Post by ignorantianescia on Sept 24, 2013 17:56:14 GMT
The lethally proactive abolitionist John Brown has a reputation of being a beardful of religiously inspired craziness. This story seems to be quite influential in popular and textbook history, but also in the histories of academics who aren't specialised on Brown. It's also the version I have picked up somewhere.
But recently I came across a reference to one James Loewen, who argues that Brown was a sane but violent abolitionist and that the mental version is the result of distortion by Lost Cause historians, an explanation that seems plausible enough judging from their track record. There is a catch however, because Loewen evidently has a strong bias himself. This elaborate article (roughly 2/5th down) and the actual experts quoted on Wikipedia largely seem to support Loewen on this particular point, with some others disagreeing.
So my question is, what version would you, especially if you're a historian, recommend to accept about the issue?
But recently I came across a reference to one James Loewen, who argues that Brown was a sane but violent abolitionist and that the mental version is the result of distortion by Lost Cause historians, an explanation that seems plausible enough judging from their track record. There is a catch however, because Loewen evidently has a strong bias himself. This elaborate article (roughly 2/5th down) and the actual experts quoted on Wikipedia largely seem to support Loewen on this particular point, with some others disagreeing.
So my question is, what version would you, especially if you're a historian, recommend to accept about the issue?
