, and armed conflict to achieve its aims” in which guerrilla warfare is categorized as a “subcomponent of insurgencies” (1). Based off the DoD’s definitions, it becomes more clear that John Brown should be categorized more as a terrorist, with a rather justified goal, rather than a guerrilla fighter because of his incitation of fear within the proslavery supporters of society, his intention to cause terror, and his ideological aim to end slavery.

            As Lutz and Lutz describe, John Brown is a terrorist because he targeted specific victims. Unlike Etcheson, Lutz and Lutz contend that terrorism doesn’t have to be indiscriminate; in fact, terrorist attacks often include “a class or category of victims, not individuals, [which] is chosen in some fashion” (1043). For John Brown, this class of people included anyone who was proslavery, even if the victims themselves didn’t directly participate in armed battles. Many often think of terrorists who do not care whether they kill civilians or not. While John Brown did not intend to kill civilians indiscriminately, he did kill civilians, or noncombatants, who supported the proslavery party.

Similarly, John Brown is a terrorist because his intention was to spread terror amongst the proslavery supporters. According to Lutz and Lutz, terrorists target a specific group of people within the population so “the violence will have the desired psychological impact” (1043). Brown ultimately wanted to send the message that “any or all supporters of slavery in Kansas were in danger” (Lutz 1043). Even Etcheson states that “Brown’s intention was revenge against the proslavery party” (34).  In this way, John Brown is a terrorist because he attacked and incited fear within a category of civilians simply because they supported a particular social standard, or proslavery. John Brown wanted to be feared by the proslavery party because if the slaveholders were terrified enough, maybe they would give up on the fight.  

            Lastly, John Brown is a terrorist because he fought for an ideology. It is clear that Brown was fervently fighting to end slavery but, Lutz and Lutz contend that “the underlying issue... was the division of power between the national government and the states and individual rights” (1048). Federalism, even before the Civil War, was one major component to the anti-slavery versus proslavery movements between the Northern and the Southern States. Given this context, Brown fought for a moral, ideological, and political issue to turn the “territorial government in Kansas” into a free state (Lutz 1048-1049).  John Brown wanted to abolish slavery absolutely and he knew that compromise amongst the North and the South, or even amongst the people of Kansas, would not work to achieve that goal, leading him to use other methods, such as violence and terror, that would work.

            While Etcheson describes John Brown as a guerrilla fighter, rather than a terrorist, her description of Brown is incongruent with the definition provided by the DoD. The DoD describes insurgents and their subcomponents, guerrillas, as “an organized resistance movement” (1). Walter Laqueur, a guerrilla warfare and terrorism expert cited in Etcheson’s work, further describes guerillas as fighters who “predominantly attack the military” and who “do not generally seek to kill non-combatants” (Etcheson 32). Based on these elements, John Brown cannot be effectively categorized as a guerilla. First, John Brown was not part of any organized movement to end slavery, such as the free-staters, which was the opposing party to the proslavery party. In fact, Etcheson contends that “Brown’s ties to the free-state movement were loose” and he thought the free-state leaders were weak (33-34). Additionally, John Brown did not attack the military and as described in Lutz and Lutz previously, he attacked those who part of the proslavery movement, noncombatants included.

            While all these points describe how John Brown is not a guerrilla, Etcheson does argue a good point that Brown fought for a virtuous cause, to end slavery, which seems more characteristic to a guerilla rather than a terrorist. While Brown’s fight was noble and promoted a morally-just society, the steps he took to achieve this honorable goal are characteristic to terrorism, not insurgency or guerilla warfare. Therefore, John Brown’s actions show that he is indeed a terrorist but, he is a terrorist who is justified in his fight to abolish slavery.

Works Cited

Etcheson, Nicole. “John Brown, Terrorist?”. American Nineteenth Century History, 10:1, 29-48, 2009. Web. 24 February, 2017.

Lutz, Brenda J. and James M. Lutz. “John Brown as guerrilla terrorist”. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 25:5-6, 1039-1054, 2014. Web. 24 February, 2017.

US Department of Defense. “Insurgents vs. Guerrillas vs. Terrorists”. ProCon.org. Web. 26 February, 2017.