Rev. Pfleger As A Modern John Brown

I was tempted to describe Mary Mitchell as a Chicago Sun Times columnist who sees Barack Obama as the Second Coming, but upon re-reading her column today it strikes me that she may well see him as the First.

Her heart goes out to the eight thousand congregants of Rev. Wright’s Trinity United, not because of anything they are subjected to inside the church but because they are “hostages” to the mean, “fearmongering” politics on the outside. Indeed, she sees nothing inside the church but people, “just like other people, [who] go to church looking for comfort,” but as result of ugly politics” — all of which is directed at the 8000 hostages from outside — “the sanctity of Trinity has been trampled.”

Mitchell, in short, writes in solidarity with those “Trinitarians [who] jumped to their feet hooting and hollering” in response to Rev. Pfleger et. al., and she bitterly resents the fact that “Obama has repeatedly been forced to cut ties with black leaders by people who are exploiting white fears….”

She does, however, get one thing about right.

In the footsteps of John Brown

Pfleger, who has raised holy hell about racist policies, including those fostered by churches under the umbrella of the archdiocese, has been a modern-day John Brown.

For those who are fuzzy about history, in 1859, Brown was the white abolitionist who led an attack on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, trying to arm blacks for an assault on slaveholders.

They were stopped before carrying out the plan, but the insurrection put the South on notice that there were abolitionists willing to wage fierce battle to end slavery in America.

Although no one proposes that Pfleger be hung as a traitor, as John Brown was, this comparison is more apt than Mitchell suspects. In his zeal to free the slaves by arming them with weapons to be captured at Harpers Ferry, Brown was actually responsible for the deaths of several.

Initially, the raid went well, and they met no resistance entering the town. They cut the telegraph wires and easily captured the armory, which was being defended by a single watchman. They next rounded up hostages from nearby farms, including Colonel Lewis Washington, great-grand-nephew of George Washington. They also spread the news to the local slaves that their liberation was at hand. Things started to go wrong when an eastbound Baltimore & Ohio train approached the town. The train’s baggage master tried to warn the passengers. Brown’s men yelled for him to halt and then opened fire. The baggage master, Hayward Shepherd, became the first casualty of John Brown’s war against slavery. Ironically, Shepherd was a free black man. Two of the hostages’ slaves also died in the raid.

That Brown’s raid would result in additional victimization of the victims of slavery was not ironical at all, but entirely predictable. In fact it was predicted by Frederick Douglass, the black abolitionist.

In late August he met with Douglass in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, where he revealed the Harpers Ferry plan. Douglass expressed severe reservations, rebuffing Brown’s pleas to join the mission. Douglass had actually known about Brown’s plans from early in 1859 and had made a number of efforts to discourage blacks from enlisting.

Both Brown and, if Ms. Mitchell is to be believed, his modern counterpart, Rev. Pfleger, were honest and up front about their radicalism. In that regard they are actually more appealing Obama, who has so far succeeded in disguising his.

Obama’s success to date in keeping his radicalism under wraps will be severely compromised by anyone who reads Stanley Kurtz’s explosive exposé on NRO. Almost everyone who comments on Obama’s Trinity problem goes out of his or her way to emphasize that no one really suspects Obama himself shares Wright’s or Pfleger’s views. Drawing on an underappreciated profile of Obama that appeared in 1995, Kurtz does more than suspect. Read it.

Say What? (13)

  1. Nobody June 3, 2008 at 4:17 pm | | Reply

    “…but the insurrection put the South on notice that there were abolitionists willing to wage fierce battle to end slavery in America…”

    Rest assured, Ms. Mitchell, plenty of whites on notice. Am I wrong in noticing that Douglass apparently did nothing to alert the local authorities of Brown’s plan? He only told the Borthers that something was up? Sounds familiar. And Shepherd’s death reminds me of one of the cops killed in Nyack by the disgusting leftists (that included Kathy Boudin she is pals with Bill Ayerswho is one of Obama’s buddys). Her little article reminded me what slime people like her and Obama are. These leftists had better be careful what they wish for if they are looking for radicalismand revolution, they just might get it.

  2. Cobra June 3, 2008 at 5:41 pm | | Reply

    So is your point that John Brown was “wrong” to be an abolitionist?

    –Cobra

  3. Anita June 3, 2008 at 7:45 pm | | Reply

    if the radicals are right about the US and they have to lie to get in the white house, why bother? is it the belief that once in, the radicals will manage to have it all their way, regardless or what anyone else thinks or that they will convince everyone of their views.

    people like mitchell and the other writer williams and many people say that mrs obama is right about the US – but don’t tell anyone because they won’t vote for her. In other words, lie in order to deceive the stupid majority of the population who so foolishly don’t believe their country is bad.

    the whole thing is amazing. Is there any other place on earth where a person who loathes a country would even think of wanting to run it. Imagine Mrs. Obama in kenya telling the kenyans how much she can’t stand them and saying vote for my husband so I can become first lady.

  4. John Rosenberg June 3, 2008 at 10:01 pm | | Reply

    So is your point that John Brown was “wrong” to be an abolitionist?

    No, I admire the abolitionists, many of whom (like Frederick Douglass) opposed Brown’s raid. I think Brown was a classic zealous fanatic who saw no problem with killing some blacks in order to aid other blacks, rather like destroying the village in order to save it.

  5. Lou DeCaro Jr. June 4, 2008 at 7:49 am | | Reply

    The problem with references to John Brown the abolitionist, both those made by people critical of him or by people who admire him, is that they are often fraught with historical inaccuracies. Brown is the most misunderstood, gossiped-about historical figure in the U.S.A. As a biographer of the man, I would point out that Brown never intended to launch an insurrection, which he saw as entailing a violent strike at slave masters with the intention of doing harm. Brown intended no aggression against slave masters apart from setting their oppressed people free; he was determined to fight only defensively. Douglass knew this was his plan, so did his men. It was the South–supported by the Republicans (who bent over backwards to keep the Union, even at the price of human rights), who created the version of the Harpers Ferry raid that we have inherited.

    Second, it always amazes me when white people refer to Brown as a fanatic because he was willing to fight for black peoples’ freedom. When whites fight for their own freedom–whether the war is necessary or not–it is never considered fanatical.

    Third, Douglass did not oppose Brown’s raid as one of your commenting readers says. He opposed Brown’s decision to go into Harper’s Ferry; even so, Douglass knew less about the armory/arsenal than Brown did; it was not even guarded militarily, so it was not a “perfect steel trap.” Brown blew it, believe it or not, because he got caught up in the whining, weepy fears of the slave holders he had taken hostage. He actually threw away a perfectly good escape opportunity and failed to launch his program because he delayed out of sympathy. That’s a matter of record, although people seem intent on keeping the “official” record of Brown going.

    Finally, to blame Brown for the deaths of some blacks who followed him (free and enslaved died in the raid) is kind of silly. There’s no such thing as a military venture without casualties, and Brown lost black and white men, including two sons. He knew the risks involved, and the men with him knew it too. So what? At least it was a bona fide liberation attempt–not a bloody Alamo, where the “last stand” and loss of life was essentially based upon a lust for land and the expansion of slavery; nor was it a so-called war for freedom, the likes of which we’re trying to get out of now. All these weak comparisons and references to Brown vis a vis the current political scenario are tiring and self-serving. Let history be history. Or at least get the facts straight.

  6. Shouting Thomas June 4, 2008 at 8:35 am | | Reply

    John,

    Your comments section, in my opinion, has been rendered useless and trivial since it is now given over entirely to the ravings of a racist madman.

    But, it’s your call.

    I’ll read the front page, but I’ve given up on the blog as a place for sane discussion.

    Keep up the good work.

  7. Laura(southernxyl) June 4, 2008 at 2:51 pm | | Reply

    Cobra, what do you think about pro-lifers who blow up abortion clinics?

  8. Anita June 5, 2008 at 10:15 am | | Reply

    Cobra asks John to show he is not a racist and John obliges. That is race relations in the US in a nutshell

  9. Cobra June 5, 2008 at 6:59 pm | | Reply

    Lou DeCaro Jr,

    That was a very informative and illuminating post. I would hazard to guess you won’t get many responses to it, but don’t let that stop you from lending your perspectives on other topics. It’s a welcome sight here.

    Anita writes:

    >>>”Cobra asks John to show he is not a racist and John obliges. That is race relations in the US in a nutshell.”

    Not at all. John was citing an analogy of John Brown with Rev. Pfleger, and in this instance:

    >>>”Both Brown and, if Ms. Mitchell is to be believed, his modern counterpart, Rev. Pfleger, were honest and up front about their radicalism.”

    I asked him if John Brown was “wrong” to be an abolitionist, which was at the core of his movement, and John stated that he admired the abolitionists, but characterized him as a “fanatical zealot”.

    If the analogy holds true, does John Rosenberg also “admire” black liberation theologists, but just have a problem with the more “radical” of the movement?

    Just for the record, Anita–what is YOUR opinion of the abolitionist movement?

    Laura writes:

    >>>”Cobra, what do you think about pro-lifers who blow up abortion clinics?”

    Different matter entirely. One doesn’t have to go to an abortion clinic to end a pregnancy. There’s no law forcing women to have abortions, therefore, the ultimate choice to have one is left up to her.

    That’s why it’s a misguided strategy, IMHO and not analogous to “freeing slaves.”

    –Cobra

  10. Laura(southernxyl) June 6, 2008 at 11:54 am | | Reply

    Cobra, the analogy is not to the women having abortions. The analogy is to the unborn babies who are aborted without being given a choice. They are dehumanized so they can be killed to serve (in many cases) the convenience or economic wellbeing of the mothers. It is extremely analogous to slavery, in which some humans were dehumanized for the same reasons.

  11. Cobra June 9, 2008 at 11:37 am | | Reply

    Laura writes:

    >>>”The analogy is to the unborn babies who are aborted without being given a choice. They are dehumanized so they can be killed to serve (in many cases) the convenience or economic wellbeing of the mothers. It is extremely analogous to slavery, in which some humans were dehumanized for the same reasons.”

    But what would your parallel to John Brown be in regards to the abortion clinic bomber? Like I said, there are certainly other methods for a woman to end a pregnancy, but you’re essentially equating a pregnant woman with a slave owner, since they both would be the “guilty party” in your analogy.

    I don’t think you want to venture to far down that road, Laura.

    –Cobra

  12. Laura(southernxyl) June 9, 2008 at 8:14 pm | | Reply

    Why not?

    However, I suspect John doesn’t want to see his comment section devolve into a discussion of abortion.

  13. John Rosenberg June 9, 2008 at 10:50 pm | | Reply

    … I suspect John doesn’t want to see his comment section devolve into a discussion of abortion

    Your suspicion is well-justified.

Say What?