Comments on: John Brown and Harpers Ferry http://www.history4u.com/john-brown-and-harpers-ferry.html Real American History the way it was told in the 1800's. Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:40:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: admin http://www.history4u.com/john-brown-and-harpers-ferry.html#comment-90 admin Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:53:36 +0000 http://www.history4u.com/john-brown-and-harpers-ferry.html#comment-90 Hello Louis, I agree with you. There is no way to escape the bias of any culture from any time--past, present, or future. The 19th century certainly had their own propaganda machines. I'd like to feel that History4U is done in a conscientious manner. My only goal is to (re-)interest Americans in our own history by making the contents of a book published in 1899 available. Obviously, information is available today that was not available in the 1800's when the book was published. Hello Louis,

I agree with you. There is no way to escape the bias of any culture from any time–past, present, or future. The 19th century certainly had their own propaganda machines.

I’d like to feel that History4U is done in a conscientious manner. My only goal is to (re-)interest Americans in our own history by making the contents of a book published in 1899 available. Obviously, information is available today that was not available in the 1800’s when the book was published.

]]> By: Louis DeCaro Jr http://www.history4u.com/john-brown-and-harpers-ferry.html#comment-88 Louis DeCaro Jr Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:54:45 +0000 http://www.history4u.com/john-brown-and-harpers-ferry.html#comment-88 I'm a two-time biographer and student of John Brown the abolitionist. I've spent countless hours in archives and have done original research resulting in two books and some articles. I understand that contemporary history writing may present legitimate concerns for criticism, but on the other hand, surely you must be aware that the writing of history in the U.S. in the 19th century was heavily biased in its own right. In fact, the most victimized of historical figures was John Brown, who fell prey to a major shift of attitude in the 19th century, as the nation moved away from Reconstruction and into de jure segregation. Brown was not only misrepresented by white southern writers who had their own political reasons for attacking him, but also northerners who reflected differing attitudes and tended to infuse their portrayal of Brown based on those attitudes. So much of what was written about Brown for so long had little original research behind it, and most of it was centered around his role in Kansas, which itself was interpreted of all things by a "sympathetic" pacifist (Oswald Villard) who was also the grandson of abolitionist Wm Lloyd Garrison. This pacifist, while not motivated by race prejudice, clearly gave the 20th century a hostile view of Brown, and this was further picked up by writers like Robert Penn Warren and others who hated Brown for political reasons. Your estimation of Brown really reflects this revision, which is at least authentic to the era to which you appeal. But it really is not a return to truth or anything like that, which is what it seems you're attempting to do. You've only returned to the first, major revision, the one that fueled Brown writing for the next century. In more recent years, scholars like myself have done real archival work, and we've debunked a number of major claims by the old hackneyed writings on Brown. If you're interested in approaching truth, I assure you, you must revisit Brown and I suggest you read my two books. You seem to want to characterize him as not being wise, but if being wise is having the insight and character to go against the grain of a whole culture of racism and injustice in order to struggle for a despised people's rights, then I'd say Brown was far more wise than his generation, both North and South. I hope that your work in history is done in a conscientious manner rather than a propagandistic one. "History 4U" can have more than one meaning. Either you are seeking to give people a fair and thoughtful understanding, or you are simply writing history to suit your prejudices--history literally 4U. I’m a two-time biographer and student of John Brown the abolitionist. I’ve spent countless hours in archives and have done original research resulting in two books and some articles. I understand that contemporary history writing may present legitimate concerns for criticism, but on the other hand, surely you must be aware that the writing of history in the U.S. in the 19th century was heavily biased in its own right. In fact, the most victimized of historical figures was John Brown, who fell prey to a major shift of attitude in the 19th century, as the nation moved away from Reconstruction and into de jure segregation. Brown was not only misrepresented by white southern writers who had their own political reasons for attacking him, but also northerners who reflected differing attitudes and tended to infuse their portrayal of Brown based on those attitudes. So much of what was written about Brown for so long had little original research behind it, and most of it was centered around his role in Kansas, which itself was interpreted of all things by a “sympathetic” pacifist (Oswald Villard) who was also the grandson of abolitionist Wm Lloyd Garrison. This pacifist, while not motivated by race prejudice, clearly gave the 20th century a hostile view of Brown, and this was further picked up by writers like Robert Penn Warren and others who hated Brown for political reasons. Your estimation of Brown really reflects this revision, which is at least authentic to the era to which you appeal. But it really is not a return to truth or anything like that, which is what it seems you’re attempting to do. You’ve only returned to the first, major revision, the one that fueled Brown writing for the next century. In more recent years, scholars like myself have done real archival work, and we’ve debunked a number of major claims by the old hackneyed writings on Brown. If you’re interested in approaching truth, I assure you, you must revisit Brown and I suggest you read my two books. You seem to want to characterize him as not being wise, but if being wise is having the insight and character to go against the grain of a whole culture of racism and injustice in order to struggle for a despised people’s rights, then I’d say Brown was far more wise than his generation, both North and South. I hope that your work in history is done in a conscientious manner rather than a propagandistic one. “History 4U” can have more than one meaning. Either you are seeking to give people a fair and thoughtful understanding, or you are simply writing history to suit your prejudices–history literally 4U.

]]>