An Argument Against the Idea of Principled Violence

2.23.16

    The issue of whether or not violence is ever justified is one we cannot choose to overlook. It is amongst the past’s most prevalent questions and today’s most pressing dilemmas. Throughout history, violence, a concrete and destructive force, has been used to defend values, which are abstract. This discord between the method and the cause has meant that violence, in the long term, has never provided a true solution to a problem. Because we do not have a set of universally accepted principles, the use of what some may consider to be principled violence often proves to further divide opposing groups rather than to serve the purpose of unifying them.

    However noble the cause, the method of violence can never be separated from its barbarous nature and be deemed noble in itself. It is usually accompanied by unnecessary bloodshed and messy power struggles. John Brown, a fiery white abolitionist who has been controversial since his time in the mid-19th century, embodies this truth. In 1859, he led a raid on an armory in Virginia in order to ignite a slave rebellion. His mission resulted in multiple civilian casualties and the death of many of his own men. The neat and effective raid he intended to achieve was foiled by the intrinsic wrongness of using violence to combat violence. Many justified his decision to take violent action as the lesser of two evils, since his goal was to end the appalling practice of slavery. The renowned American philosopher Henry David Thoreau was amongst them; he claimed he “[preferred] the philanthropy of Captain Brown to that philanthropy which neither [shot him] or [liberated him].” Where, however, was the philanthropy in Brown’s thoughtless massacre of innocent civilians? Where was the philanthropy in his previous actions in Kansas, when he ambushed pro-slavery settlers in the night and brutally murdered them in their own homes?

     In sinking to the level of the slaveholder, Brown violated the rule of loving thy enemy (issued by the God he claimed to follow), and the result was chaos. Some experts, such as Paul Finkelman, believe this failure was ascribed solely to the fact that Brown was “a bad tactician, a bad strategist, [and] a bad planner.” But even if Brown had meticulously planned out the raid in great detail, the end would have been no different. His actions played into the South’s greatest fear, and therefore polarized the two sides of the nation irrevocably, destroying any chance of a peaceful end to slavery. The Civil War began the very next year.

    The aftermath of violence is always saturated with resentment from those it has been inflicted upon, regardless of which side was more morally upstanding. The shedding of blood does not serve well as a lesson to change someone’s beliefs; rather, it only makes the victim more obstinate and fixed in their position. The war of brother against brother that Brown catalyzed meant five years of gruesome battle, after which the Confederacy was finally defeated, the slaves had been freed, and the Union seemed to have been brought together once again. However, although the South may have surrendered at Appomattox, they had not surrendered their beliefs. The rift between the free and formerly slave states had deepened rather than healed. As Republican government officials set about trying to integrate freedmen into society, Southern bitterness thrived. Democrats strove to force blacks back into plantation labor, limit their rights severely, and trap them in the lowest caste of society.

    Thus, violence breeds violence. Right before his execution, Brown famously prophesied that “the crimes of this guilty land [would] never be purged away but with blood.” But the blood of 600,000 Americans proved still not to be enough to scourge away the hateful zeal of Southern racists. From their animosity rose the Ku Klux Klan.

Attempts to resolve conflict peacefully have proved much more successful in the long term, because this unifies people instead of dividing them. Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance of the British occupation of India is perhaps one of the most stunning examples of this strategy. His determined protest in the face of Britain’s immense power inspired his country to rally behind him. This movement garnered the respect of his opposition, whereas violent rebellion would most certainly have caused anger, and been crushed. To return to American history, Martin Luther King Jr. was influenced by Gandhi’s wisdom, and implemented direct action to further the civil rights movement. He urged the American public to be “[extremists] for love” in order to demand justice. Of course, neither Gandhi nor MLK rid their nations of violence forever. But Gandhi secured India’s freedom, and MLK was an unparalleled activist for African-Americans. To this day, his methods are held in high regard by conservatives and progressives alike, while violent figures like John Brown remain highly controversial and divisive.

    Today, in southern states, streets and monuments are still named for Confederate generals. The Confederate flag is still proudly displayed by citizens, and the places that have taken it down have only done so reluctantly, in light of recent debate.     These are the remnants of a deep-rooted resentment against the violence of the Union. The use of aggression and brutality against evil is never productive because it is wrong in itself. Evoking the core of peaceful resistance, Dr. King once said that  “hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” If only we could learn from our own history and take this lesson to heart.