|
|
|
|
|
|
John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights
written by David S. Reynolds
Studio : Vintage
by Vintage
Release Date : 2006-11-14
Publisher : Vintage
Released : 2006-11-14
Availability : Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Number of Items : 1
EAN : 9780375726156
Avg. Customer Rating: (based on 26 reviews)
List Price : $16.95
Our Price : $10.12
|
|
| |
|
Product Description |
An authoritative new examination of John Brown and his deep impact on American history.
Bancroft Prize-winning cultural historian David S. Reynolds presents an informative and richly considered new exploration of the paradox of a man steeped in the Bible but more than willing to kill for his abolitionist cause. Reynolds locates Brown within the currents of nineteenth-century life and compares him to modern terrorists, civil-rights activists, and freedom fighters. Ultimately, he finds neither a wild-eyed fanatic nor a Christ-like martyr, but a passionate opponent of racism so dedicated to eradicating slavery that he realized only blood could scour it from the country he loved. By stiffening the backbone of Northerners and showing Southerners there were those who would fight for their cause, he hastened the coming of the Civil War. This is a vivid and startling story of a man and an age on the verge of calamity. |
| |
|
| |
|
only partially correct |
I was disappointed with portions of this book. But again, it was not written by a historian.
In the first few chapters, Reynolds calls Harriet Beecher Stowe an adamant colonizationalist, without noting where the information came from. She did mention it in "Uncle Tom's Cabin," but stated afterward she was not supportive of it, although her father was.
It is obvious he is very sympathetic to John Brown. But he did do a very good job of portraying John Brown as the family man he was. John Brown's letters supports this. John Brown was also for equal rights for African Americans and women. This is supported by his statements, letters, and other documents.
But I would read other books, such as Stephen Oates, before I would use this one as reference. |
| |
|
When is a fanatic not a fanatic? |
Highly enjoyable read. Not written at arm's length; It's clear that Reynolds "gets" John Brown and the age he lived in, so his heart and imagination are fully engaged as he writes. He doesn't hide Brown's humanity however. What bothered me the most was that Brown seemed to harden his heart toward his wounded son at Harpers Ferry. (How it appeared to observers apparently.)
All in all though Thoreau and Emerson got it right when they quickly came to his defense after Harpers Ferry. Thoreau compared Brown on the scaffold to Christ on the cross.
If Brown had died at Harpers Ferry before the country could hear his defense and see the greatness of his character--his every word and behavior a challenge to the country to throw off the evils of slavery--history would no doubt have been different. Reynolds is redeeming Brown from neglect and misunderstanding to his rightful place as a heroic patriarch and patriot of America.
In our age when "true believers" are highly suspect, Brown's character and long-contemplated actions shine as an example of exactly how and when a "fanatic" is not a fanatic. Brown founded a community where blacks and whites lived together as equals. He lived out his religious and political beliefs fully, whole-heartedly, yet included others of different beliefs in his inner circle (his first lieutenant was an atheist).
I read mostly library books; this one I bought and buy for others. |
| |
|
Informative, a bit long, not as objective as one would hope |
David S. Reynolds background as a Professor of English Literature shows in this book: although focused on John Brown's life, you can see Professor Reynolds' interest in Mid 19th century literature on almost every page, with frequent and extensive discourses on John Browns' interactions-with and impact on many of the well known authors and orators of the day, such as Walt Whitman, Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Melville, and Emily Dickinson.
In general, Reynolds makes the argument that John Brown sparked the Civil War, and that he was a high minded, intensely religious man who was not as crazy, and not as violent, as history has led us to believe. He further argues that Brown was a man a century or more ahead of his time in terms of his attitudes towards racism, and foresaw where the war of words between the North and South over the future of slavery would inevitably lead.
Reynolds does a great job of helping us better understand Brown as a person; and brings to light many facets of his personality and life of which I'd been unaware, such as Brown's total acceptance of African Americans as equals in every respect - a stance that few, if any, whites had at the time (and is a viewpoint that is not as widely accepted as it should be, even today). The author demonstrates, quite rightly, that most other abolitionists of the time were not so much pro-African-American as they were against slavery and its impact upon America. Many were at best dismissive, and at worst rabidly against, accepting blacks as equals.
Reynolds comes across as an apologist for Brown, and seems to be attempting to justify some of Brown's bloodiest and most violent actions as merely being the unavoidable side effects of a man consumed with a passion against slavery. Those side effects included the deaths of several of his sons.
The book's pace is not the best, and hits some really slow spots here and there: especially when it reaches the aftermath of the Harper Ferry raid, where the author launches into a very extensive discourse on the impact of John Brown (and his execution) on American literature, thought, society and politics - again with a focus on the writers and orators of the day. These last chapters could have been reduced in length by half or more, with little loss in terms of content.
I question the author's repeated and strong emphasis on John Brown's strong Puritan faith as being a basis for his actions: this refrain starts to sound hollow after so many repetitions - as if he's hoping we'll get the message if he hits us with it enough times. As an inheritor of several centuries of that same Puritan tradition myself, many of his arguments concerning Brown's faith seem (at best) forced and overstated.
Reynolds' argument that John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry was the spark that started the Civil War is also overstated: While I think the raid certainly contributed to the paranoia of the time, particularly in the South, Reynolds' arguments that John Brown's attack and behavior following the raid destroyed the South's reputation for chilvalric military prowess and invincibility is not believable. The war was inevitable: Brown's Raid on Harpers Ferry may have raised emotions, but the South was already diligently preparing for war by the time the raid occurred. The attack, at best, hurried things along a bit, but in my view, the country was almost certain to fall apart soon after the election of 1860, regardless of who won the Presidency.
In the end, though with some significant flaws in terms of pacing, facts, and the arguments presented; this book is informative: it does bring out the nature of the man, and it helped me better appreciate his impact on the country and History. Dr. Reynolds' work especially helps us to understand Brown's impact upon many of the thought-leaders of the day, and how regional attitudes and cultural traditions played into the unfolding of events at the time and their impact on John Brown's own career and reputation during the trial, and in the years following his execution.
To better understand how racism changed and evolved after the Civil War, I'd strongly recommend the book "Race and Reunion" by David W. Blight. For a better understanding of the four regional cultures in America at the time (Appalachian, Southern, New England and Mid Atlantic), which play a major role in Reynold's text, I'd recommend "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America" by David Hackett Fischer.
"John Brown, Abolitionist" is a book that is worth the read, though its flaws limit the impact that it could have made, given the strong personality that is its subject. I give it a positive, but limited, recommendation.
|
| |
|
Relatively decent understanding of Brown, poor understanding of his times. |
Overall this book does not contribute significantly to an understanding of John Brown and his times. The strength of the book is within Reynolds grasp of Browns personal character. Reynolds convincingly demonstrates that John Brown was not crazy, at least from a clinical perspective. Also important is the way the book shapes how Brown's Calvinist views affected his own worldview. However, Reynolds often times errors in his analysis through his overt affinity for Brown. For instance, Reynolds too often takes Brown at his word, such as on the limited nature of his Harper's Ferry raid despite the solid evidence suggesting otherwise. If one wanted to understand the life of John Brown a much better choice of book would be Stephen Oates' biography on Brown.
As far as understanding Brown within the context of his time, this book hugely disappoints. Reynolds is not a historian and it shows (he is a professor of English). Even if we ignore the absurd contention that Brown had anything to do with the Civil Rights movement, there is plenty of reason to believe Brown had nothing more than a negligible effect on the coming of the Civil War.
From an epistemological standpoint, Reynolds is contending a revisionist interpretation as the cause for the Civil War (a war that could have been avoided had it not been for extremists on both sides). The key difference is that while typically revisionists see the war as a tragic consequence of blundering politicians among the free soil and fire-eater persuasion, Reynolds puts all the blame (or praise in this case) on John Brown. This of course ignores the traditional interpretation that sees the conflict as irrepressible. However, both schools of thought agree that events leading to Civil War were well put in place prior to Brown's raid in 1859. The Missouri Compromise, acquisition of Western lands from the Mexican war, the Compromise (or `armistice') of 1850, Kansas Nebraska Act, bleeding Kansas, the Dred Scott decision, and the Lecompton dispute, all significantly call into question Reynold's assertion that sectional hostilities were relatively tranquil prior to John Brown's raid. Perhaps one of Reynold's biggest blunders was emphasizing the significance of the abolitionist movement in the coming of the Civil War while completely ignoring the emergence of the much more significant free-soil Republican Party.
While the book does a relatively decent job of presenting Brown as a person, Stephen Oates remains the Brown standard bearer. As for the larger picture, Reynolds demonstrates a dismal understanding of antebellum politics.
|
| |
|
A frustrating read |
|
I expected Reynolds to write fluidly and clearly but he does not. The book turned out to be about two hundred pages too long. There aren't normal notes and many times I checked for them when I wanted to check a claim and found no note. His insensitivity to the role of Calvinism in Brown makes him overgeneralize claims and misidentify Brown as simply a Puritan. The book is marred by stylistic flaws that frustrate the reader and make the read an arduous one. In the end, it makes for an interesting even if one that makes the reader frustrated at the storyteller. |
| |
|
|
|
