Their Story Their Voice
Their Story Their Voice
John Brown: Revolutionary or Radical?
Welcome to another episode of Their Story, Their Voice.
In this episode I attempt to explore the tumultuous and controversial life of John Brown, an American abolitionist whose intense opposition to slavery led him down a path of violence and radical action. Was he a zealous champion for justice or a reckless instigator of conflict? Decide for yourself if John Brown's legacy is one of kindness or destruction.
Please note transcription accuracy may vary.
Sources:
https://www.britannica.com/event/Fugitive-Slave-Acts
https://www.famous-trials.com/johnbrown/620-home
https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2011/spring/brown.html
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/history-matters/man-who-haunts-america
Music by:
(Neffex - A year ago)
(Neffex - dont want to let myself go)
I respect the rights of the poorest and weakest of coloured people, oppressed by the slave system, just as much as I do those of the wealthy and powerful. This is the idea that has moved me. And that alone. Welcome to another episode of Their Story, Their Voice. This is a mini episode and this will be John Brown's story. So I will just get into it because John Brown It was a whole thing trying to research into how he's seen differently in history. I just need to be clear that this mini episode, I'm leaving it up to you to decide if his legacy is one of kindness. Bearing in mind, kindness means different things to different people. John Brown is another abolitionist, just like William Wilberforce. However, two very different men. William Wilberforce worked with the law and the political system. Brown believed more direct, violent action was needed to end the institution of slavery in the United States. So in this mini episode, I'm leaving it up to you to decide whether his legacy is one of kindness. He was born on May the 9th in 1800 in Connecticut, America. His father, Owen, was a slave. strongly believed slavery was immoral and his mother sadly died when he was a young boy. And growing up he was slightly skeptical of religion until one day he sat down and actually read the Bible. Probably should add for John Brown is also another person who was an evangelical Christian. Yay, I know how to say it now. John as a child, would accompany his father to assist the enslaved escaping through underground railroads, highlighting to him first hand the struggle faced by those viewed as less because of the colour of their skin. There's a lot of sources that attempt to explain what made John become the person he did later on in life. Some people put it down to his father's influence, whilst many tell the story of when he witnessed a wealthy land and slave owner brutally attack one of his young slaves. According to some sources, this occurred when he was 12 years old. So I'm imagining, this is just me imagining, that as a young child he probably maybe struggled to comprehend what the boy had done to be treated in such a way. And did it make John question what made his life different to the life of this little boy? I'm not sure which one is true. Was it because of his father's influence? Was it because of him witnessing the treatment of the young boy? I personally like to think that it was a combination of both. Later in life, he would go on to have 12 children from his first marriage and 13 from his second marriage. Just to add, this was during the time when disease and illness, were rampant. And he had to witness his first wife die, whilst also seeing several of his young children die at such a young age. His children would later go on to describe him as being attentive, whilst also being a disciplinarian with a strong moral compass. The cotton mills rose to prominence in 19th century fueling economic prosperity for landowners and traders. Crucially, much of the cotton used in these mills were produced through the forced labour of the enslaved. The wealth generated from this trade was immense, but it came at a devastating moral cost. As the cotton industry became deeply intertwined with the institution of slavery, Brown's radical opposition to slavery can be seen as a direct challenge to this economic system. He attempted to sell cotton unsuccessfully and then he went to England in the 1840s to see if he could sell it there. He entered the wool business and developed a plan to corner the wool market, intending to sell American wool to British manufacturers, believing that England, which was such a major player in the cotton industry, could be persuaded to reduce its dependent on slave grown cotton from the American South and instead buy wool and free labour. Produced goods. However, this business venture wasn't very successful. His experience in England and the world trade ultimately fueled his growing frustration with the economic system tied to slavery, further radicalizing his stance. The Missouri Compromise was introduced in 1820. set a premise for every northern free territory added onto the compromise, a southern slave territory could be added. And this is just me guessing, but it just makes logical sense in my head. They did this to appease both the South and the North. The Missouri Compromise was Congress trying to keep a balance between the South and the North. But for a while, I think maybe it worked, until the Fugitive Slave Act was enacted in 1850. The Act meant any slave that escaped would have to be returned to their enslaver, even those who escaped to the Free States in the Northern Territories, there are articles offering rewards. People actually had articles where they were describing what their slave looked like, their height, their skin tone. And it's worth remembering that John and his dad were very active in helping the enslaved escape. So, you know, that kind of peed him off slightly. The act getting passed through Congress just reinforced to him that what he wanted to achieve, which was an end to slavery, wasn't achievable, not with the current setup. And I'm guessing, as time went on, I think he maybe just got more and more angry with how he saw things going. Because four years later, in 1854, the Kansas Nebraska, Act was passed, which overturned the Missouri Compromise. So, This is kind of the beginning of the end for the divide between the North and the South in America. What was the point of the Kansas Nebraska Act which overturned the Missouri Compromise? The Act allowed settlers in Kansas and Nebraskan territories to decide for themselves whether or not to allow slavery based on popular sovereignty. It allowed the people of Kansas and Nebraska to decide for themselves whether they wanted to allow slavery. So I guess it took the power out of the hands of Congress and the Supreme Court and basically said to the people, okay, do you know what? You guys decide. The power rests with the people. You guys can make the decision about slavery through a democratic process. This marked a turning point for Brown, dividing how people during this time and how history would later see him. The best way it makes sense in my head about popular sovereignty, if you're an American, I figure you probably know what popular sovereignty actually means more than me. It's not dissimilar to when Roe v. Wade got overturned and I not living in America. I always thought, okay, well, that's everywhere in America, but it's not. I now understand that depending on where you live in America, states get to interpret the law of the land, which is set by the Supreme Court, however they want to. If I'm wrong, please, anyone, just feel free to educate me. At the time when the Kansas Nebraska Act was put in place, I'm guessing those in power either thought, yeah, just let them get on with it, or actually thought, well, it just, omitted them of having any responsibility of making a decision. However, when it was passed, it led to violent conflicts. A year after the act was passed, John and his sons would relocate to Kansas to show solidarity the anti slavery settlers there. This would lead to what is known, I'm sure Americans know this, this would lead to what is known as Bleeding Kansas, where a violent conflict between the pro slavery and the anti slavery settlers would ensue. I do think it's important to mention just for his legacy, John Brown wasn't at the heart of every single violent conflict and protest that was happening during this time. However, during a violent encounter, John and his sons were responsible for killing the number varies depending on where you get your information from, I'm going to stick with five pro slavery men They dragged them from their home. They brutally murdered them. Some argue, because I'm trying to be in the middle as I possibly can, some argue this was in retaliation to what had happened previously, well a few days before in Lawrence, Kansas, where a predominant anti slavery activist was killed by those who were pro slavery. There's no evidence that supports that the five men that Brown and his followers killed were actually part of that. They were pro slavery, there's little that supports the men that were killed by John and his men even took part in what happened in Lawrence. This would be known as the Pottawami massacre I definitely have not said that properly and I would just like to apologize. A rational person would have stopped knowing they'd crossed a line, but nope, not John Brown. Because even to other abolitionists, saw. the act as him crossing a line. This violent response to pro slavery aggression in Kansas highlighted, that his belief, that slavery could only ever be ended in bloodshed. Then we move on to 1859. because he just keeps on going. He led 18 men on a raid on a federal armory at Harper's Ferry in Virginia, intending to cite a slave revolt, and it was unsuccessful, and he was captured. And he would later go on to say whilst in prison, I furnished most of it myself. I cannot implicate others. It is by my own folly that I have been taken. I could easily have saved myself from it had I exercised my own better judgment rather than yielding to my feelings. In 1860, John Brown was hanged. So I guess the question is, because usually I feel like I always have, what was their great act of kindness? I think his legacy and his act of kindness is harder than other people that I've covered. When I asked someone to name a person who they saw as doing a great act of kindness, they suggested John Brown. Many might see his actions as extreme, others view them as an expression of radical kindness, his willingness to sacrifice everything, including his life, for the freedom of the enslaved. In his final speech before his execution, he declared, I, John Brown, am quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away, but with blood. Just going to put the question out there. Is his legacy one of kindness or violence justified by a greater moral cause? I thank you for listening to another episode of Their Story, Their Voice. And always, be kind to others. But most importantly, be kind to yourself.
