Was John Brown a Terrorist? (No.)
Understanding how John Brown disrupted slavery without using terrorism
John Brown is often mischaracterized as a terrorist, particularly because of his actions at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry. But by any legal or historical definition of terrorism, Brown does not qualify. Instead, he waged a targeted moral war against the institution of slavery, not against civilians, not for political intimidation, and not for personal power. In this post, we’ll walk through what terrorism is, what John Brown actually did, and why understanding this difference matters.
TL;DR:
John Brown’s actions were radical but not terrorism. U.S. law defines terrorism as violence intended to intimidate civilians or influence government by fear. Brown didn’t do that. He tried to disrupt slavery by arming the enslaved, not coercing the enslavers.
What is terrorism?
The U.S. Code defines terrorism as violent acts that are illegal and appear intended to:
Intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
Influence government policy through intimidation or coercion;
Affect government conduct by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
John Brown’s actions don’t fit these criteria. His violence was targeted at armed pro-slavery forces and slaveholding institutions—not civilians. He didn’t seek to coerce people with fear. He tried to help the enslaved take back their freedom.
The ACTUAL terrorists: “border ruffians”
Leading up to the Civil War, pro-slavery Missourians known as "border ruffians" terrorized Kansas in an attempt to force it into becoming a slave state. From 1854–1858, they:
Attacked anti-slavery towns like Lawrence;
Prevented free citizens from voting;
Illegally stuffed ballot boxes;
Assaulted, intimidated, and killed civilians.
Missouri Senator David Atchison incited this violence openly, calling on Missourians to kill abolitionists and "cool their knives in the blood" of anti-slavery settlers. These acts perfectly match all modern legal definitions of terrorism.
Why John Brown went to Kansas
Brown’s sons moved to Kansas to vote for freedom. They were immediately targeted by border ruffians. Brown joined them—not to terrorize, but to protect his family. The infamous Pottawatomie incident, where Brown and his group killed five border ruffians, is often labeled terrorism. But:
These were not random civilians;
The victims were involved in violent threats against Brown’s family
The action, though deadly, was not meant to spread fear to the public
It was retaliation and preemptive defense—not a campaign of fear
The Harpers Ferry raid: revolt, not terror
At Harpers Ferry, Brown attempted to arm enslaved people to start a mass walkout from bondage. He aimed to collapse slavery by making it unworkable—not by killing enslavers or intimidating lawmakers. He didn’t kill civilians. He took hostages but tried to treat them respectfully. He wanted enslaved people to rise up and walk off plantations—not kill their enslavers.
Even though Brown planned armed resistance, his goal was freedom, not fear.
The terrorism double standard
Critics often claim that Brown’s violence makes him a terrorist, while ignoring the violent tactics of slaveholders, border ruffians, and the state itself. As the John Brown Project notes: Slavery is terrorism. Brown opposed it with force only when peaceful means failed.
If we call Brown a terrorist, we distort history. We equate him with the people who burned homes, rigged elections, and killed to protect slavery. In reality, Brown was more like a counter-terrorist. He stood up to injustice when no one else would.
Understanding the difference sharpens our view of resistance, justice, and how we remember history.
Sources and further reading:
U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331: Definition of terrorism
DeCaro, Louis A., Jr., Fire from the Midst of You (NYU Press)
DeCaro, Louis A., Jr., John Brown Today blog and podcast
Sinha, Manisha, The Slave’s Cause: A History of Abolition