To No Surprise, Sam Negus in The National Review Has Gotten John Brown All Wrong

I'm glad that my piece in Christianity Today a few weeks ago, arguing that John Brown is a model for white Christians, has upset Sam Negus, a contributor to The National Review. It was just called to my attention that Negus attempted to write a high-brow-top-down conservative response entitled, "John Brown is No Model For Christians," published in the TNR on July 3. By the way, I'm also identified in TNR as "Luis" DeCaro. Of course, as a "Mediterranean Latino" (Italians are Latinate too), I'm fine with being "Luis." But I'm tempted to read that snafu between the lines, as I suspect Negus himself made that slip. I wonder if it suggests something--like I must be a Latino to have these very "subversive" ideas about "American" history? lol

(I don't have a subscription to that rightwing apparatus but the audio is available). At any rate, I will publish my short response here and on some other platforms, just for the record:

---

Sam Negus has published a rejoinder in The National Review to my piece in Christianity Today, arguing that John Brown is a model for white Christians. Of course, he's preaching to the choir. Of course, also, Negus is greatly mistaken in both his argument and his assessment of Brown. Certainly, his argument is only theoretical as to what was accessible to Brown vis-a-vis the Constitution. In reality--contra Negus--the South was already contemplating secession and was not accepting of the so-called "middle course" that Negus suggests. Brown knew that if the Dems did not win the '60 election, they were going to secede and take 4 million victims with them and then expand slavery, which was their real agenda. The other problem is that Negus' reading of Pottawatomie is unsurprisingly flawed. The five men killed were aiding proslavery terrorists & the "bogus court" (historians agree it was foisted upon Kansas) was using the law and proslavery thugs to enforce it. The Browns, targeted and without protection as abolitionists, struck first. Negus’ ignorance of the real politics of Kansas, reliance upon hackneyed readings of Brown, and his glorification of antebellum Republican moderates are flawed. Negus salutes Fred. Douglass, and yet Douglass' own assessment of Brown contradicts his questionable reading. He clearly knew nothing of Negus' malign and mistaken assessment. And mirrored in Negus' treatment, too, is Douglass' own contention that Lincoln was primarily driven by white people's interests.--LD