I co-wrote a book about Clarence Darrow (you can buy it here: it’s cheap), and one of the points I made in the Introduction was that the U.S.’s most famous trial lawyer also believed in terrorism. Well, Darrow had his quirks, and he frequently argued that one of his murderer clients should be acquitted because the murder was justified (it worked, too!). He was ethically and morally wrong about Brown, as I asserted here in a post that republished a shortened version of Darrow’s famous eulogy for the anti-slavery vigilante. It was written long after Brown’s death, of course; Darrow used to deliver the speech on anniversaries of Brown’s birthday on May 8. The most famous section of Darrow’s passionate speech:
“The radical of today is the conservative of tomorrow, and other martyrs take up the work through other nights, and the dumb and stupid world plants its weary feet upon the slippery sand, soaked by their blood, and the world moves on.”
Darrow was an early progressive when the movement began, on the extreme end. In his “ends justifies the means” glorification of violence as a means of social change, we can see the seeds of where modern progressives have gone off the metaphorical rails and become a genuine threat to the rule of law and democracy. In Darrow’s time (he was active from 1890 to 1932) there were few progressives who would go as far as Darrow, though the anarchists did. They were the terrorists of the day, but Darrow defended labor leaders who also believed that murdering the exploitive capitalist here and there as well as their political enablers was the right thing to do.
Thus Darrow defended “Big Bill” Haywood (February 4, 1869 – May 18, 1928), an American labor organizer, a founding member and leader of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and a member of the executive committee of the Socialist Party of America. “Big Bill” was indicted for engineering the booby-trap murder of Frank Steunenberg, a former governor of Idaho. Darrow got “Big Bill” off (Just look at this guy! You just know he did it.)…
….but by arguing that even if he was guilty, its shouldn’t matter because he was on the right side. Fortunately, Darrow’s arguments in favor of just murder were confined to the courtroom and his John Brown eulogy once a year.
This week, Hasan Kwame Jeffries , an Ohio State University history professor and the brother of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, declared in a social media post that “John Brown understood that the only way to free Americans from the scourge of white supremacy was to get rid of white supremacists by any means necessary. He was right then. He is right now.” Gee, do you think Prof. Jeffries is at odds with his brother in this appeal to violence? I doubt it.
Prof. Turley has called out the Democratic House minority leader for encouraging violence on the Left, and lionizing John Brown is literally a justification of violence. If Republicans and the news media don’t confront Democrats and the party’s leaders with Prof. Jeffries’s words, they are being negligent and irresponsible.
Ethics Alarms 
Was not John Brown’s acts done in retaliation for the Siege of Lawrence?
Ironically for those insisting on calling the Jan. 6 riot an “insurrection”, Brown was an actual insurrectionist who intended to seize control of US states and plotted with foreign agents to do so.
There are statues and monuments to Brown in several US cities.
I do understand the sentiment.
Brown did not start the use of unlawful violence in the debate. The Sacking of Lawrence by pro-slavery forces, led by a sheriff, preceded his first killings.
[T]he only way to free Americans from the scourge of white supremacy was to get rid of white supremacists.
And replace them with what, exactly, Professor? Wait! Wait! Let me guess! Black supremacists?
It is interesting, I think it is instructive, to turn back to examine the religious-based and very zealous attitude of certain Northern activists in the decades prior to 1860 and the Northern War against the South.
It was infused with religious sentiment — righteousness, judgment, decisiveness. When you read their fiery speeches it is clear. And certainly Lincoln’s rhetoric said it all. The most interesting factor in my view is the attitude of absolute condemnation — contempt, snarling hatred — of the South, the Southern man and woman, the Institutions of the South.
The evolution of this very Northern, and now very American, religious-infused attitude never went away, and it seems to me to surface again in the attitude of those ravaging mobs who tear down statues and in the attitude of nearly divine ordainment by the DEI mobs.
But it is not only a Democrat issue, it has infused into Americanism. It is the basis of ‘turning against oneself’, of losing the will to value oneself, to defend one’s self, one’s heritage.
The issue and the question: How did all that we see now in the present cone to be? is never asked. Because the answer involves COMPLICITY in the exact surrender I refer to. Americanism is the “new birth’ Lincoln referred to. It is an entire civil-religious project.
Point? Abolitionists recognized that slavery was wrong and indefensible, not just morally but ethically and logically. Since the practice was such a self-evident violation of the natural law precepts the Founders based the theory of America on, absolute condemnation wasn’t radical or extreme. It was appropriate. Talk about ignoring the Golden Rule! Ultimately (as in abortion, interestingly) adherents started ducking the real issue to claim “rights”—in the case of slavery, property rights.
I see a difference as well. John Brown was attempting to overthrow the existing government as part of his plan to eradicate the actual evil of slavery that was present in that time. Slavery doesn’t exist today in the U.S., so today’s mobs are only trying to erase the memories. They see statues only as “honoring evil men” of the past, rather than “recognizing” those sinners and simultaneously “reminding” current generations about the evils that occurred. The mobs seemingly operate under the notion that if they remove all references to past errors, future generations won’t commit them. That is a mistaken notion.
John Brown’s acts were in. reaction to the Sacking of Lawrence, which was an unlawful act by pro-slavery people for the purpose of expanding slavery.
Does that make John Brown’s actions right?
The left condones violence in service of their political goals that are deemed righteous. Some on the right think that Antifa violence justifies or demands counteractions that are also forceful, I am thinking about the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys.
The way of John Brown has proven to be a dead end. The way of Antifa, Oath Keepers, Proud Boys are also dead ends. Insurrectionist violence does nor solve anything, it scars the nation. This is as true for all the anti-ICE insurrection as for the ill-advised actions at January 6th, 2021.
The issue then was if one side got to engage in criminal violence with impunity.
What is the application for today?
So still unethical….
Point? Abolitionists recognized that slavery was wrong and indefensible, not just morally but ethically and logically. Since the practice was such a self-evident violation of the natural law precepts the Founders based the theory of America on, absolute condemnation wasn’t radical or extreme. It was appropriate. Talk about ignoring the Golden Rule! Ultimately (as in abortion, interestingly) adherents started ducking the real issue to claim “rights”—in the case of slavery, property rights.
The point, you ask? Great question! I do so appreciate it. The point is that there is a causal chain between the extremely core and defining event of The Northern War of Aggression against the South and a sort of cultural pathology and intense disunity evident today.
The other element to be considered is that though slavery existed and had cruel elements, slavery in the US was entirely more civilized (if that can be the term) than anywhere else in the World and in the New World. The institution of slavery in the South was obviously and definitely a civilizing force and for this reason primitive Africans were brought into Occidental civilization and its categories.
The arrogance of the North led to the hubris of that devastating and destructive war, and that arrogance and hubris is a fundamental aspect of Americans and Americanism. It continues today. And it can be examined as a destructive pathology. I venture to say that the Norther War of Aggression may well be the turning point where The Republic was beginning to be lost.
The hatred of the South became a trope so very evident in movies in the post-Sixties. Almost a religious sentiment of “righteousness”. My primary example is Mississippi Burning: even the FBI colludes in “righteous violence” for a “good end” and the Viewer(of the film) gets to participate vicariously in Live Action Role Playing. These attitudes infected American culture. And now you are living in the consequences.
Would you like me to develop other “points” on the matter? I certainly can.
You examine small ethics issues as a scientist. I want to see a bigger picture of What happened and Why.
At this point, Jack, the Republic has been lost. It now is evolving into a TYRANNY and you-pkural pretend that it is recoverable.
Cassandra encourages you(-plural) to face the facts.