In 1856, Brown, his sons and followers carried out the Pottawatomie massacre. His gang of radical abolitionists dragged five Kansas settlers, three of whom were pro-slavery sympathizers, out of their homes and executed them. Brown was later captured after his raid on Harpers Ferry by Federal troops including Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and J.E.B. Stuart. John Brown was hanged, and his body lies a’moldering in the grave. Good. Abraham Lincoln denounced Brown as an insane zealot, and Frederick Douglas, while honoring Brown’s goals, condemned his methods.
Turley writes, in one of his under-stated professorial moods, aka.”like a weenie”:
“As many celebrate or rationalize the assassinations of figures such as Charlie Kirk and UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, the effort to encourage others to embrace the legacy of John Brown is hardly a subtle message. Many will take it as another signal that violence is not just warranted but righteous.”
Ya think? They’ve already tried to kill the President three times.
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….