tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post1392548652225674534..comments2024-03-27T07:18:39.229-05:00Comments on In Medias Res: These Things Happen in Kansas (on John Brown and Abortion)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-72334144002535437692009-06-02T20:53:31.905-05:002009-06-02T20:53:31.905-05:00I've followed your conversation with Professor...I've followed your conversation with Professor Levy with some interest because, though I admittedly have no dog in the slavery fight which I believe is over in this country, I am very much a skeptic of the pro-choice position, but, like you, don't make decisions based solely upon it. <br /><br />However, I think that people’s positions on these questions depend as much on the general answers that we give concerning the legitimacy of the government as they do upon answers to particular policy questions. Thus, Brown was actually and rightly condemned by all of those who accepted the authority of the national government at the time (Harper's Ferry was relieved by RE Lee, but certainly not because Lee was a supporter of slavery and the abolitionists rejected the action because of their fundamental and hubristic antinomianism). The murder of the abortionist in Kansas should be treated as a criminal matter, which is what it is, unless, we believe that the evil of abortion is enough to de-legitimize the government. I don't think that many Americans believe this (I don't and, since you voted for a pro-abortion candidate, I don't believe that you do either). <br /><br />Politics is concerned with persuasion, after all. It is of course possible that some replay of the American War between the States will occur over abortion, but it seems more unlikely than a war over the capital gains tax. In the mean time, we should condemn actions that we feel to be immoral and explain to others why this is so, without concerning ourselves too much with self-serving pseudo-messiahs like Mr. Brown or the various abortion assassins.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-77082927208514415442009-06-02T16:14:16.602-05:002009-06-02T16:14:16.602-05:00Jacob, I guess I'm not entirely convinced that you...Jacob, I guess I'm not entirely convinced that your points three and four ("partly for the purpose of terrorizing others into changing their beliefs and behavior," and "in the sincere belief that what they were doing was justified by divine law or command") usually go together, and when they do are best packaged along with other charactertics as describing a "terrorist." Again, as I said in my post, I'll allow that what can be, conventionally and somewhat accurately, labelled "terrorism" might be the best way to talk about actions which, strictly speaking, I'm not sure are intended to be "terroristic"; as I also said, I acknowledge that this is perhas a ridiculously pedantic point. But in the end, my intuitive grasp of the matter is that the terrorist most fundamentally wants <I>me</I> to do something, and he's going to scare me into doing it, while the holy warrior--the John Brown type--is an arguably more admirable figure (not that I wouldn't want him arrested!), because following through on a call directly, as opposed to using others to accomplish that which he's failed to be able to do (or simply is too cowardly to do) on his own. Does that make any sense, or am I just digging myself in deeper here?Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-72560171497396416222009-06-02T10:09:49.597-05:002009-06-02T10:09:49.597-05:00Russell,
I may still not be seeing what you think...Russell,<br /><br />I may still not be seeing what you think the distinction is. Brown and Roeder both:<br /><br />-killed one or more persons they believed to be guilty of grave moral crimes;<br /><br />-partly for the purpose of killing those actual persons and preventing the crimes from continuing;<br /><br />-and partly for the purpose of terrorizing others into changing their beliefs and behavior;<br /><br />-in the sincere belief that what they were doing was justified by divine law or command.<br /><br />And all of this is equally true of any Hamas terrorist blowing up Israeli civilian settlers for the moral crime of inhabiting land that is not theirs (whether they blow themselves up in the process or not; the "suicide" part of "suicide bomber" is irrelevant to the question of terrorism).<br /><br />Some terrorists do target people they know to be innocents, in order to simply create an atmosphere of fear and try to blackmail a government into meeting their demands. But it's also pretty common for them to target persons they consider to be part of a guilty class. <br /><br />Or am I still missing the intuition you're trying to grab onto?Jacob T. Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02575549001627195334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-29763136116563585182009-06-01T15:39:34.490-05:002009-06-01T15:39:34.490-05:00...but unquestionably his crime was an act of terr...<I>...but unquestionably his crime was an act of terrorism.</I>I agree, which is one of the reasons I draw the distinction between him and a John Brown. (Would that same distinction apply between him and a suicide bomber? I don't know. Possibly.) Ultimately, in a relatively free society like our own, anyway, acts of terror are actions of bitterness, contempt, and frustration--the people/the law/the Constitution isn't doing what I want it to!! So I'll scare people, punish people, so as to accomplish my aims indirectly, through their reactions, rather than through actually making the process work.Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-50205454580227009592009-06-01T15:26:45.046-05:002009-06-01T15:26:45.046-05:00Ezra Klein writes that "Tiller was murdered so tha...Ezra Klein <A HREF="http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/06/terror-should-not-pay.html" REL="nofollow">writes</A> that "Tiller was murdered so that those in his line of work would be intimidated." -- I think that's pretty accurate. Possibly the personal motivations of his killer ought to be taken into account when deciding whether he's a "terrorist" -- although I reckon you could accurately say of most suicide bombers in the middle east that they believe they are on a holy war, rather than cooly calculating the odds of terrorizing the population of Israel -- but unquestionably his crime was an act of terrorism. There is a reason that Dr. Tiller was one of the only doctors in the United States who performed late-term abortions; Operation Rescue's tactics of intimidation and terrorism have been successful over the years.The Modesto Kidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13495938191100565263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-71424641600957528092009-06-01T13:03:03.275-05:002009-06-01T13:03:03.275-05:00Jacob,
I think there's a difference between killi...Jacob,<br /><br /><I>I think there's a difference between killing the slaveowner and killing the supporter of slavery. The latter is aimed at terrorizing others into changing their politics; it's useless in itself.</I>But didn't Brown and his followers believe that those they were hacking to bits in Pottowatomie <I>were</I> slave-owners? Certainly they were connected to the proslavery movement which just days before had organized an attack on Lawrence. Brown himself later declared that he was "doing God's service" in killing the settlers, which suggests to me that he saw them not as innocents whose murder could work to terrorize others, but rather as people directly involved in the evil phenomenon he's pledged to destroy.<br /><br />I suppose this is getting overly pedantic, but I do think there's a relevant point in there, somewhere.<br /><br /><I>and also to encourage anti-slavery northerners to use violence in self-defense against pro-slavery terrorism on the other side</I>Here I'll concede your defense of the Brown-as-terrorist usage; Brown clearly <I>did</I> hope his direct actions against slaveowners and supporters of slavery would show other abolitionists the virtue of violent resistance to "slave power," thus giving themselves another tool beyond Garrison's moral superiority.<br /><br />Incidentally, I think this explains something about Frederick Douglass's reaction to Brown. He clearly thought the man was nuts, that his actions in Kansas were atrocious and his planned raid on Harper's Ferry was suicide...but neither did he discourage him. Perhaps Douglass recognized the usefulness of having a "terrorist" out there as a counterpoint to Garrison's pacific separationism, thus allowing his own more aggressive--but still "political"--brand of abolitionism to get a greater hearing.Russell Arben Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03366800726360134194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-40313635607736273912009-06-01T12:40:04.526-05:002009-06-01T12:40:04.526-05:00Hm. I think there's a difference between killing ...Hm. I think there's a difference between killing the slaveowner and killing the supporter of slavery. The latter is aimed at terrorizing others into changing their politics; it's useless in itself. Whereas the killing of the slaveowner can presumably be seen as part of the violent freeing of some particular group of slaves. Conceivably, there's a double-effect justification for killing slaveowners as part of a slave revolt or direct act of liberation. But killing to change the local balance of political opinion (whether by getting pro-slavery people to flee or getting them to shut up or getting them to change their minds) doesn't meet the double-effect test, because the bad act just is the chosen means. <br /><br />So I think Pottawatomie was terrorism, and that Brown there was a terrorist, though the same is not true of Harpers Ferry (and not only because the HF attack failed before it could incite a widespread revolt). He was a terrorist in a just cause, and in an environment where there was terrorism being practiced on both sides, but a terrorist nonetheless.<br /><br />You say<br /><br />"I don't think he was trying to terrorize some select group of people into moving away or changing their ways. No, I think he believed he was on a holy war, and that holy war was to kill those who own slaves and those who supported slavery."<br /><br />No, the holy war was to *end slavery.* One tactical goal in that war was to make Kansas a free state. And the means to that end were to change the local population in Kansas to be majority anti-slavery. Presumably he didn't plan to kill so many pro-slavery voters as to materially affect the population balance-- but he did aim to kill *enough* supporters of slavery to "terrorize some select group of people into moving away or changing their ways" [and also to encourage anti-slavery northerners to use violence in self-defense against pro-slavery terrorism on the other side]. That was the chosen means.<br /><br />We don't restrict the word "terrorist" to nihilists who want to inspire terror for its own sake. We use it for those whose chosen means are the means of violent terror pour encourager les autres, as a tactic in their war, holy or otherwise.Jacob T. Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02575549001627195334noreply@blogger.com