Militants have often been the ones to topple the old regime, but they have rarely been good at building a replacement. The Sons of Liberty helped start the Revolutionary War, but Washington and Franklin had to fight and end it, and they and others had to write the Constitution to get the successor government on a solid footing. Brown prompted slaveholders to challenge the Union militarily, but Lincoln was the one who ended slavery. Malcolm X energized black protest in the 1960s, but Martin Luther King did more to end segregation. The militants often get better historical treatment, being more dramatic and sure of themselves, but the pragmatists are the ones who actually move history forward in a way that lasts.
That is interesting that you say that your readers reacted more positively to Brown than Lincoln after reading your book, for that was not my reaction. The book clearly demonstrates how much more effective Lincoln was at ending slavery. Brown’s cause was righteous but his means were unjust. A certain type of person (the moralists?) will always find the militant approach more pure and satisfying even though in the end it doesn’t advance the cause and, usually, actually strengthens the opposition.
Your book and this post made me think of all the other times in American history where you see similar pragmatic versus militant factions. The civil rights movement comes to mind. And the gay rights movement, as well as the abortion debate. I wonder: was there ever a time when the militant approach was the right way to go?
Scary and sobering truth. This piece, like all of your essays, is thought provoking and insightful. Only correction I would make is to add an IF in the sentence at the beginning of the third paragraph ( IF it didn't have implications).
Militants have often been the ones to topple the old regime, but they have rarely been good at building a replacement. The Sons of Liberty helped start the Revolutionary War, but Washington and Franklin had to fight and end it, and they and others had to write the Constitution to get the successor government on a solid footing. Brown prompted slaveholders to challenge the Union militarily, but Lincoln was the one who ended slavery. Malcolm X energized black protest in the 1960s, but Martin Luther King did more to end segregation. The militants often get better historical treatment, being more dramatic and sure of themselves, but the pragmatists are the ones who actually move history forward in a way that lasts.
That is interesting that you say that your readers reacted more positively to Brown than Lincoln after reading your book, for that was not my reaction. The book clearly demonstrates how much more effective Lincoln was at ending slavery. Brown’s cause was righteous but his means were unjust. A certain type of person (the moralists?) will always find the militant approach more pure and satisfying even though in the end it doesn’t advance the cause and, usually, actually strengthens the opposition.
Your book and this post made me think of all the other times in American history where you see similar pragmatic versus militant factions. The civil rights movement comes to mind. And the gay rights movement, as well as the abortion debate. I wonder: was there ever a time when the militant approach was the right way to go?
Scary and sobering truth. This piece, like all of your essays, is thought provoking and insightful. Only correction I would make is to add an IF in the sentence at the beginning of the third paragraph ( IF it didn't have implications).
Thanks for the comment, and for catching the omission.