James P. Brochin
The purpose of this unit is to compare and contrast five Americans who intentionally killed for a cause, even if their actions were morally repugnant to most observers then and since: Nat Turner, John Brown, Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh, and James Charles Kopp. At first glance these men don't seem to belong on the same list. Some might even be outraged that Nat Turner is considered together with Timothy McVeigh. Charles Manson is widely regarded as insane. Whatever place they had on a religious-political spectrum, a fire, a passion of some kind, moved them to act; to further a cause, they were willing to have others die. Students will research these five men, and will come to their own conclusions about what characteristics or life history these men shared that might explain their ability to pull the trigger or order others to do so. Students will research the following: family history, marital status and/or issues with intimacy, employment and financial problems, history of violence, views of authority, religious beliefs, and affiliation with causes or groups. In no way do I intend to have students excuse murder by explaining causes that drove killers; nor do I intend to bring students to accept moral relativism. I start with the proposition that killing innocent people is always wrong. Students need to know that John Brown's Pottawatomie Massacre is no less evil than Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the Murrah Building, and to understand the danger from those who believe that the ends justify the means.
This investigative effort is a form of social science, an exercise in sociology: to find out what made these men willing to do what they did, before making judgments on the morality of it.Similar to what John Lewis Gaddis described in Chapter 4 of
The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past
, students are looking for independent variables that set these characters apart from the millions of others who believed deeply in causes but did not go around killing innocents.
I want to have students discover for themselves how a systematic sociological comparison of cases can reinforce an important moral principle, that those who come to be "true believers" (see discussion of Eric Hoffer's
The True Believer Below)
i.e. those willing to kill innocents for a cause are dangerous for society and represent the opposite of the ideal of civilized discourse.
As Hoffer suggest below, totalitarianism's roots lie in the cold heart of the resentful, the fanatic, and often the losers of society who latch onto a cause larger than themselves. Not all true believers kill the innocent, and not all totalitarian personalities wind up in charge of whole countries, as Lenin, Stalin, and Mao did.
Put another way, a fanatical belief system is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a person to become a domestic terrorist. What I ask my students to do is to link the two parts of the puzzle: the fanatical belief system with the actor's individual circumstances. Put together, these two parts of the puzzle combine to hand us a warning about what Isaiah Berlin called "positive liberty" -- the people who know what's best for you, and are willing to kill you if you don't agree.
In no way do I intend to have students excuse murder by explaining causes that some might agree with, or to bring students to accept moral relativism. I start with the proposition that killing innocent people is always wrong. Students need to know that John Brown's Pottawatomie Massacre is no less evil than Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the Murrah Building, and to understand the danger from those who believe that the ends justify the means.
In his short but influential book,
The True Believer,
Eric Hoffer describes the rise of mass movements, like Communism and Fascism. Hoffer's analysis may be useful here as well, despite the fact that most of the men we will study were loners rather than joiners. How? First, each of these men, although acting largely alone, saw themselves as acting within a movement of some kind: abolitionism (Turner and Brown), anarchism/antiestablishment (Manson), anti-big government (McVeigh), and the anti-abortion movement (Kopp). All but Manson maintained contact with the broader movements they saw themselves adherents of, even thought the acts that made them famous (or infamous) were carried out in isolation. So, some of Hoffer's descriptions may fit, as follows:
1) Reformers, and fanatics, can be dangerous:
-
"If anything ails a man," says Thoreau, "so that he does not perform his functions,
-
if he have a pain in his bowels even…he forthwith sets about reforming – the
-
world."
-
-
-
When hopes and dreams are loose in the streets, is well for the timid to lock doors,
-
shutter windows, and lie low until the wrath has passed. For there is often a
-
monstrous incongruity between the hopes, however noble and tender, and the
-
action which follows them. It is as if ivied maidens and garlanded youths were to
-
herald the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
2) Unhappy people, rather than acting out of self-interest, often identify with a holy
cause, and selflessness can be dangerous:
-
People who see their lives as irremediably spoiled cannot find a worth-while
-
purpose in self-advancement. They look on self-interest as on something tainted
-
and evil; something unclean and unlucky. Anything undertaken under the auspices
-
of the self seems to them foredoomed. Nothing that has its roots and reasons in the
-
self can be noble and good. Their innermost craving is for a new life — a rebirth —
-
or, failing this, a chance to acquire new elements of pride, confidence, hope, a
-
sense of purpose and worth by identification with a holy cause. There is no doubt
-
that in exchanging a self-centered for a selfless life we gain enormously in self-
-
esteem. The vanity of the selfless, even those who practice utmost humility, is
-
boundless.
3) Belief in a devil or enemy can motivate men to murderous acts. (Turner and
Brown's devils were slave owners or supporters of slavery. McVeigh's devil was the
federal government. Kopp's devil was abortion doctors.)
-
Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without
-
belief in a devil. Usually the strength of a mass movement is proportionate to the
-
vividness and tangibility of its devil.
Early on in the film
Mississippi Burning
, two FBI agents assigned to investigate the disappearance of three civil rights workers are discussing the civil rights movement:
Ward: "Some things are worth dying for." Anderson: "Down here, things are different; here, they believe that some things are worth killing for."
In this unit, I present students with a rogue's gallery of American history's best known and some less known killers, some claiming various levels of divine inspiration, some claiming revenge on the government, some claiming fidelity to some confused and radical economic or political theory. Whatever place they had on a religious-political spectrum, they acted with similar motives. A fire, a passion of some kind, moved them to act, and to further some cause, they were willing to have others die.
American history has long history of violence, much of it political. Four presidents assassinated, many unsuccessful attempts to do so. Mayors, governors, Congressmen attacked, threatened and killed. South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks nearly beat Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner to death on the Senate floor, using a shillelagh. The motive? Sumner had given an anti-slavery speech, "The Crime Against Kansas." While beating Sumner viciously in the head, Brooks says: "It is a libel, sir, a libel on the South. Kansas is none of yours, sir."
What will the long view, covering over 150 years of American history, reveal to high school students about the place of such individuals in American history?