• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

John Brown: Was he right?

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member

John Brown's 223rd birthday was two days ago (born May 9, 1800). A lot of people think John Brown was a righteous dude, while others might say he did the wrong thing for the right reasons. I found a quote from Lincoln where he said “Old John Brown has just been executed for treason against the state. We cannot object, even though he agreed with us in thinking slavery wrong. That cannot excuse violence, bloodshed, and treason. It could avail him nothing that he might think himself right.”

I wonder what John Brown would think if he could see America today.

What do you think of John Brown? Was he guilty of treason? Or is treason merely a matter of dates? Of course, the secessionist slave-owning Confederate States are considered by many to be guilty of treason, too. There were also Abolitionists who felt that the Constitution was a useless document for allowing slavery and should have been torn to shreds. It seemed that there was quite a bit more outright defiance from different quarters, and people didn't seem to really care about treason all that much. It was still a crime, of course, but during the Civil War, Union soldiers would sing "John Brown's Body," and it seemed clear at that point that the only way to end slavery was by force.

As a point of comparison, public attitudes towards the "traitor" John Brown seem far more positive today than they are towards the "traitor" Benedict Arnold, who is still considered the worst of the worst. Even the Confederates were forgiven, but not Benedict Arnold.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I think we can use the word treason in two ways, as a technical legal term as well as in a figurative way.

I find it facinating that Brown was tried under the jurisdiction of The Commonwealth of Virginia and not under federal jurisdiction. The charges then where state charges:

On October 26 the grand jury returned a true bill of indictment against Brown and the other defendants, charging them with:​
-Conspiring with slaves to produce insurrection,​
-Treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia, and​
-Murder​
LINK

I had no idea that Treason could be charged on the state level:

Constitutionally, U.S. citizens owe allegiance to at least two government entities: the United States of America and their state of legal residence. They can therefore potentially commit treason against either, or against both. At least 14 people have been charged with treason against various states; at least six were convicted, five of whom were executed. Only two prosecutions for treason against a state were ever carried out in the U.S.: one against Thomas Dorr and the other after John Brown's conspiracy. It has often been discussed, both legally and in matter of policy, if states should punish treason. LINK
 
Top