bmcelmeel's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
jdsatori's review against another edition
4.0
This is a fascinating, detailed look at a man that has been called everything from Savior to Madman to Terrorist. Inspired by slave rebellions in the Haiti and the American South, Brown's Quaker upbringing led him to a radical idea: all races, men and women, ought to be treated equally (this is what got him labelled a Madman). This led to an even more radical solution: only war will end slavery and bring freedom. And in the words of W. E. B. DuBois, "John Brown was right."
I especially got a kick out of understanding how the American Transcendentalists were the only white intellectuals to support Brown's actions at Harper's Ferry (and before, in Kansas). Critics at the time called Transcendentalists "modern Puritans...who absurdly put black people and white people on the same level." Not even the most outspoken Abolitionists would stand behind him. Certainly, Lincoln never did even though he ended up in exactly the spot Brown predicted: war.
His legacy has been complicated by later militants who claim John Brown as their own--everyone from Mother Jones and Malcom X to Timothy McVeigh. They miss the point though. Brown had plenty of issues with the government, but never resorted to violence to make a statement. Slavery alone was an affront to ALL of humanity, and most of all to God, and therefore worthy of war. Also, Brown was able to get women and people from all religions, all classes, and all races to join his fight, something later militants never would or could.
Black Americans overwhelmingly agreed that he was a Savior. Full stop.
I especially got a kick out of understanding how the American Transcendentalists were the only white intellectuals to support Brown's actions at Harper's Ferry (and before, in Kansas). Critics at the time called Transcendentalists "modern Puritans...who absurdly put black people and white people on the same level." Not even the most outspoken Abolitionists would stand behind him. Certainly, Lincoln never did even though he ended up in exactly the spot Brown predicted: war.
His legacy has been complicated by later militants who claim John Brown as their own--everyone from Mother Jones and Malcom X to Timothy McVeigh. They miss the point though. Brown had plenty of issues with the government, but never resorted to violence to make a statement. Slavery alone was an affront to ALL of humanity, and most of all to God, and therefore worthy of war. Also, Brown was able to get women and people from all religions, all classes, and all races to join his fight, something later militants never would or could.
Black Americans overwhelmingly agreed that he was a Savior. Full stop.
spinnerroweok's review against another edition
4.0
An interesting and thorough book on John Brown and his impact on sparking the Civil War. A great example of the good and evil that lies in people.
socraticgadfly's review against another edition
dark
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.75
Solid, fairly good, but not quite great.
Reynolds is very good on Brown the man in many ways, and not just Brown the abolitionist. He notes Brown as a totally inept businessman because of his general total rectitude on dealings and ineptitude on emerging modern capitalism.
On Brown as abolitionist, it's detailed about how it ran in the family, Brown's pre-Kansas work, his Kansas and post-Kansas work and of course Harper's Ferry.
It's possibly at its best on Brown the egalitarian. His including in his plan that a Black man should take the Frederick the Great sword of Lawrence Washington is one small gem here.
It's good on Brown's failures of imagination on Harper's Ferry, and also on him being totally sane. Behind that, it has a good look at Brown's "Secret Six" backers, and some of their ties to transcendentalism.
That said, Reynolds never speculates whether part of Brown's mind was hoping for a martyrdom failure just like he got. And, while some of the lies were to protect himself, he doesn't inquire about all of Brown's slips in rectitude over his Kansas actions. In other words, the bio is perhaps a bit too hagiographic at times.
Also, Puritans were in general NOT antinomian. Anne Hutchison et al lost the Antinomian Controversy, which is why many of them were booted out of Massachusetts Bay.
There's also minor errors scattered here and there. Pierce wasn't elected president in 1854. Kansas didn't become a state in 1858, though that was later corrected. And, not an error, but a few more pages here and there on what all else was happening in Kansas would have been nice.
And, on the national big picture? Reynolds eventually mentions Seward's "irrepresible conflict" near the end, as to why he didn't get the GOP nomination. Would have been better a couple hundred pages earlier, with first real discussion of Seward. Again, things like this tend to put one foot of the bio in hagiography.
Reynolds is very good on Brown the man in many ways, and not just Brown the abolitionist. He notes Brown as a totally inept businessman because of his general total rectitude on dealings and ineptitude on emerging modern capitalism.
On Brown as abolitionist, it's detailed about how it ran in the family, Brown's pre-Kansas work, his Kansas and post-Kansas work and of course Harper's Ferry.
It's possibly at its best on Brown the egalitarian. His including in his plan that a Black man should take the Frederick the Great sword of Lawrence Washington is one small gem here.
It's good on Brown's failures of imagination on Harper's Ferry, and also on him being totally sane. Behind that, it has a good look at Brown's "Secret Six" backers, and some of their ties to transcendentalism.
That said, Reynolds never speculates whether part of Brown's mind was hoping for a martyrdom failure just like he got. And, while some of the lies were to protect himself, he doesn't inquire about all of Brown's slips in rectitude over his Kansas actions. In other words, the bio is perhaps a bit too hagiographic at times.
Also, Puritans were in general NOT antinomian. Anne Hutchison et al lost the Antinomian Controversy, which is why many of them were booted out of Massachusetts Bay.
There's also minor errors scattered here and there. Pierce wasn't elected president in 1854. Kansas didn't become a state in 1858, though that was later corrected. And, not an error, but a few more pages here and there on what all else was happening in Kansas would have been nice.
And, on the national big picture? Reynolds eventually mentions Seward's "irrepresible conflict" near the end, as to why he didn't get the GOP nomination. Would have been better a couple hundred pages earlier, with first real discussion of Seward. Again, things like this tend to put one foot of the bio in hagiography.
greeniezona's review against another edition
5.0
Being born and raised in Kansas, it is perhaps no surprise that I've always thought the struggle for Kansas's status as a free or slave state was a significant part of what brought about the Civil War. But in an era when Confederate flag enthusiasts are suddenly insisting that the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery, it was high time I finally read this book my father had lent me about Brown, and the events sparking the Civil War.
(Spoiler alert: My dad isn't getting this book back.)
I loved this book. And it quickly became a refuge for me in a year of partisan election year bickering and mass shootings and too frequent news of black people being shot by the police. It was odd to me how intensely fond I became of Brown, even though I've never been a fan of Calvinism, and what religious feelings I do have urge me towards pacifism. Reynolds makes a strong case here for Brown as the first non-racist white American. To oppose slavery not just because it is happening to some poor creature, but because it was happening to your brother -- is it any wonder he ended up taking up arms?
While racism against black people is certainly the cause we most associate with Brown, his radicalism went much further. In planning for the possibility that his assault on southern slave-holding states could lead to the dissolution of the government, Brown and a council of his carefully gathered community wrote a new constitution that established the full equality of all people -- blacks, Indians, women.
I also appreciated this style of "cultural biography," which examined the cultures that shaped Brown, and then how he transcended and transformed those cultures. Like any excellent book, I am left wanting to know much more -- about the Transcendentalists, about Whitman, about Lincoln, etc., etc.
(Spoiler alert: My dad isn't getting this book back.)
I loved this book. And it quickly became a refuge for me in a year of partisan election year bickering and mass shootings and too frequent news of black people being shot by the police. It was odd to me how intensely fond I became of Brown, even though I've never been a fan of Calvinism, and what religious feelings I do have urge me towards pacifism. Reynolds makes a strong case here for Brown as the first non-racist white American. To oppose slavery not just because it is happening to some poor creature, but because it was happening to your brother -- is it any wonder he ended up taking up arms?
While racism against black people is certainly the cause we most associate with Brown, his radicalism went much further. In planning for the possibility that his assault on southern slave-holding states could lead to the dissolution of the government, Brown and a council of his carefully gathered community wrote a new constitution that established the full equality of all people -- blacks, Indians, women.
I also appreciated this style of "cultural biography," which examined the cultures that shaped Brown, and then how he transcended and transformed those cultures. Like any excellent book, I am left wanting to know much more -- about the Transcendentalists, about Whitman, about Lincoln, etc., etc.
librarianonparade's review against another edition
5.0
No history of the American Civil War would be complete without some account of John Brown, his violent activities in 'Bleeding Kansas' and his later raid on Harpers Ferry. And yet few of these accounts do him true justice. He was demonised by the South and eulogised by the North, but his pivotal role in American history is rarely recognised. He is often dismissed as little more than a fanatic at best and at worst, insane.
And yet perhaps there was no man of his era, other than Abraham Lincoln, who influenced the direction of American history in quite the same way. Would the Civil War have happened without John Brown? Perhaps, Reynolds believes, but maybe not quite so soon, and maybe that delay could have led to an even more horrific and destructive war. Harpers Ferry was one of the primary sparks that lit the flame of secession: the raid was believed by the South to have been backed by influential Northern abolitionists and the Republican Party, and Northern sympathetic reaction to Brown's hanging enraged Southerners and convinced many previous Unionists that there could be no living with a people so violently antipathetic to their way of life.
The irony was that the failure of Brown's raid served his cause far better a success would have: his serene composure in the face of his execution and the attention paid to him by both Southern and Northern newspapers helped to turn an otherwise violent rebel into a martyr to his cause, a man compared by many to Christ in his self-sacrificial death for the poor, downtrodden and oppressed. Brown the Man gave way to Brown the Legend, Brown the Martyr, and it was in the latter role that he had his greatest impact, serving as a polarising figure for the South and a unifying figure for the North.
David Reynolds places the enigma that was John Brown in his proper context, examining all of his actions in the light of the ongoing struggle against slavery. This exceptional biography is no hagiography and Reynolds doesn't excuse Brown's violent actions, perhaps the one aspect of his legacy that has been most troubling both to his contemporaries and to posterity. But, he argues, Brown's violence can only be understood by placing it within a very specific geo-political context - his militancy was not just a reaction against the violent activities of proslavery agitators, but was very much in-line with the traditions of slave revolt and rebellion that he was working to provoke. Brown, Reynolds argues, didn't just fight for black slaves; he used their own tactics of violent rebellion to aid their cause. He didn't just fight for the slaves; he fought, lived and died with them.
And yet perhaps there was no man of his era, other than Abraham Lincoln, who influenced the direction of American history in quite the same way. Would the Civil War have happened without John Brown? Perhaps, Reynolds believes, but maybe not quite so soon, and maybe that delay could have led to an even more horrific and destructive war. Harpers Ferry was one of the primary sparks that lit the flame of secession: the raid was believed by the South to have been backed by influential Northern abolitionists and the Republican Party, and Northern sympathetic reaction to Brown's hanging enraged Southerners and convinced many previous Unionists that there could be no living with a people so violently antipathetic to their way of life.
The irony was that the failure of Brown's raid served his cause far better a success would have: his serene composure in the face of his execution and the attention paid to him by both Southern and Northern newspapers helped to turn an otherwise violent rebel into a martyr to his cause, a man compared by many to Christ in his self-sacrificial death for the poor, downtrodden and oppressed. Brown the Man gave way to Brown the Legend, Brown the Martyr, and it was in the latter role that he had his greatest impact, serving as a polarising figure for the South and a unifying figure for the North.
David Reynolds places the enigma that was John Brown in his proper context, examining all of his actions in the light of the ongoing struggle against slavery. This exceptional biography is no hagiography and Reynolds doesn't excuse Brown's violent actions, perhaps the one aspect of his legacy that has been most troubling both to his contemporaries and to posterity. But, he argues, Brown's violence can only be understood by placing it within a very specific geo-political context - his militancy was not just a reaction against the violent activities of proslavery agitators, but was very much in-line with the traditions of slave revolt and rebellion that he was working to provoke. Brown, Reynolds argues, didn't just fight for black slaves; he used their own tactics of violent rebellion to aid their cause. He didn't just fight for the slaves; he fought, lived and died with them.
lukas_sotola's review against another edition
A couple of small quibbles of mine notwithstanding, this is a tremendous, passionate, eloquent, and thought-provoking biography of a man whose life and work are as relevant as ever.
smr's review against another edition
5.0
John Brown was unique.
A "cultural biography," this book places John Brown within the context of the society he was living in at the time. Through that lens, we see just how much he differed from his contemporaries. He wasn't just a free-stater, wanting to stop the spread of slavery. And he wasn't just an abolitionist, wanting to eradicate slavery where it currently existed. Unlike both groups, John Brown believed in racial equality. While most abolitionists of his day believed blacks were inferior to whites and as such should be kept separate from them, John Brown believed that all people, regardless of race--and sex, for he was also a feminist--were equal. He wanted a fully integrated society. When he attended church with black friends and saw that they had to sit in the back, he gave them his pew in the front and took the back pew for himself--and continued to do so every week, much to the outrage of the church officials. Strange to think that he was doing this in 1836, some 120+ years before the civil rights movement.
He dedicated his life to abolitionist activities, and the Harper's Ferry raid was but one of them. He should also be remembered for his work on the Underground Railroad, and for his act of freeing eleven slaves and escorting them 1,100 miles north to freedom on an eight-month journey. He was not violent for the sake of violence; he just believed it was the only way to end slavery (which, as the Civil War proved, it was).
It is also interesting to learn just how much the Transcendentalists supported him. Transcendentalists have been criticized for having their head in the clouds throughout the tumultuous pre-Civil War era, but that's not the case. The Secret Six who funded John Brown's raid all had connections to the transcendentalist circle that Emerson, Thoreau, and others were part of. Furthermore, two weeks after the Harper's Ferry raid, when even antislavery activists were denouncing John Brown, Henry David Thoreau was the first to express admiration for him in his speech "A Plea for Captain John Brown." Emerson and others would soon follow in this regard.
This book shows that, controversial though John Brown may have been, there was a lot to admire. It's no wonder that black activists like Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. du Bois, Harriet Tubman, and Malcolm X, praised him in ways that they would not praise other white people. As his friend Frederick Douglass said, "His zeal in the cause of my race was far greater than mine."
A "cultural biography," this book places John Brown within the context of the society he was living in at the time. Through that lens, we see just how much he differed from his contemporaries. He wasn't just a free-stater, wanting to stop the spread of slavery. And he wasn't just an abolitionist, wanting to eradicate slavery where it currently existed. Unlike both groups, John Brown believed in racial equality. While most abolitionists of his day believed blacks were inferior to whites and as such should be kept separate from them, John Brown believed that all people, regardless of race--and sex, for he was also a feminist--were equal. He wanted a fully integrated society. When he attended church with black friends and saw that they had to sit in the back, he gave them his pew in the front and took the back pew for himself--and continued to do so every week, much to the outrage of the church officials. Strange to think that he was doing this in 1836, some 120+ years before the civil rights movement.
He dedicated his life to abolitionist activities, and the Harper's Ferry raid was but one of them. He should also be remembered for his work on the Underground Railroad, and for his act of freeing eleven slaves and escorting them 1,100 miles north to freedom on an eight-month journey. He was not violent for the sake of violence; he just believed it was the only way to end slavery (which, as the Civil War proved, it was).
It is also interesting to learn just how much the Transcendentalists supported him. Transcendentalists have been criticized for having their head in the clouds throughout the tumultuous pre-Civil War era, but that's not the case. The Secret Six who funded John Brown's raid all had connections to the transcendentalist circle that Emerson, Thoreau, and others were part of. Furthermore, two weeks after the Harper's Ferry raid, when even antislavery activists were denouncing John Brown, Henry David Thoreau was the first to express admiration for him in his speech "A Plea for Captain John Brown." Emerson and others would soon follow in this regard.
This book shows that, controversial though John Brown may have been, there was a lot to admire. It's no wonder that black activists like Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. du Bois, Harriet Tubman, and Malcolm X, praised him in ways that they would not praise other white people. As his friend Frederick Douglass said, "His zeal in the cause of my race was far greater than mine."
librarianonparade's review
5.0
No history of the American Civil War would be complete without some account of John Brown, his violent activities in 'Bleeding Kansas' and his later raid on Harpers Ferry. And yet few of these accounts do him true justice. He was demonised by the South and eulogised by the North, but his pivotal role in American history is rarely recognised. He is often dismissed as little more than a fanatic at best and at worst, insane.
And yet perhaps there was no man of his era, other than Abraham Lincoln, who influenced the direction of American history in quite the same way. Would the Civil War have happened without John Brown? Perhaps, Reynolds believes, but maybe not quite so soon, and maybe that delay could have led to an even more horrific and destructive war. Harpers Ferry was one of the primary sparks that lit the flame of secession: the raid was believed by the South to have been backed by influential Northern abolitionists and the Republican Party, and Northern sympathetic reaction to Brown's hanging enraged Southerners and convinced many previous Unionists that there could be no living with a people so violently antipathetic to their way of life.
The irony was that the failure of Brown's raid served his cause far better a success would have: his serene composure in the face of his execution and the attention paid to him by both Southern and Northern newspapers helped to turn an otherwise violent rebel into a martyr to his cause, a man compared by many to Christ in his self-sacrificial death for the poor, downtrodden and oppressed. Brown the Man gave way to Brown the Legend, Brown the Martyr, and it was in the latter role that he had his greatest impact, serving as a polarising figure for the South and a unifying figure for the North.
David Reynolds places the enigma that was John Brown in his proper context, examining all of his actions in the light of the ongoing struggle against slavery. This exceptional biography is no hagiography and Reynolds doesn't excuse Brown's violent actions, perhaps the one aspect of his legacy that has been most troubling both to his contemporaries and to posterity. But, he argues, Brown's violence can only be understood by placing it within a very specific geo-political context - his militancy was not just a reaction against the violent activities of proslavery agitators, but was very much in-line with the traditions of slave revolt and rebellion that he was working to provoke. Brown, Reynolds argues, didn't just fight for black slaves; he used their own tactics of violent rebellion to aid their cause. He didn't just fight for the slaves; he fought, lived and died with them.
And yet perhaps there was no man of his era, other than Abraham Lincoln, who influenced the direction of American history in quite the same way. Would the Civil War have happened without John Brown? Perhaps, Reynolds believes, but maybe not quite so soon, and maybe that delay could have led to an even more horrific and destructive war. Harpers Ferry was one of the primary sparks that lit the flame of secession: the raid was believed by the South to have been backed by influential Northern abolitionists and the Republican Party, and Northern sympathetic reaction to Brown's hanging enraged Southerners and convinced many previous Unionists that there could be no living with a people so violently antipathetic to their way of life.
The irony was that the failure of Brown's raid served his cause far better a success would have: his serene composure in the face of his execution and the attention paid to him by both Southern and Northern newspapers helped to turn an otherwise violent rebel into a martyr to his cause, a man compared by many to Christ in his self-sacrificial death for the poor, downtrodden and oppressed. Brown the Man gave way to Brown the Legend, Brown the Martyr, and it was in the latter role that he had his greatest impact, serving as a polarising figure for the South and a unifying figure for the North.
David Reynolds places the enigma that was John Brown in his proper context, examining all of his actions in the light of the ongoing struggle against slavery. This exceptional biography is no hagiography and Reynolds doesn't excuse Brown's violent actions, perhaps the one aspect of his legacy that has been most troubling both to his contemporaries and to posterity. But, he argues, Brown's violence can only be understood by placing it within a very specific geo-political context - his militancy was not just a reaction against the violent activities of proslavery agitators, but was very much in-line with the traditions of slave revolt and rebellion that he was working to provoke. Brown, Reynolds argues, didn't just fight for black slaves; he used their own tactics of violent rebellion to aid their cause. He didn't just fight for the slaves; he fought, lived and died with them.
More...