America's Good Terrorist: John Brown and the Harpers Ferry Raid

by Charles P Poland jr

John Brown is a common name, but the John Brown who masterminded the failed raid at Harpers Ferry was anything but common. His failed efforts have left an imprint upon our history, and his story still swirls in controversy. Was he a madman who felt his violent solution to slavery was ordained by Providence or a heroic freedom fighter who tried to liberate the downtrodden slave? These bipolar characterizations of the violent abolitionist have captivated Americans. The prevailing view from the time of the raid to well into the twentieth century--that his actions were the product of an unbalanced mind--has shifted to the idea that he committed courageous acts to undo a terrible injustice.

The debate still rages, but not as much about his ultimate goal as the method he used in attempting to right what he considered an intolerable wrong. Are citizens justified in bypassing the normal legal or governmental processes in a violent way when they fail, in the eyes of the dissenter, to correct a wrong that touched so many? Brown's use of violence was to strike terror in the heart of slave owners, terror that Brown hoped would intimidate them to free their slaves to ensure their families' safety.

Despite the differences between modern terrorist acts and Brown's own violent acts, when Brown's characteristics are compared to the definition of terrorism as set forth by scholars of terrorism, he fits the profile. Nevertheless, today Brown is a martyred hero who gave his life attempting to terminate the evil institution of human bondage. Brown's violent method of using terrorism to accomplish this is downplayed or ignored, despite being labeled by historians as America's first terrorist. The modern view of Brown has unintentionally made him a "good terrorist," despite the repugnance of terrorism that makes the thought of a benevolent or good terrorist an oxymoron.

This new biography covers Brown's background and the context to his decision to carry out the raid, a detailed narrative of the raid and its consequences for both those involved and America; and an exploration of the changing characterization of Brown since his death.

Genres: American History, History, Biography, Nonfiction

384 pages, Hardcover

First published September 30, 2020

Reviews

[Louis A. · Rating 2 out of 5]

While this book is the work of a professional historian, Poland’s argument is unconvincing, especially because he cannot sufficiently substantiate his constant claim that Brown was a terrorist, even though this seems to be the real reason he wrote it. Certainly, Brown does not act like a terrorist and Poland as much as admits it, although he is determined to get Brown to “hemp justice” and bury him in historical skepticism. Poland makes much to do of Brown wanting to terrorize slaveholders but even this lacks foundation. Brown wanted to destabilize slavery and really did not want to engage slaveholders in conflict if it could be avoided. In Kansas, Brown himself was fighting terrorists; had he been a terrorist, he would not have stopped at killing only five of his most dangerous and threatening opponents, and in Virginia he would not have been so kind to his prisoners, nor would he have worried over following rules of war, which Poland himself documents. In fact, for all of his insistence that Brown was a terrorist, Brown keeps acting otherwise in the story--really like someone who did not believe in pacifism but also wanted to avoid full scale bloodshed in his use of force. For instance, Poland says Brown was a terrorist because he was “working outside the law.” But this can also describe the behaviors of people who hid Jews from Nazis, worked the underground railroad, freedom fighters in general, and even those who today provide sanctuary to illegal refugees. My sense is this biography reflects that the author knows he's up against history and is trying desperately to argue for something that is out of reach. He diminishes Brown’s belief in the "absolutes" of right and wrong, as if that's a liability or as if that is the mark of a terrorist alone. He distinguishes appreciation for Brown as a liberator to the black community because, he says, it is understandable that blacks would "award him hero status." This is an unfortunate assertion because it not only operates on a "them" versus "us" mindset, but misses the point that many white people also see John Brown as a liberator. Much more could be said about his argument, but it should suffice to say that "America's Good Terrorist" is like the last, best gasp of a dying hostility toward Brown that must yield up the ghost if our nation is ever to get beyond its own myths.

[Hans Myers · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's an unusual thing to find a biographer who so clearly holds his subject in contempt. Charles Poland's "America's Good Terrorist: John Brown and the Harpers Ferry Raid" is a well-written and detailed examination of John Brown's attack on the Federal arsenal at Harpers' Ferry, the following trials, executions, and the impacts of the raid on both the northern and southern psyches. However, Poland never passes up an opportunity to label Brown as a "terrorist," or a "fanatic," both highly charged words with fiercely negative connotations. He dismisses suggestions that Brown was "mad," in the parlance of the nineteenth century, despite a known history of mental illness on Brown's maternal side of the family. Dismissing modern views of Brown as a man on the right side of history due to his principled - if extreme - antislavery viewpoints as side-effects of "an era of political correctness and demand for the removal of all public display of statues, names and symbols considered tainted by slavery or segregation," Poland seemingly contends that it is unfair to view Brown as anything other than a terrorist - comparisons to modern terrorist organizations are frequent throughout the text - because to do so engages in "presentism." Presentism, or when historians use modern perspectives and beliefs which did not exist at the time to summarily pass judgement upon historical persons, is absolutely inadmissible in the case of John Brown. Abolitionism - especially radical abolitionism - were readily evident in the immediate antebellum years, something Poland seems to be grudgingly forced to admit in his text when discussing Brown's allies in the North such as the Secret Six. As such, considering Brown to have been a man with his heart in the right place but of highly questionable methods - as was common in 1859 in the aftermath of the Harpers' Ferry raid - is hardly presentism, nor is it caused by "political correctness." It is simply an interpretation of the facts reflecting the viewpoints of others at the time, unlike the viewpoints of paranoid and panicked slaveowners that Poland chooses to amplify.

[J.L. Askew · Rating 2 out of 5]

With countless books written on American terrorist John Brown, why do we need another one?
Author Charles P. Poland Jr. says we need a new interpretation for current times, claiming “today, the view of Brown has morphed to that of, at the very least, a “good terrorist”. Despite a disclaimer that the title “does not imply terrorism is benevolent”, Poland goes for nearly 300 pages showing his subject in a favorable light.
Early in life Brown was fascinated with historical figures having divine missions to confront evil like Spartacus, Cinque’, Nat Turner, and Oliver Cromwell. “Brown talked of using terror to devalue slavery, and at times he planned to capture and govern a significant section of the United States.”
While these are not the views of a clear-thinking person, the author says Brown was rational. “Despite whatever character flaws Brown had, by today’s legal standards, he was sane.” Legally, perhaps, but by any measure he was unbalanced. Murder, robbery, and arson are not “character flaws.” Brown believed the attack on Harper’s Ferry would “jump-start his revolution of forced emancipation.” This was the view of all Radical Abolitionists, to destroy the country if it would free the slaves, but only John Brown’s megalomania brought it to fruition.
Brown’s terrorist attacks began at Pottawatomie, Kansas where he rousted five men from bed in the middle of the night, murdering them and mutilating their bodies. He said his actions were meant “to strike terror in the hearts of the proslavery people”, but the victims were apolitical, killed only because they were Southerners. Brown said, “It was better that a score of bad men should die than one man [himself] who came here to make Kansas a free state.”
Judging the result of the Pottawatomie massacre, Poland makes a faulty generalization: “This raid caused Southerners to assume incorrectly that all Northerners were militant abolitionists.” Poland continually shows contempt for those below the Mason-Dixon line.
After letters surfaced proving Northern abolitionists financed Brown, Poland writes, “To the emotionally agitated mind of the suspicious Southerners, all this would be looked upon as conclusive proof of a vast Northern conspiracy sponsoring attacks throughout the South.” Poland often describes Southerners’ response to slave insurrections, abolitionists’ calls for blood-letting, and the Harper’s Ferry Raid as “paranoia”. The clinical definition of paranoia is “suspicion or mistrust of people without evidence”, but there was ample proof the South was under attack, especially after the Pottawatomie killings and Brown’s raid in Virginia (now West Virginia).
Brown believed he was divinely ordained to carry out his bloody crusade. The only time he showed palpable fear was after his capture when a rabble of citizens were calling for his lynching. That would have ended his life, aborting the chance to tell the world of his “divine mission”. As soon as reporters and politicians showed up, Brown began a speech about the righteousness of his cause. Asked if he expected a slave uprising if he succeeded, he lied repeatedly, saying “No sir; nor did I wish it. I expected to gather them up from time to time and set them free.” Brown said he considered himself to be an instrument of God. When asked what principle justified his actions, he said, “I hold that the Golden Rule . . . applies to all who would help others to gain their liberty.”
This reasoning was first expressed the previous century by Quakers, citing Mathew 7:12 to oppose slavery. Most Bible scholars say this interpretation is flawed, violating a law of hermeneutics. The Reverend Thornton Stringfellow (1788-1869), commenting on the Harper’s Ferry Raid, said “Brown’s bloody course [was] the logical outcome of the abolitionists’ understanding of the Golden Rule and the higher law.”
Growing up in the deep South, I sometimes heard an uncle swear, “I’ll be John Brown!” Although the expression is obsolete, the sentiment behind it remains. Many Southerners would still judge John Brown accursed and will find this book with the strange title of little interest. A much better work on the subject is “The Secret Six” by Otto Scott.

[Todd Kiger · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent read! The book, “America’s Good Terrorist” by Charles P. Poland, Jr. about John Brown and his raid at Harper’s Ferry, is extremely well written and encapsulates John Brown’s raid to attempt to end slavery. The author provides quality insight on Brown and his life and the time leading up to the raid as well as his capture and trial. The reader also learns about his cohorts and how the raid came together.

What Poland did not do (which I appreciate) was to give us John Brown’s life story. He hits the high points and quickly moves to the raid and subsequent events. So many books like this one bogs the reader down with minute details of the life leading up to the main event. Poland gave the reader what was wanted. The raid at Harper’s Ferry and details surrounding it.

I admire Brown’s conviction on abolishing slavery. Brown, in speaking about his raid and his stance on slavery said; in speaking of pro-slavery persons, “I think my friend, you are guilty of a great wrong against God and humanity.” He is also quoted as, “I hold that the Golden Rule….. applies to all who would help others gain their liberty.” In referring to African Americans of the time Brown said, “It is my sympathy with the oppressed and wronged, they are as good as you and as precious in the sight of God.”

John Brown felt he was directed by God to free those enslaved. Poland does an excellent job in obtaining the thoughts and the events of 1859 surrounding the raid which reflect both sides of the event.

I fall inline with the moderate northerners of the 1859-60 time period in that I understand, appreciate, and respect John Brown’s opposition to slavery but not his methods.

This is a great book on an interesting person. Poland was superb in the manner in which he wrote the book. I would highly recommend reading this one.

[Ben · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fantastic research addressing episodes in the lead up, execution, and aftermath of Harper’s Ferry that usually go overlooked by other biographies (the escape of some surviving raiders, the trial, how Virginia and Wise reacted, the Kennedy farm, in sum, the “boring” bits).

However, the author spends most of the book painting Brown as an inexperienced incompetent and glosses over, or flat out ignores events that *could* show otherwise. Brown was certainly no tactical (or business, good Lord) genius, but the author neglects context in order to highlight these failures and make his argument more effective. At times he goes on for pages describing Brown and his actions in a way that likens him to a modern terrorist, only to throw the reader some critical morsel of information that could change that image when his argument is over. The rest of this work is great but Poland’s need to show Brown as a terrorist of the current popular sense results in some rather poor moments.
Aside from that there are some mixups of names and needless repetitions/reintroductions but I was pleasantly surprised to see that overall, it’s still a fantastic piece of scholarship for everything other than Brown *himself*.

TLDR: Great book for understanding the effect Brown had on Virginia and Harper’s Ferry but poor on Kansas and Brown as a person. If one is to read it, I would suggest it as supplemental to Stephen B. Oates’ biography which goes into far more detail on Brown’s life/immediate influence and seems to be the least biased for or against the old man