Incapable of Compromise

John respected Moses and cultivated his friendship, but he was never going to allow that consideration to restrict his decisions in business or in politics. Driven, self-directed, skeptical of and perhaps incapable of compromise, John might try to seek accommodation, but always in the end he listened to his own counsel.

Charles Rappleye, Sons of Providence: The Brown Brothers, The Slave Trade, and The American Revolution, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 239.

When should people seek compromise & accommodation? That becomes the question when studying the lives of John & Moses Brown. What issues beg the need for compromise? What issues need a stubborn, unyielding mule stance? The two brothers constantly met up against one another in a battle of wills for the ages. Although time (and simple logic) would show the error of most of John's battles - the sheer audacity of his dissent is simply amazing. His driven personality made things happen. He desired relationships & harmony - but he was unwilling to allow either to dictate the decisions he made.

Which begs the question of how much stubborness must a leader have? The reality is that being a person of compromise can often make you weak & incapable of making the tough calls and forging ahead. Seeking & cultivating relationships may win you friends - but in the end you'll be passed over for the promotion. John Brown got things done. He was wrong in a lot of areas - but he got things done. In the end what is the real value in society - compromise or action? Which of those should we seek in ourselves & in our pursuit of teaching character development? And if at the end of the day it is our counsel we end up listening to anyway - have we really even showed any true compromise?