John Brown was a fierce abolitionist with a burning passion to end slavery. His beliefs ultimately led to his execution after the raid on the federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry, but despite his horrific acts he was morally justified in his actions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The first mention of John Brown comes after the massacre of five pro-slavery men at Pottawatomie Creek (American Pageant); some think Brown was too extreme (Letter from John Bridgman). Both Kennedy and Bridgman see his actions as an act of terror on the slave population, but when the issue of slavery is further analyzed (all 300+ years old) this "act of terror" is nothing compared to the brutal acts of torture . committed by supporters of slavery on African Americans. Thoreau shares this view: he believes that blacks, as well as whites, should receive the rights of the Constitution (A Plea for Captain John Brown). Of course, his argument is based on the premise that slavery is inhumane, which is correct about many aspects of slavery. In other words, John Brown shot and killed five men who had the potential to proliferate this unethical practice. Although John Brown was known to be one of the assassins, he was not captured until after his assault on Harper's Ferry. After recruiting about 20 men, including both blacks and whites, Brown attacked and captured the arsenal without firing a single shot, but he and his men were soon captured after a firefight in the streets (Africans in America). The willingness of both whites and blacks to die together for a cause indicates how morally motivated they are to end slavery. Today, people wonder why some challenge the political and social order out of passion for their cause, but once they learn that the cause is to end the inhumane treatment of a certain sentient being, they flock to the donation stands and register/enroll in the program. cause (online, of course). The same thing could be said of Brown's actions: he sacrificed his rights under the social contract with the government to penetrate pro-slavery advocates' ignorance of the horrors of slavery. Thoreau would have agreed with Brown's challenge to federation, which (loosely) allowed slavery to exist and persist. Ultimately, the justification for Brown's actions boils down to two reasons: moral or legal. From a legal perspective, Brown has killed United States citizens and attempted to use federal property in illegal ways, labeling him a traitor to the state. His actions speak for themselves: he deserved to be executed, but from a moral standpoint he also deserves to be praised for his efforts to end slavery. Both Bridgman and Kennedy's sources discuss Brown's actions and come to a conclusion, but they also do not discuss why he did them, at least not to the same extent that Thoreau and Africans in America do. In other words, Bridgman and Kennedy focus on Brown's legal punishment while Thoreau and Africans in America delve into the moral ramifications of his actions – ultimately, when it comes to the humanity and morality of an action, the ends are justified from the means. This can be seen today with Internet privacy rights: everyone deserves their privacy, but the government (more specifically, the NSA) plans to take it away by "legal" means for "legal" purposes. Please note: this is just a sample. Get a document now.