John Brown, Soldier of Fortune: A Critique
by Hill Peebles Wilson · English · Gutenberg #41582 · 892,321 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of John Brown, Soldier of Fortune: A Critique
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: John Brown, Soldier of Fortune: A Critique
Author: Hill Peebles Wilson
Release date: December 8, 2012 [eBook #41582]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41582
Credits: Produced by V. L. Simpson, Josephine Paolucci and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net.
(This file was produced from images generously made
available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK JOHN BROWN, SOLDIER OF FORTUNE: A CRITIQUE ***
John Brown
Soldier of Fortune
A Critique
[Illustration: John Brown]
JOHN BROWN
SOLDIER OF FORTUNE
_A Critique_
BY
HILL PEEBLES WILSON
[Illustration]
_Mr. Vallandigham_: Mr. Brown, who sent you here?
_John Brown_: No man sent me here; it was my own prompting
and that of my Maker, or that of the Devil, whichever you
please to ascribe it to. I acknowledge no master in human
form.
_Post, 313_
THE CORNHILL COMPANY
BOSTON
Copyright, 1913
HILL PEEBLES WILSON
Copyright, 1918
THE CORNHILL COMPANY
TO THE MEMORY OF
MRS. SARA T. D. ROBINSON
OF KANSAS
PREFACE
The writer of this book is not an iconoclast, neither has he prejudged
John Brown. In 1859 the character was impressed upon his attention in a
personal way. An older brother, Joseph E. Wilson, was a member of the
company of marines that made the assault on the engine-house at Harper's
Ferry, on the morning of October 18th; and from him he heard the story
of the fight, and about Brown.
In 1889 the Topeka (Kansas) _Daily Capital_ took a poll of the members
of the Kansas Legislature on the question: "Who was the most
distinguished Kansan?" or something to that effect. At that time the
writer held the opinion that the public services rendered by John Brown
in Kansas Territory, were of paramount importance in the settlement of
the Free-State contention; and since the course which the nation was at
that time pursuing had been arrested by the result of that contention,
and diverted into the path which led to the marvelous achievements of
the succeeding years; he, therefore, over his signature cast his vote in
favor of John Brown; saying, among other things, in his little
panegyric, that Brown is the only Kansan whose fame was immortal.
In 1898 he reformed his opinions concerning Brown's character and
conduct, and the importance of his public services in Kansas. The change
came about through an effort on his part to write a sketch of his life
for a work entitled "Eminent Men of Kansas." In good faith, and with
much of the confidence and enthusiasm characteristic of Brown's
eulogists, he began an investigation of the available historical data
relating to the subject; when he found to his surprise, and disgust,
that the history of Brown's career contained nothing to justify the
public estimate of him.
Reporting to his associate that he would not write the sketch, he said
that he "could find but little in the record of his life which gave him
creditable distinction, and that he did not wish to write the
discreditable things about him which it contained."
Later he gathered up the threads of Brown's life and has woven them,
conscientiously, into the web of history. The story reveals little which
is creditable to Brown or worthy of emulation and much that is
abhorrent. But he indulges the hope that he has made it clear that his
conceptions of the character have not been inspired by "prejudice,"
"blind" or otherwise, for he has examined the records in the case; an
examination which has led him through all the existing testimony
concerning Brown; except, that he has not explored the writings which
have been put forth by those who have sought, viciously, to attack
Brown's character. The opinions therefore which he has set forth are
convictions resulting from serious investigation and thought.
In conclusion, the author takes great pleasure in acknowledging the deep
sense of his obligation to the late Mrs. Sara T. D. Robinson, wife of
Charles Robinson of Kansas, whose generosity, and deep interest in the
history of our country, made the publication of this book possible.
Also, he desires to express his gratitude to Dr. William Watson Davis,
of the University of Kansas, for the cordial encouragement which he
received from him while preparing the work, and for his kindly
assistance in molding the text into its present form. Also, to Dr.
William Savage Johnson, and to Professor William Asbury Whitaker, Jr.,
both of the University of Kansas, he wishes to return his thanks for
many valuable suggestions.
Lawrence, Kansas, April 15, 1913.
CONTENTS
I THE SUBJECT MATTER 15
II THE MAN 26
III KANSAS--A CRISIS IN OUR NATIONAL HISTORY 55
IV HIS PUBLIC SERVICES 72
V ROBBERY AND MURDER ON THE POTTAWATOMIE 95
VI BLACK JACK 135
VII OSAWATOMIE 154
VIII HYPOCRISY 181
IX A SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 223
X THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT 243
XI THE SHUBEL MORGAN PLUNDER COMPANY 259
XII MOBILIZING THE PROVISIONAL ARMY 283
XIII THE FIASCO 296
XIV A PERVERSION OF HISTORY 323
XV HIS GREAT ADVENTURE 341
XVI A SOLDIER OF THE CROSS 364
XVII "YET SHALL HE LIVE" 395
APPENDICES
I CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE LATE D. W.
WILDER CONCERNING JOHN BROWN 411
II RECOLLECTIONS OF JOHN BROWN AT HARPER'S
FERRY BY ALEXANDER BOTELER, A VIRGINIAN
WHO WITNESSED THE FIGHT 414
III CONSTITUTION AND ORDINANCE FOR THE PEOPLE
OF THE UNITED STATES 417
IV JOHN BROWN'S AUTOBIOGRAPHY 431
ILLUSTRATIONS
JOHN BROWN Frontispiece
Steel engraving made from a photograph compared with a
photogravure. The photograph was taken about 1859. Original
in the Kansas State Historical Society. The photogravure is
from Mr. Oswald Garrison Villard's book: John Brown--A
Biography Fifty Years After.
JOHN BROWN facing page 98
Steel engraving, made as above. The photograph was copied
from a daguerreotype taken in 1856. Original in the Kansas
State Historical Society.
CHAPTER I
THE SUBJECT MATTER
_Truth, crushed to earth shall rise again;_
--BRYANT
The object of the writer, in publishing this book, is to correct a
perversion of truth, whereby John Brown has acquired fame, as an
altruist and a martyr, which should not be attributed to him.
The book is a review of the historical data that have been collected and
published by his principal biographers: Mr. James Redpath, Mr. Frank B.
Sanborn and Mr. Oswald Garrison Villard. It is also a criticism of these
writers, who have sought to suppress, and have suppressed, important
truths relating to the subject of which they wrote, and who have
misinformed and misled the public concerning the true character of this
figure in our national history; and have established in its stead a
fictitious character, which is wholly illogical and inconsistent with
the facts and circumstances of Brown's life.
Mr. Redpath, his first and most lurid biographer, was a newspaper
correspondent of the type now generally called "yellow." He was a
"Disunionist," and seems to have been a malcontent, who went to Kansas
Territory to oppose the policy which the Free-State men had adopted for
a safe and sane solution of the Free-State problem; and who sought to
thwart their efforts to create a free state by peaceable means. He
said:[1]
I believed that a civil war between the North and South
would ultimate in insurrection and that the Kansas troubles
would probably create a military conflict of the sections.
Hence, I left the South, and went to Kansas; and endeavored
personally, and by my pen, to precipitate a revolution.
After Brown's spectacular fiasco in Virginia, and tragical death, his
cultured partisans, in most conspicuous eloquence proclaimed him to have
been a philanthropist--an altruistic hero; and placed a martyr's crown
upon his brow. Mr. Redpath's purpose, in putting forth his work, was to
make Brown over to fit the part; to make his life appear to conform with
the extravagant attributes of his improvised estate. In pursuance
thereof he sought to conceal the facts concerning the actions and
purposes of his life, rather than to develop them; and to blind the
trails leading to the facts with masses of sentimental rubbish; and to
divert public attention away from them. Upon the publication of his
book, _The Public Life of Captain John Brown_, Mr. Charles Eliot Norton,
in a review of the work, expressed his disapproval of it in vigorous
language. He said:[2]
It would be well had this book never been written. Mr.
Redpath has understood neither the opportunities opened to
him, nor the responsibilities laid upon him, in being
permitted to write the "authorized" life of John Brown. His
book, in whatever light it is viewed--whether as the
biography of a remarkable man, as an historic narrative of
a series of important events, or simply as a mere piece of
literary job-work--is equally unsatisfactory....
There never was more need for a good life of any man than
there was for one of John Brown.... Those who thought best
of him, and those who thought the worst, were alike
desirous to know more of him than the newspapers had
furnished, and to become acquainted with the course of his
life, and the training which had prepared him for Kansas
and brought him to Harper's Ferry. Whatever view be taken
of his character, he was a man so remarkable as to be well
worthy of study....
In seasons of excitement, and amid the struggles of
political contention, the men who use the most extravagant
and the most violent words have, for a time, the advantage;
but, in the long run, they damage whatever cause they may
adopt; and the truth, which their declamations have
obscured or their falsehoods have violated, finally asserts
itself.... Extravagance in condemnation has been answered
by extravagance in praise of his life and deeds.
Twenty-five years later, when Mr. Sanborn published his book, _Life and
Letters of John Brown, Liberator of Kansas, and Martyr of Virginia_, Mr.
John F. Morse, Jr., voiced the disappointment felt by discriminating
persons, in an article published in February, 1886.[3] He said:
So grand a subject cannot fail to inspire a writer able to
do justice to the theme; and when such an one draws Brown,
he will produce one of the most attractive books in the
language. But meantime the ill-starred "martyr" suffers a
prolongation of martyrdom, standing like another St.
Sebastian to be riddled with the odious arrows of fulsome
panegyrists. With other unfortunate men of like stamp, he
has attracted a horde of writers, who, with rills of
versicles and oceans of prose, have overwhelmed his simple
noble memory beneath torrents of wild extravagant
admiration, foolish thoughts expressed in appropriately
silly language, absurd adulation inducing only protest and
a dangerous contradictory emotion. Amid this throng of ill
advised worshippers, Mr. Sanborn, by virtue of his lately
published biographical volume, has assumed the most
prominent place.
Referring to the opinions expressed by these writers, Mr. Villard, in
the preface to his book, _John Brown, A Biography Fifty Years After_,
says: "Since 1886 there have appeared five other lives of Brown,[4] the
most important being that of Richard J. Hinton, who, in his preface
gloried in holding a brief for Brown and his men." Concerning his book
he says:
The present volume is inspired by no such purpose, but is
due to a belief that fifty years after the Harper's Ferry
tragedy, the time is ripe for a study of John Brown, free
from bias, from the errors of taste and fact of the mere
panegyrist, and from the blind prejudice of those who can
see in John Brown nothing but a criminal. The pages that
follow were written to detract from or champion no man or
set of men, but to put forth the essential truths of
history as far as ascertainable, and to judge Brown, his
followers and associates, in the light thereof. How
successful this attempt has been is for the reader to
judge. That this volume in no wise approaches the
attractiveness which Mr. Morse looked for, the author fully
understands. On the other hand no stone has been left
unturned to make accurate the smallest detail; the original
documents, contemporary letters and living witnesses, have
been examined in every quarter of the United States.
Materials never before utilized have been drawn upon, and
others discovered whose existence has heretofore been
unknown....
Under this broad pledge of personal fidelity to the subject, this
historian introduced his volume, and has asked the public to give him
its full confidence and to accept his work as a faithful and complete
record of the ascertainable truths of history relating to the subject.
For the ardor which he has exhibited, and for the great labor which he
has expended in his compilation, and for much material of minor
importance, which he has uncovered, the student of history will not fail
to acknowledge to Mr. Villard the sense of his obligation. In these
respects, and in the scholarly features characteristic of the writings,
it is an interesting and dramatic contribution to this literature. But,
he will not be stampeded by protestations of zeal, and by professions of
integrity, to accept it as a presentation of the ascertainable truth.
The work is more conspicuous for the absence from its pages of important
historical truths, and for the contradiction of others which have been
authenticated, than it is for the great volume of trivial facts which
it presents. A line of derelictions conspicuously prevailing throughout
the pages of the book, amply justify the charge that it was not written,
primarily, for an historical purpose--"to put forth the truths of
history as far as ascertainable, and to judge Brown and his followers in
the light thereof." The true purpose seems to be ulterior to that which
is effusively proclaimed in the prefatory declarations. He has written
into the history of our country a concept of the character of John Brown
which is incongruous with the actions and circumstances of Brown's
life. He has created a semi-supernatural person--"a complex
character"--embodying the virtues of the "Hebrew prophets" and
"Cromwellian Roundheads" with the depraved instincts and practices of
thieves and murderers. He presents a man who, for righteous purposes,
"violated the statute and moral laws"; whose conduct was vile, but whose
aims were pure; whose actions were brutal and criminal, but whose
motives were unselfish.
If this author had redeemed the pledge which he solemnly gave to the
public, to put forth the truths of history as far as ascertainable, and,
judging Brown and his followers in the light of them, had justified his
"terrible violation of the statute and moral laws," the nature of this
criticism would be different; it would be directed against his
discrimination or, perhaps, against his intelligence. But that is not
the case. The author referred to has sifted the truths of this history,
and from the fragments has framed an hypothetical case; and has judged
Brown and his followers in the light of that creation. "How may the
killings on the Pottawatomie, this terrible violation of the statute and
the moral law be justified? This is the question that has confronted
every student of John Brown's life since it was definitely established
that Brown was, if not actually a principal in the crime, an accessory
and an instigator,"[5] is not the language of an impartial historian;
but it is consistently the language of an advocate who writes for a
specious, for an ulterior purpose. Why should an historian seek to
justify a crime? Why should this author, if he intended to write
impartially, seek for evidence to justify this horror? It was the desire
to justify the crime that impelled the author to seek for pretexts for
justification of it among the surviving criminals, and to garble the
historical facts concerning it.
The crime was the theft of a large number of horses; to accomplish it,
and to safeguard the loot, it was necessary to kill the owners thereof.
It was a premeditation. The plans for it were laid several weeks before
it was executed, and during a time of profound peace. The principals
were John Brown; his unmarried sons; Henry Thompson, his son-in-law;
Theodore Weiner, and four confederates: Jacob Benjamin, B. L. Cochrane,
John E. Cook and Charles Lenhart, whose names are herein associated with
this crime for the first time in history. These confederates received
from Brown's party the horses which belonged to the men whom they
murdered, and ran them out of the country; leaving with Brown a number
of horses, "fast running horses," which they had stolen in the northern
part of the Territory. That is the crime which this author seeks to
justify; he has concealed these truths, and has suppressed the evidence
concerning them. Pretending to put forth the "exact facts as to the
happenings on the Pottawatomie," he has suppressed the evidence
concerning the most important of the happenings, and has added no
material fact concerning them which James Townsley had not, years
before, put forth in his confession.
The public should know that as early as April 16, 1856, John Brown and
his unmarried sons planned to abandon Kansas and the Free-State Cause
and had disbanded the Free-State company to which they belonged, the
"Liberty Guards," of which John Brown was captain; also, that the
"Pottawatomie Rifles" had been organized in its stead, with John Brown,
Jr., as captain; and that neither John Brown nor his unmarried sons
belonged to it. They were "a little company" by themselves.[6] The
public should also know that prior to that date, as early as April 7th,
Brown and the members of his little company had decided to abandon their
claims and leave the country; and further, that they desired a
recrudescence of pro-slavery atrocities. Concerning Brown's character
and his life in Kansas, as well as his relation to territorial affairs,
and a correct understanding of the Pottawatomie affair, no more
important letter was written by him than his letter of April 7th
disclosing these facts, a letter which Mr. Villard, in furtherance of
his purpose, has seen fit to sift from history and suppress. The public
has a right to know what Henry Thompson meant when he wrote in May that
"upon Brown's plans would depend his own 'until School is out.'" This
biographer, who said that he had left no stone unturned to make accurate
the smallest detail,[7] interviewed Henry Thompson, and could have
obtained from him a statement concerning the plans to which he intended
to subordinate his conduct, which involved matters of so much importance
as leaving the country. Salmon Brown and Henry Thompson could have told
this historian why the "Liberty Guards" were disbanded and the
"Pottawatomie Rifles" organized; and when, and for what purpose the
"little company of six," which intended to leave the neighborhood, was
formed; and he could have included the information in his statement of
the "exact facts." Mr. Villard says it was organized May 23d; but that
is not an "exact" statement; it is a contradiction of a statement which
John Brown made over his signature concerning it.[8] These men could
have told Mr. Villard specifically why they abandoned their claims,
whither they intended to go, and what they intended to do. And further,
they could have told him where they were, and what they were doing,
during the fifty days their "whereabouts" are by this biographer
reported as being "unknown," and their actions unaccounted for.[9]
These matters are not trifling details in this history. In view of the
author's fine panegyrics concerning Brown's devotion to the Free-State
cause, his intention to abandon it, and quit the Territory as early as
March, 1856, is of more striking consequence than his coming into it;
and the disbanding of the "Liberty Guards" in March, 1856, was an act of
greater significance than was the organization of the company in
December, 1855.
Mr. Villard's treatment of the Pottawatomie incident, "without a clear
appreciation of which a true understanding of Brown, the man, cannot be
reached,"[10] must stand as an indictment, either of his discrimination
or of the integrity of his purpose, concerning it. Not being a dull man,
he could not have been imposed upon by the participants in this riot of
robbery and blood whom he interviewed, and whose evasions he has
certified to the world as the exact facts. It was not the happenings on
the night of May 24, 1856, that determine "the degree of criminality, if
any," [mark the language, _if any_] "that should attach to Brown, for
his part in the proceedings,"[11] for they were but the execution of the
plans which had theretofore been laid for the adventure. Whatever the
circumstances of the author's dereliction may have been, the fact
remains, that the truths concerning this historical episode have been
sifted, and such documents and concurrent evidence as tend to establish
the fact that the motive for these murders was robbery, have been
consistently suppressed from his exposition of it.
Brown made no attempt to justify his conduct in the affair. He would
have acknowledged his responsibility and would have pleaded
justification for his acts, if there had been even a shadow of a pretext
for any justification; for he was shifty and crafty as well as vain; and
was sensitive concerning his reputation.[12] Not having the murdered
men's horses in his possession, he denied his complicity with the
murders, denied that he was concerned in the crime. If he had "killed
his men" (and stolen their horses) "in the conscientious belief that he
was a faithful servant of Kansas and of the Lord," as this author
asserts, he would not have denied his relationship with the Lord in the
matter, and offended Deity by persistently denying his participation in
it with Him; neither would he have abandoned Kansas and the Free-State
cause within the ensuing sixty days. Cowardly midnight robbery is
impossible of justification upon any ordinary circumstantial hypothesis;
and is preëminently so when the crime is aggravated by brutal
assassinations, such as were incidental to this wholesale theft of
horses.
The derelictions concerning the history of the Pottawatomie are
characteristic of Mr. Villard's treatment of the more vital episode of
Brown's career: his attempt to incite a revolution in the Southern
States and to establish over them the authority of a "provisional
government." This Brown planned to precipitate and accomplish by an
insurrection of the slaves, and a resulting indiscriminate assassination
of the slave-holding population: such as the people of that generation,
North and South, believed to be impending, if not imminent. This central
truth Mr. Villard denies, and seeks to substitute for Brown's
intentions, the invention that his movement was merely a transitory
raid, the forerunner of a series of similar raids to be undertaken by
"small bands hidden in the mountain fastnesses." This conception is
gratituitous and illogical; a contradiction of history and inconsistent
with the bold, intrepid, daring, courageous characteristics which he
has, except in this sole instance, consistently ascribed to Brown's
character.
Brown's purposes, at Harper's Ferry, are logically foreshadowed by every
act of his life, beginning with March, 1857; and are written in letters
of living light in the "Constitution and Ordinances for the People of
the United States," and in "General Order, No. 1," dated:
"HEADQUARTERS WAR DEPARTMENT, PROVISIONAL ARMY.
"Harper's Ferry, October 10, 1859."
As in the Pottawatomie incident, and consistent with a purpose to
pervert this history, and fasten an imposition upon the public, these
two "public documents," uttered, _ex cathedra_, by John Brown, find no
place in Mr. Villard's book; they are not put forth as essential truths
of history. The general order providing for the formation of the
Provisional Army is not even remotely referred to; while the
Constitution and Ordinances are treated contemptuously, and passed over
slightingly with a few commonplace and irrelevant criticisms; and
dismissed from consideration with manifest impatience and irritation as
being so inconsistent--_not_ with Brown's purposes, but with the
author's theory of them--as to "forbid discussion."[13]
As a study of John Brown, Mr. Villard's book is misleading, and, in
places, worthless. It is a jargon of facts and fancies; a juggling with
the truths of history; a recital of the long list of Brown's minor
peculations, and the bloody deeds which accent his career, interlarded
with half-hearted denunciations of his moral obliquity and conspicuously
fulsome panegyrics upon his character, and extravagantly illogical
attributes concerning the nobility of his aims. The book seems to have
been put forth not with reference to the truth, but to ennoble an
ignoble character; to shroud the character in a mantle of mystery; to
create in the twentieth century, a "complex" character: a mystic with a
propensity to do wrong; wherein there is a compromise of virtue with
vice. To the accomplishment of this end, this author has not only bent
his energies in subordinating the truth, but, as a furtherance of his
purpose, he has deemed it necessary to pass beyond the boundaries of
historical research, and seek to strengthen his cause by inviting
discredit upon the opinions of any who may venture to dissent from his
inventions.
It may not be held to be a suspicious circumstance, but it certainly is
not good form for an historian to presuppose that his statements of fact
will be disbelieved, and that the logic of his conclusions concerning
them will be challenged by any one. Nor should he seek to discredit
hypothetical opinions by the cheap, or vulgar, assertion that such
opinions have their origin in prejudice--"blind prejudice"; for jurors,
and even judges, sometimes disagree; and it is possible for persons, who
are conscientious, to receive divergent impressions in relation to the
same subject. He would have preserved a better decorum if he had relied
upon candor, and the supreme truthfulness of his narrative, and the
clearness of his reasoning, whereby to supplant disbelief with faith,
and to dispel prejudice by enlightening it.
The tree is better known by its fruits, than by any tag which the owner
may attach to the trunk. An historian who conscientiously writes the
truths of history, is not solicitous concerning the criticisms of any
who may read his lines.
CHAPTER II
THE MAN
_Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter
unto the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of
my Father which is in heaven._
--MATTHEW, 7:21
The picturesque figure which has been presented to the public as John
Brown is an historical myth--a fiction. The character, as it has been
exploited, is a contradiction of the laws that govern in human nature.
The material for it was furnished by partisans, who were unscrupulous
writers of the times of strenuous political excitement and national
unrest, in which Brown, by his deeds of violence, attracted public
attention. Following the practice of partisans, these writers wrote with
reckless disregard for the truth of their statements. Later, in the
ultimate crisis that occurred in his fortunes, he was eulogized in
surpassing eloquence by sincere people of high ideals, who were unaware
of the real character of the object of their adoration. They were not
informed concerning the criminal life which he had led, or of the
shockingly brutal crimes which he had committed; neither did they
understand that in his final undertaking he sought to involve a section
of our fair land in a carnival of rapine and bloodshed exceeding in
extent the horrors of San Domingo.[14] They were misled and were moved,
in their orations, solely by sentiment and misplaced sympathy. Instead
of a grim and unscrupulous soldier of fortune, leading a band of
desperate men in an effort to unloose in the Slave States the demon of
insurrection, they could see in him only a religious devotee, whom
their imaginations had created; whose life they believed had been a
devotion to deeds of charity and benevolence; who for years had been the
especial champion of the slave; and whose work in Kansas had been, as in
the existing crisis, an heroic and consistent consecration to duty. This
man now awaited execution for his immutability to a great cause. He
appeared to them to be a reincarnation of the virtuous primitive
Christian--an altruistic hero--who, willing to die for his convictions,
had "dared the unequal"; and, after battling heroically, though vainly,
for humanity, had offered himself a sacrifice, making "the gallows
glorious like the cross." These original laudations attracted, as Mr.
Morse has stated, a "horde of writers, who, with rills of versicles and
oceans of prose have overwhelmed his memory beneath torrents of wild
extravagant admiration."
Many persons therefore believe Brown to have been an exceptional person,
a man of deep religious fervor, of unimpeachable veracity and of the
strictest integrity. But a careful study of his life, as revealed by
himself, and as it has been written by his personal friends and his
friendly biographers, may well result in a different interpretation of
the man's character and actions.
John Brown was born at Torrington, Connecticut, May 9, 1800; but he was
not, as he claimed to be, "the sixth descendant of Peter Browne of the
Mayflower." The Peter Brown to whom John Brown's ancestry has been
traced, was born in Windsor, Connecticut, in 1632, as Mr. Villard shows
in very scholarly fashion.[15] The Peter Browne of the Mayflower left no
male issue; nor does John Brown's name appear upon the rolls of the
"Massachusetts Society of Mayflower Descendants."[16] His grandfather
was a captain in the Eighteenth Connecticut Infantry, in the
Revolutionary Army. The father of John Brown--Owen Brown--was a
faithful, industrious citizen who for a livelihood followed the
occupation of shoemaker, tanner, and farmer. John learned the tannery
trade and began work when he was fifteen, and for the greater part of
the ensuing five years was employed as a foreman in his father's factory
at Hudson, Ohio.
On June 21, 1820, he was married to Miss Dianthe Lusk, the daughter of
his housekeeper. She became the mother of seven children; one of
whom--Frederick--was killed at Osawatomie. Her death occurred August 10,
1832; three days after the birth of a son; mother and son being buried
together. A second marriage was contracted on July 11, 1833, his bride
being Miss Mary Anne Day, daughter of Charles Day of Whitehall, New
York. Thirteen children were born of this union; seven of whom died in
early childhood; two--Watson and Oliver--were killed at Harper's Ferry.
As a tanner, at Hudson, Brown was successful, but he gave up his
business there and moved to Richmond, Pennsylvania, in May, 1825, where
he established a tannery. He was appointed postmaster at Richmond in
1828, and held the office until he moved to Franklin Mills, Ohio, in
1835. He left Richmond "because of financial distress."[17] At Franklin
Mills, he secured a contract for building the Ohio and Pennsylvania
Canal from there to Akron. The next year, he undertook some speculations
in real estate, and in company with a Mr. Thompson, borrowed $7,000 with
which to buy a tract of one hundred acres, for an "addition to
Franklin." During the same year, he, with others, organized the Franklin
Land Company, and purchased the water power, mills, lands, etc., in both
the "upper" and "lower" Franklin villages, combining the two water
powers at a central town-site, which he and his associates laid out.[18]
In these, and other schemes, Brown became so deeply involved that he
failed during the bad times of 1837; lost nearly all his property by
assignment to his creditors, and was then not able to pay all his debts,
some of which were never liquidated. His father also lost heavily
through him.[19]
His failure in business should not of itself count against him, but some
of the methods which he employed to extricate himself from his financial
embarrassment, were of a most fraudulent and criminal character. July
11, 1836, he applied to Heman Oviatt and others, to become security for
him on a note for $6,000 to the Western Reserve Bank. The note was not
paid, and the bank got judgment against the makers in May, 1837. August
2d, the judgment debtors gave a joint judgment bond for the amount of
the judgment against them, payable in sixty days. The bond not being
paid, the bank sued again, and Oviatt had to pay the bank in full. The
nature of the wrong done to Mr. Oviatt by Brown is described by Mr.
Villard on pages 37 and 38. He relates that at the time of this
transaction, Brown had a "penal bond of conveyance," but not the title,
for a piece of property known as "Westlands," which he assigned to
Oviatt, as collateral for Oviatt's having endorsed the judgment bond to
the bank. When the deed to the Westlands property was duly given to
Brown, he recorded it, without notifying Oviatt of this action. Later,
he mortgaged the property to two men, again without the knowledge of
Heman Oviatt. Meanwhile, Daniel G. Gaylord had recovered a judgment
against Brown in another transaction, and to satisfy it caused the sale
of Westlands by the sheriff. By collusion with Brown, the property was
bought in at the sale, by his friend, a former business associate, Amos
P. Chamberlain. Oviatt "brought suit to have the sale of Westlands to
Chamberlain set aside as fraudulent, but the Supreme Court of Ohio held
that Chamberlain had a rightful title, and dismissed the suit. John
Brown himself was not directly sued by Oviatt, being, to use a lawyer's
term, 'legally safe' throughout the entire transaction.... Even after
this lapse of years his action in secretly recording the transfer of the
land, and then mortgaging it, bears an unpleasant aspect."[20]
Meanwhile, the parties to the fraud upon Oviatt quarreled. Brown refused
to give up occupation of the land to Chamberlain; assuming that
Chamberlain had not treated him fairly in the matter; and held
possession of the property, in "a shanty on the place, by force of arms,
until compelled to desist by the sheriff...." Finally, the sheriff
arrested Brown and two sons, John and Owen, who were thereupon placed in
the Akron jail. Chamberlain, having destroyed the shanty which Brown had
occupied, and obtained possession of the land, allowed the case to drop,
and Brown and his sons were released.[21] Mr. Sanborn, on page 55,
disposes of the matter in this way:
The affair is explained by his son John as follows: "The
farm father lost by endorsing a note for a friend. It was
attached and sold by the Sheriff at the County seat. The
only bidder against my father was an old neighbor, hitherto
regarded as a friend, who became the purchaser. Father's
lawyer advised him to hold the fort for a time at least,
and endeavor to secure terms from the purchaser. There was,
as I remember, an old shot gun in the house, but it was not
loaded nor pointed at any one. No Sheriff came on the
premises; no officer or posse was resisted; no threat of
violence offered."
Brown was not so staid and prosaic in his daily walk and conversation as
to be indifferent to the sports and amusements of life. He seems to have
been simply an active man of the world, getting as much worldly
enjoyment for himself out of his environment as possible. He was a
horseman with a fancy for horse racing; and while at Franklin, indulged
in the very interesting and sportsmanlike business, or diversion, of
breeding "fast running horses for racing purposes." He bred from a well
known horse of that time called "Count Piper"; and the name of another
favorite sire was "John McDonald." He is said to have dismissed
criticism of his conduct from a moral point of view, by the argument
that "if he did not breed them some one else would."[22]
From 1837 to 1841 Brown lived alternately at Franklin, and at Hudson,
Ohio. In 1838 he became a "drover," and drove cattle from Ohio to
Connecticut. In this business he had trouble with his associates,
Tertius Wadsworth and Joseph Wells, who furnished the capital; and was
sued by them for an accounting.[23] In December, 1838, "he negotiated
for the agency of a New York Steel Scythes house." And in January, 1839,
he made his first venture in sheep, at West Hartford, Connecticut. He
brought the sheep to Albany by boat, and drove them from there to Ohio.
In June of that year he made his final drive to the east with cattle,
and, while at New Hartford, committed a crime of unusual enormity. It
appears that he proposed to the New England Woolen Company, of
Rockville, Connecticut, to act as its agent in buying wool, and induced
it to intrust to him $2,800 with which to begin purchasing the wool. The
negotiations for this money were a deception throughout, in pursuance of
theft. Brown did not intend to buy any wool with the money which he
sought to have intrusted to his keeping for that purpose; but did intend
to convert it to his own use--to make "a much brighter day" in his
affairs. He also deceived his wife, whom he caused to believe that he
was trying to secure a loan. Nor did he hesitate to have the crime,
which he was committing, called to the attention of the God whom he
pretended to serve, but asked her to ask "God's blessing" upon him in
his pursuit of this purpose. Greater hypocrisy and depravity hath no man
than this. The letter which he wrote to his wife in relation to the
transaction is as follows:[24]
New Hartford, 12th June, 1839.
MY DEAR WIFE AND CHILDREN:
I write to let you know that I am in comfortable health,
and that I expect to be on my way home in the course of a
week should nothing befall me. If I am longer detained I
will write you again. The cattle business has succeeded
about as I expected, but I am now somewhat in fear that I
shall fail in getting the money I expected on the loan.
Should that be the will of Providence I know of no other
way but we must consider ourselves very poor for our debts
must be paid, if paid at a sacrifice. Should that happen
(though it may not) I hope God who is rich in mercy, will
grant us all grace to conform to our circumstances with
cheerfulness and resignation. I want to see each of my dear
family very much but must wait God's time. Try all of you
to do the best you can, and do not one of you be
discouraged--tomorrow may be a much brighter day. Cease not
to ask God's blessing on yourselves and me. Keep this
letter wholly to yourselves, excepting that I expect to
start home soon, and that I did not write confidently about
my success should any one enquire. Edmond is well and Owen
Mills. You may show this to father but to no one else.
I am not without great hopes of getting relief, I would not
have you understand, but things have looked more
unfavorable for a few days. I think I shall write you again
before I start.
Earnestly commending every one of you to God, and to his
mercy, which endureth forever, I remain your affectionate
husband and father,
JOHN BROWN.
This beautiful letter, written to his wife in relation to the
prosecution of a criminal design, stands as a _study_ of John Brown
which the student may well contemplate with profit. It is written in
the attractive style, and in the spiritual language characteristic of
Brown's correspondence. It is strikingly similar to the letters that he
gave out from the Charlestown jail, which, in their apparently
devotional simplicity, and humble sincerity and trust in the mercy of
God, won for him there his "victory over death." This letter was a
dissimulation, the proof of which lies in the consummation of the
negotiations for the money; and in the appropriation of it to his own
use, at a time when he was hopelessly involved. It is a real key to the
history of his life; it discloses his true character, and shatters to
fragments every hypothesis that Brown was either sincere, devout, or
honest.
"Three days after the receipt of this letter," Mr. Villard relates,
"Brown received from the New England Woolen Company at Rockville, Conn.,
twenty-eight hundred dollars, through its agent George Kellogg, for the
purchase of wool, which money, regretfully enough, he pledged for his
own benefit and was then unable to redeem. Fortunately for him the
Company exercised leniency toward him."[25] Later it permitted him to go
through bankruptcy, upon the condition that he would endeavor to repay
the money. Brown's letter in acknowledgment of the "great kindness" to
him therein, is as follows:[26]
Richfield, Octo. 17, 1842.
Whereas I, John Brown, on or about the 15th day of June
1839, received from the New England Company (through their
Agent George Kellogg, Esq.) the sum of twenty-eight hundred
dollars for the purchase of wool for said Company, and
imprudently pledged the same for my own benefit, and could
not redeem it; and whereas I have been legally discharged
from my obligations by the laws of the United States--I
hereby agree in consideration of the great kindness and
tenderness of said Company toward me in my calamity, and
more particularly of the moral obligation I am under to
render them their due, to pay the same and interest
thereon, from time to time, as Divine Providence shall
enable me to do. Witness my hand and seal.
JOHN BROWN.
To Mr. Kellogg, agent for the woolen company, he wrote:
Richfield, Summit County, Ohio, Octo. 17, 1842.
George Kellogg, Esq.
Dear Sir--I have just received information of my final
discharge as a bankrupt in the District Court, and I ought
to be grateful that no one of my creditors has made any
opposition to such discharge being given. I shall now if my
life is continued, have an opportunity of proving the
sincerity of my past professions, when legally free to act
as I choose. I am sorry to say that in consequence of the
unforeseen expense of getting the discharge, the loss of an
ox, and the destitute condition in which a new surrender of
my effects has placed me, with my numerous family, I fear
this year must pass without my effecting in the way of
payment what I have encouraged you to expect
(notwithstanding I have been generally prosperous in my
business for the season).
Respectfully your unworthy friend,
JOHN BROWN.
To Mr. Villard the public owes its obligation for the quite complete
history of this transaction. Mr. Sanborn, in his record of it, saw fit
to suppress the letter of June 12, 1839. He, evidently, garbled the
correspondence relating to this criminal incident in Brown's life, with
the intention of practicing a deception upon the public. Commenting upon
the two letters of October 17, 1842, he said:[27]
These papers show the real integrity of Brown, in a
transaction in which he might have escaped the obligation
which he thus assumed.
That Brown promised restitution of the money herein, as a means to
forestall criminal proceedings against him; and gave the above
acknowledgment of the debt, and renewed promise to pay, as a condition
precedent to being permitted to go into the court of bankruptcy, is
evident from the two preceding letters. It is also apparent from his
letter to Mr. Kellogg, that he did not intend to fulfill the promises he
had made. At his death, "this debt, like many others, was still unpaid,"
notwithstanding the fact that two years after his proceedings in
bankruptcy he became prosperous, "with the most trying financial periods
of his life behind him."[28]
With money in his pocket wherewith to commence life anew, Brown
conceived the idea of leaving that part of the country and settling in
Virginia, upon land[29] belonging to Oberlin College. He probably
obtained information concerning the land from his father, who was a
trustee of the college. On April 1, 1840, he appeared before a committee
of the trustees, and opened negotiations with it for an agreement to
survey the Virginia land, and to purchase some of it. Two days later he
submitted a proposal "to visit, survey and make the necessary
investigation respecting the boundaries, etc. of these lands, for one
dollar per day, and a modest allowance for necessary expenses." He also
stated that this was to be a preliminary step towards locating thereon,
with his family, "should the opening prove a favorable one," and in the
event of his so locating, he was to receive one thousand acres of the
land. The trustees promptly accepted his offer, and the treasurer was
ordered to furnish him with "a Commission and Needful outfit,"[30] which
was done the same day. He immediately proceeded to Virginia and entered
upon his duties. April 27th he wrote to his wife from Ripley, Virginia:
I have seen the spot where, if it be the will of Providence, I
hope one day to live with my family.
July 14, 1840, he filed his report, and on August 11th he was notified
that the prudential committee of the trustees had been authorized by the
board to "perfect negotiations, and convey to Brother John Brown, of
Hudson, Ohio, one thousand acres of our Virginia land, on conditions
suggested in the correspondence between him and the committee." Replying
to the letter January 2, 1841, he wrote:
... I feel prepared to say definitely that I expect,
Providence willing, to accept the proposal of your
Board.... I shall expect to receive a thousand acres of
land in a body, that will include a living spring of water
discharging itself at a height sufficient to accommodate a
tannery as I shall expect to pursue that business on a
small scale if I go....
The trustees meanwhile, for reasons which have not been made public,
changed their minds on the subject, and Brown's letter to their Mr.
Burnell of February 5, 1841, reaffirming his intention to accept the
land, as proposed, was never answered.[31]
Failing in his effort to establish himself in Virginia, he engaged in
the sheep raising industry, in the spring of 1841, in company with
Captain Oviatt, at Richfield, Ohio. He was successful and "gradually
became known as a winner of prizes for sheep, and cattle at the annual
fairs, in Summit County." By 1844 he had gained the reputation of a
successful wool grower, and in that year formed "a partner-ship with
Simon Perkins, Jr. of Akron, Ohio, with a view to carry on the sheep
business extensively."[32] He moved to Akron April 10th of that year.
Concerning his home at Akron, Mr. Villard says:
They occupied a cottage on what is still known as Perkins
Hill, near Simon Perkins own home, with an extensive and
charming view over hill and dale--an ideal sheep country,
and a location which must have attracted any one save a
predisposed wanderer.
Two years later it was decided to establish a headquarters at
Springfield, Massachusetts. There Brown went "to reside as one of the
firm of Perkins and Brown, agents of the sheep-farmers and wool
merchants in northern Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and Virginia, whose
interests then required an agency to stand between them and the wool
manufacturers of New England, to whom they sold their fleeces."[33]
Of this arrangement Mr. Villard says on page 35: "John Brown was within
bounds in thus exulting; even though the Perkins partner-ship resulted
eventually in severe losses and dissolution. At least it was a
connection with a high minded and prosperous man, and it lasted ten
years. When it was over, the partners were still friends, but Mr.
Perkins did not retain a high opinion of John Brown's ability or
sagacity as a business man." Mr. Sanborn states on page 57, that when
Mr. Perkins was questioned by him, in 1878, about Brown's wool growing
and wool dealing, he replied: "The less you can say about them the
better."
As to the business, there seems to have been trouble from the
commencement of it. Mr. Villard says on page 60: "Moreover some
customers had just grievances, for the letter book contains far too many
apologies for failure to acknowledge letters and shipments, and to make
out accurate accounts, for so young a firm."
In August, 1849, Brown made his historic trip to London to superintend,
personally, the sale of wool, which he had shipped to that market,
because he could not obtain prices that were satisfactory to him from
the manufacturers of woolens in his home market. The amount of wool so
consigned was about two hundred thousand pounds. The Northampton Woolen
Mills Company of Northampton, Massachusetts, had bid sixty cents a pound
for this wool at Springfield. In London, September 17th, a lot of one
hundred and fifty bales of it was sold for twenty-six to twenty-nine
cents per pound. The buyer was the "Northampton Woolen Mills Co., of
Mass., U. S. A."[34] Brown returned home in October "bringing back with
him the portion of the wool which he had been unable to sell. The loss
on this venture was probably as high as $40,000."[35] The firm of
Perkins and Brown then began proceedings in liquidation, which had been
under consideration for some time before Brown made the trip to Europe.
The losses sustained by the company were upon a large scale. Suits
against them were brought for more than one hundred thousand
dollars.[36]
In 1850 Brown contemplated engaging in the manufacture of wine upon a
large scale; and on December 4th, wrote to his sons to send him some
samples of the wines they had made. He said: "I want Jason to obtain
from Mr. Perkins, or anywhere he can get them, two good Junk bottles,
have them thoroughly cleaned, and filled with cherry wine, being very
careful not to roil it up before filling the bottles,--providing good
corks, and filling them perfectly full. These I want him to pack safely
in a very small strong box, which he can make, direct them to Perkins &
Brown, Springfield, Mass., and send them by express. We can affect
something to purpose by producing unadulterated domestic wines. They
will command great prices."[37]
In 1846, Gerrit Smith, a wealthy philanthropist of Peterboro, New York,
set aside one hundred and twenty thousand acres of his large estate in
northern New York, to be divided up into farms, and given, without
charge, to worthy colored people who would settle upon them and improve
them for their permanent homes. Brown heard of this proposition in
course of time, and made a proposal to Mr. Smith to settle among the
negroes on these lands, and aid them by precept and example in their
efforts at home building. In consideration of this, it is probable that
Brown secured title to some land on equal terms with the negroes, and
possibly secured options on other tracts, at satisfactory prices and
terms of payment. His experience with the Oberlin College people in
relation to the Virginia lands, heretofore referred to, was probably of
service to him in this transaction with Smith. The tracts which he
selected were at Timbuctoo, or North Elba, and in the spring of 1849 he
located his family upon the land; but in March, 1851, moved back to
Akron. Brown himself did not go to North Elba to live. His time was
taken up in liquidating the tangled affairs of Perkins and Brown, and
with the extensive litigation involved in the settlement of them.
Litigation seems to have been a constant and conspicuous feature of
Brown's commercial life. Mr. Villard says[38] that "on the records of
the Portage County Court of Common Pleas are no less than twenty-one
lawsuits in which John Brown figured as defendant during the years 1820
to 1845. Of these, thirteen were actions brought to recover money loaned
on promissory notes either to Brown singly or in company with others.
The remaining suits were mostly claims for wages, or payments due, or
for nonfulfillment of contracts.... In ten other cases he was
successfully sued and judgments were obtained against him individually
or jointly with others. In three cases those who sued him were
non-suited as being without real cause for action, and two other cases
were settled out of court. Four cases Brown won, among them being a suit
for damages for false arrest and assault and battery, brought by an
alleged horse thief, because Brown, and other citizens, had aided a
constable in arresting him. A number of these suits grew out of Brown's
failure in his real estate speculations. A serious litigation was an
action brought by the Bank of Wooster to recover on a Bill of Exchange,
drawn by Brown and others, on the Leather Manufacturers Bank of New
York, and repudiated by that institution on the ground that Brown and
his associates had no money in the bank. During the suit the amount
claimed was rapidly reduced, and when the judgment was rendered against
him it was for $917.65.... In 1845 Daniel C. Gaylord, who several times
had sued Brown, succeeded in compelling him and his associates to convey
to him certain Franklin lands, which they had contracted to sell, but
the title for which they refused to convey. The court upheld Gaylord's
claim. The only case in which Brown figured as plaintiff was settled out
of court." This is consistently a bad record.
The year 1854 brought the settlement of Kansas to the front and the
wrecked and practically penniless Browns decided to emigrate to the new
Territory. Not with the "ax and gun" went they, as will be seen, but
with the ax, and with the hope of bettering their condition. The
necessity for the gun was developed later--in 1855--and by the
Free-State men who had preceded the Browns into the Territory.
It seems the family planned to establish a little colony or group of
farms--"Brownsville"--and that while the sons were to be engaged in
opening up the farms, the father would try to earn some money in
surveying, which would be a very grateful and necessary assistance to
them while struggling with the many discouraging incidents which usually
befell the impecunious preëmptor. That such were their conclusions
appears from a letter which Brown wrote February 13, 1855, to Mr. John
W. Cook, of Wolcottville, Connecticut. He said:[39] "Since I saw you I
have undertaken to direct the operations of a Surveying & exploring
party, to be employed in Kansas for a considerable time perhaps for some
Two or Three years; & I lack for time to make all my arrangements, and
get on the ground in season." In pursuance of his intention to move to
Kansas, he relocated with his family on the North Elba farm.
This review of Brown's career discloses a life spent, thus far, in a
series of strenuous struggles with various problems, covering a wide
range in the field of commercial activity. All his efforts had ended in
disappointment and failure. The removal to North Elba marks his
retirement, in defeat, from the world of trade, and finds him, as the
result of his failures, living with his dependent family upon a small
tract of mountain land, of little value, that had been given to him as a
condition of his settlement thereon. They had "moved into an unplastered
four-room house, the rudest kind of a pioneer home, built for him by his
son-in-law, Henry Thompson, who had married his daughter Ruth."[40]
What Brown's religious belief was is problematical. He was a student of
the Bible, and, as he said, "possessed a most unusual memory of its
entire contents." The Book, as a whole, was his creed, and upon its
teachings he placed his personal interpretations. He spoke and wrote,
when he so desired, in its phraseology; and by this distinction, in
contradiction of the character of his actions, he gained a reputation
for being a Christian. He may have been a Presbyterian, as has been
said; or he may have been a Methodist, as has also been stated; and
there is equal authority for the statement that he belonged to the
Congregational church; but, it would seem that if he had been a
consistent member of _any_ of these churches, his historic name would
have been proudly borne upon the rolls of membership, in the
congregations to which he belonged; and the fact of his membership
therein clearly established. It would further seem that he would have
stated the fact of such membership in connection with what he did say,
in 1857, in relation to his religious experience. It appears however,
that while assuming to believe firmly in the divine authenticity of the
Bible, he had become only to "some extent a convert to Christianity."
There is no evidence that he ever attended public worship in Kansas, or
at any place during the latter years of his life, or that he engaged in
prayer. Also, it would seem, that if he had been "a student at
Morris Academy" in either 1816 or 1819, as a preparation for
college--Amherst--with an ultimate purpose so creditable as "entering
the ministry," he would have referred to the fact, incidentally at
least, in his _Autobiography_, which treats specifically of his
education.[41]
The Rev. H. D. King of Kinsman, Ohio, met Brown frequently at Tabor,
Iowa, during August and September, 1857. He probably regarded him as an
infidel, but did not wish to say so. "He was rather skeptical, I think,"
he said; "not an infidel, but not bound by creeds. He was somewhat
cranky on the subject of the Bible as he was on that of killing
people."[42] In the last letter which Brown wrote to his family,
November 30, 1859, two days before his execution, he said:[43]
I must yet insert the reason for my firm belief in the
Bible, notwithstanding I am, perhaps, naturally
skeptical--certainly not credulous.... It is the purity of
heart, filling our minds as well as work and actions, which
is everywhere insisted on, that distinguishes it from all
other teachings, that commends it to my conscience....
The late Mr. George B. Gill of Kansas, who was a member of Brown's
cabinet--secretary of the treasury--said of him: "He was very human. The
angel wing's were so dim and shadowy as to be almost unseen."
Brown's younger sons were infidels. They had "discovered the Bible to be
all fiction."[44] To the Sabbath day and its sanctity, he was
indifferent. In violation of the stricter conventions, which prevailed
at that time, concerning the observance of it as "Holy unto the Lord,"
he committed the principal crimes incident to his career, wholly or in
part, on the Sabbath. A part of the murders and thefts on the
Pottawatomie were committed on Sunday morning, May 25, 1856. Returning
to Kansas from Nebraska City (August 9th and 10th) half the journey was
made on Sunday, August 10th. "On August 24," 1856 (Sunday), "the Brown
and Cline companies set out for the South, marching eight miles and
camping on Sugar Creek."[45] Sunday night, October 16, 1859, was the
time fixed for the insurrection of the slaves to occur, and on that
night, in pursuance of his plans, he occupied Harper's Ferry.
Brown was averse to military operations, and military affairs. He
refused to drill with the local militia, paying the fines instead, which
were imposed by law for such delinquencies. In political matters he
affiliated with the Abolitionists, or with those of the party who were
"non-resistants."[46]
The statements which have been put forth in support of the assumption
that Brown's life was a devotion to the Anti-Slavery cause--a series of
abnormal activities in opposition to slavery--are not confirmed, nor can
they be justified by any contemporaneous evidence. For notwithstanding
the persistent, if not offensive, insistence of his biographers to the
contrary; and the pages without number which have been written in
support of such insistence, the record of his life is practically
barren in relation to the subject. There is not a scrap of concurrent
evidence which, even remotely, suggests that prior to 1855 he might have
taken more than a most ordinary interest in securing freedom for the
slaves. Even in his letter of that year to Mr. John W. Cook (_note_ 40),
informing him of his intention to go to Kansas, and of his motive for
going thereto, he made no reference to the subject whatever. A statement
of everything which Brown did, or that he attempted to do up to that
year, in opposition to slavery, may be republished in this book without
encumbering its pages. It will therefore be given.
In 1857, after Brown had ceased to be a non-resistant, and was in the
East professionally advocating war in Kansas; he wrote that during the
late war with England an incident "occurred that made him a most
determined Abolitionist: & led him to declare or _Swear_: _Eternal war_
with Slavery." But Mr. Villard, having the infant Pardigles prodigy in
mind, makes the point that "the oaths of a lad of such tender years do
not often become the guiding force of maturity." A Mr. Blakesley, with
whom Brown, before his marriage, kept bachelor's hall, relates that one
evening a runaway slave came to their door, and asked for food, which
was given him freely. John Brown, Jr., relates the same, or a similar,
incident as occurring eight years later. The dramatic settings in each
case are practically similar: Night! Sound of horses' feet approaching!
Flight of fugitive, or fugitives, into the adjacent timber! False alarm!
Subsequent search for, and locating of the fugitive "by the sound of the
beating of his heart!" Finale: "Brown swears eternal enmity to
slavery!"[47] Both of the tales are of the legendary type common to
Brown literature. Mr. Blakesley's story is probably in part true, but
whether either of them, or both of them, be true is without
significance. It would indeed have been difficult to find a person
living in the North at that time, who would have refused a poor
fugitive slave the measure of assistance asked for in this case.
On another occasion Brown is represented as taking the members of his
family into his confidence, and enlisting them for life in the "eternal
war" which he is said to have been personally waging; taking the
precaution to swear them to secrecy. Jason Brown states that they were
"merely sworn to do all in their power to abolish slavery," and does not
use the word "force."[48] But as related by John Brown, Jr., the
occasion was much more dramatic and far reaching. He says:[49]
It is, of course, impossible for me to say when such idea
and plan first entered his (John Brown's) mind and became a
purpose; but I can say with certainty that he first
informed his family that he entertained such purpose while
we were yet living in Franklin, O. (now called Kent), and
before he went to Virginia, in 1840, to survey the lands
which had been donated by Arthur Tappan to Oberlin College;
and this was certainly as early as 1839. The place and the
circumstances where he first informed us of that purpose
are as perfectly in my memory as any other event in my
life. Father, mother, Jason, Owen and I were, late in the
evening, seated around the fire in the open fire-place of
the kitchen, in the old Haymaker house where we then lived;
and there he first informed us of his determination to make
war on slavery--not such war as Mr. Garrison informs us
"was equally the purpose of the non-resistant
abolitionists," but war by force and arms. He said that he
had long entertained such a purpose--that he believed it
his duty to devote his life, if need be, to this object,
which he made us fully to understand. After spending
considerable time in setting forth in most impressive
language the hopeless condition of the slave, he asked who
of us were willing to make common cause with him in doing
all in our power to "break the jaws of the wicked and pluck
the spoil out of his teeth," naming each of us in
succession. Are you, Mary, John, Jason, and Owen?
Receiving an affirmative answer from each, he kneeled in
prayer, and all did the same. This posture in prayer
impressed me greatly as it was the first time I had ever
known him to assume it. After prayer he asked us to raise
our right hands, and he then administered to us an oath,
the exact terms of which I cannot recall, but in substance
it bound us to secrecy and devotion to the purpose of
fighting slavery by force and arms to the extent of our
ability.
Referring to this incident Mr. Villard says:[50] "It must be noted here
that in this letter John Brown, Jr., gives the date of the oath as 1839;
in his lengthy affidavit in the case of Gerrit Smith against the Chicago
_Tribune_, he gave the date as 1836, three years earlier, and in an
account given in Mr. Sanborn's book he placed it at 1837; three distinct
times for the same event. It can, therefore, best be stated as occurring
before 1840."
In the opinion of the writer, it could, perhaps, "best be stated" as not
having occurred at all. As has been heretofore stated, Brown was at that
time a non-resistant, and there is no concurrent evidence that he
treasured a thought of using force against slavery until after Robinson
suggested it by arming the Free-State men in Kansas in the spring of
1855. The incident may therefore be considered as apocryphal. It is a
part of the mass of legendary literature that has overwhelmed Brown's
"simple, noble memory."
The improvisation of these two incidents, shows the strait in which John
Brown, Jr., was placed, when called upon, by Mr. Sanborn, to narrate
some of the incidents occurring in the course of his father's
anti-slavery activities. There being none, nothing whatever to tell, he
filched the Blakesley incident and related it as one occurring under his
personal observation, and put it forth along with the fiction concerning
the dramatic function just related, to relieve himself from an
embarrassing situation.
In a letter written nearly twenty years after the Blakesley incident is
said to have occurred, Brown disclosed the character of the "eternal
war" which he really proposed to wage, if any, against slavery. It was
to "get at least one negro boy or youth and bring him up as we do our
own,--give him a good English education, learn him what we can about the
history of the world, about business, about general subjects, and, above
all, try to teach him the fear of God." In the same letter he seeks to
interest his brother--Frederick--in a school for blacks which he wanted
to open at Randolph. He thought "if the young blacks of our country
could once become enlightened, it would most assuredly operate on
slavery like firing powder confined in a rock." Incidentally, he
intended to own the school, and thought it would pay.[51]
While the suggestion to attack slavery in the manner outlined in this
letter is the first recorded movement, or act of aggression, in the much
talked of eternal war; and while it may be regarded as a sort of opening
gun; though not a loud one, the proposal contained therein may be
considered merely as being a commercial venture, for pecuniary profit,
that he desired to engage in, rather than as a scheme in negro
philanthropy. He thought the venture would be profitable, and offered to
divide the profits arising from it with his brother upon terms that
"shall be fair." Also it may be stated that at the time he made this
proposal he was in the toils of insolvency. Six months later he left
Randolph in straitened circumstances. It is therefore probable that he
was moved to suggest the opening of a school for blacks by personal
considerations, and that but for such reasons the letter containing the
proposal would not have been written.
In 1848, while a resident of Springfield, Massachusetts, Brown wrote
some articles reflecting upon the negro character; criticising negroes
because of their vanity and shiftlessness. They were written under the
caption: "Sambo's Mistakes," and were published in the _Ram's Horn_, a
newspaper conducted by negroes, in New York. They do not relate to
slavery.[52]
In 1850 he made the first, and, it may be said, the only noticeable
effort in behalf of the anti-slavery cause, that is recorded of him
prior to 1854. The Fugitive Slave Law, enacted by the Thirty-first
Congress, provided for the use of all the forces of the Department of
Justice, to effect the arrest of fugitives from slavery, and the
restoration of them to their masters. Brown conceived the idea of
uniting the free negroes and fugitive slaves in an organization to
resist the enforcement of the provisions of this law. The society was to
be called "The United States League of Gileadites." The plan failed; the
enrollment so far as known was confined to the Springfield,
Massachusetts, branch, which numbered fifty-three members.[53] But the
activities therein undertaken were strictly defensive in their
character; they were not directed against slavery, but for the personal
protection of fugitive slaves and free negroes living in the Northern
States. His letter of advice to the Gileadites is, in part, as
follows:[54]
WORDS OF ADVICE
"Union is Strength"
Nothing so charms the American people as personal bravery.
Witness the case of Cinques, of everlasting memory, on
board the "Amistad." The trial for life of one bold and to
some extent successful man, for defending his rights in
good earnest, would arouse more sympathy throughout the
nation than the accumulated wrongs and sufferings of more
than three millions of our submissive colored population.
We need not mention the Greeks struggling against the
oppressive Turks, the Poles against Russia, nor the
Hungarians against Austria and Russia combined, to prove
this. _No jury can be found in the Northern States that
would convict a man for defending his rights to the last
extremity. This is well understood by Southern Congressmen,
who insisted that the right of trial by jury should not be
granted to the fugitive._ Colored people have ten times the
number of fast friends among the whites than they suppose,
and would have ten times the number they now have were they
but half as much in earnest to secure their dearest rights
as they are to ape the follies and extravagances of their
luxury. Just think of the money expended by individuals in
your behalf in the past twenty years! Think of the number
who have been mobbed and imprisoned on your account! Have
any of you seen the Branded Hand? Do you remember the names
of Lovejoy and Torrey?
Should one of your number be arrested, you must collect
together as quickly as possible, so as to outnumber your
adversaries who are taking an active part against you. Let
no able-bodied man appear on the ground unequipped, or with
his weapons exposed to view; let that be understood
beforehand. Your plans must be known only to yourself, and
with the understanding that all traitors must die, wherever
caught and proven to be guilty. "Whosoever is fearful or
afraid, let him return and depart early from Mount Gilead"
(Judges, vii. 3; Deut. xx. 8). Give all cowards an
opportunity to show it on condition of holding their peace.
_Do not delay one moment after you are ready; you will lose
all your resolution if you do. Let the first blow be the
signal for all to engage; and when engaged do not do your
work by halves, but make clean work with your enemies, and
be sure you meddle not with any others._ By going about
your business quietly, you will get the job disposed of
before the number that an uproar would bring together can
collect; and you will have the advantage of those who come
out against you, for they will be wholly unprepared with
either equipments or matured plans; all with them will be
confusion and terror. Your enemies will be slow to attack
you after you have done up the work nicely; and if they
should, they will have to encounter your white friends as
well as you; for you may safely calculate on a division of
the whites, and may by that means get to an honorable
parley.
Be firm, determined, and cool; but let it be understood
that you are not to be driven to desperation without making
it an awful dear job to others as well as to you....
A lasso might possibly be applied to a slave-catcher for
once with good effect. Hold on to your weapons, and never
be persuaded to leave them, part with them, or have them
far away from you. _Stand by one another and by your
friends, while a drop of blood remains; and be hanged, if
you must, but tell no tales out of school. Make no
confession._
In a letter to his wife, January 17, 1851, relating to the same subject,
he said:[55]
DEAR WIFE ... Since the sending off to slavery of Long from
New York, I have improved my leisure hours quite busily
with colored people here, in advising them how to act, and
in giving them all the encouragement in my power. They very
much need encouragement and advice; and some of them are so
alarmed that they tell me they cannot sleep on account of
either themselves or their wives and children. I can only
say I think I have been enabled to do something to revive
their broken spirits. I want all my family to imagine
themselves in the same dreadful condition. My only spare
time being taken up (often until late hours at night) in
the way I speak of, have prevented me from the gloomy
homesick feelings which had before so much oppressed me:
not that I forget my family at all.
The assumption that Brown, "The peaceful tanner and shepherd," had at
this time been transformed "into a man burning to use arms upon an
institution which refused to yield to peaceful agitation,"[56] is not
justified by anything that he had theretofore said or done relating to
slavery; neither is it justified by what he wrote to the "Gileadites,"
nor by the letter which he wrote to his wife concerning the condition of
the free negroes. These papers contain no hint, to say nothing of
evidence, that the action taken therein by him was the result of any
preconceived intention to attack slavery; or that it was related to any
general plan or purpose to oppose slavery; or that it foreshadowed any
disposition on his part, burning or otherwise, to engage in the matter
any further than by counsel and advice. The letter to his wife reflects
the general sense of compassion that was felt for the negroes, by all
humane people throughout the North, because of the distressful condition
in which they were placed by the terms of the Fugitive Slave Law.
The foregoing is a recital of all that is contained in the record of
Brown's life concerning his anti-slavery activities up to the year 1852.
In the working of that great engine for emancipation, the Underground
Railway, he took no part. Of the more than seventy-five thousand slaves
who were carried from bondage to freedom by the self-sacrificing
agencies of the system, Brown, it is said, gave shelter and a meal to
but one of them. The late Colonel Thomas Wentworth Higginson, militant
clergyman and abolitionist, in a eulogy upon Brown, said:[57]
... It had been my privilege to live in the best society
all my life--namely that of abolitionists and fugitive
slaves. I had seen the most eminent persons of the age:
several on whose heads tens of thousands of dollars had
been set; a black woman, who, after escaping from slavery
herself, had gone back secretly eight times into the jaws
of death to bring out persons whom she had never seen; and
a white man, who after assisting away fugitives by the
thousand, had twice been stripped of every dollar of his
property in fines, and when taunted by the Court, had
mildly said, "Friend if thee knows any poor fugitive in
need of a breakfast, send him to Thomas Garrett's door." I
had known these, and such as these; but I had not known the
Browns....
This well informed man; this practical and intellectual leader of the
anti-slavery movement had been Brown's neighbor for years. Why was it
that he had never heard of him? There is but one answer: Brown had not
been a worker in Mr. Higginson's vineyard. He had not done anything to
attract the attention of any one seriously interested in the
anti-slavery cause. He was neither an ardent nor a conspicuous laborer
in behalf of the slave.
However, what has been stated herein is the credit side of Brown's
account with slavery; there is also a debit side in this history which
exhibits strong presumptive evidence that his "horror" of slavery was
neither so "passionate" nor so violent but that it could be controlled
and modified to accommodate itself to the advantages of the system. When
John Brown, the man of affairs, decided to become a resident of the
State of Virginia, and engage in business there upon a one thousand acre
estate, he knew that he would have to employ some slave labor. He knew
also that the "good will" and the patronage of the people living in the
section of the country in which he intended to locate, were necessary
for the success of his undertaking; these he knew he could not secure
unless he conformed to the commercial and social customs prevailing in
Virginia, and to the sentiment of Virginians in relation to slavery.
These conditions this aggressive speculator and sportsman, did consider
and did accept. The letter which he wrote to his wife from Ripley,
Virginia, suggests, as a matter of fact, that he had declared a truce in
his opposition to slavery, whatever the degree of such opposition may
have been; and that he had changed his attitude toward the system to
meet the requirements of his prospective environment. The letter,
abridged by Mr. Sanborn, is as follows:[58]
Ripley, Va., April 27, 1840.
... I like the country as well as I expected and its
inhabitants rather better; and I have seen the spot where,
if it be the will of Providence, I hope one day to live
with my family.... Were the inhabitants as resolute and
industrious as the Northern people, and did they understand
how to manage as well, they would become rich; but they are
not generally so. They seem to have no idea of improvement
in their cattle, sheep, or hogs, nor to know the use of
enclosed pasture-field for their stock, but spend a large
portion of their time in hunting for their cattle, sheep,
and horses; and the same habit continues from father to
son.... By comparing them with people of other parts of the
country, I can see new and abundant proof that knowledge is
power. I think we may be very useful to them on many
accounts, were we disposed. May God in mercy keep us all,
and enable us to get wisdom; and with all our getting and
losing, to get understanding.
It would be very much more satisfactory if Mr. Sanborn had published the
full text of that part of this letter which treats of the habits of the
people, and of the labor conditions existing there. The question of
labor was of paramount importance in Brown's Virginia venture. He was an
optimist, and in his optimistic forecast saw that the care and
cultivation of a thousand acres, and the operation and development of a
tanning business would, in time, require a large establishment,
necessitating, probably, the labor of a number of slaves. This question
then arises: Did John Brown intend or expect to own, ultimately, the
necessary slaves to operate this property, or did he intend to hire them
from others. His letters consistently abound in minute detail. It is
therefore improbable, in the opinion of the writer, that he discussed
the manners and customs of the white people of that section with his
wife, and wrote of minor conditions existing there, without making some
reference to the black people of the country; and to the more important
questions of slavery and labor--matters in which he would have a deep
personal and pecuniary interest. Mr. Villard did not fail to comment,
with surprise, upon the omission of the subject from Brown's letter. He
said:[59]
But his letter to his family from Ripley, Virginia, April
27, 1840, already cited, is peaceable enough and his hope
of settling his family there is hardly consistent with his
anti-slavery policy of later years. Indeed, while recording
his pleasure that the residents of the vicinity were more
attractive people than he thought, he had nothing to say
about the institution of slavery which he then, for the
first time, really beheld at close range.
No one inspired with an enthusiasm upon the subject of slavery, such as
has been attributed to Brown, could have failed, under these
circumstances, to dwell upon the theme. A dilemma is, therefore, herein
presented to his biographers and eulogists which they cannot disregard:
either he discussed the questions of labor, and what their relations to
slavery would be in their prospective estate, in this letter to his
wife; or else, he considered slavery of so little importance in the
premises, and was so indifferent at heart upon the subject, that his
first sight of real slaves, in actual slavery, failed to elicit from him
any expression whatever in regard to it. It is the opinion of the writer
that John Brown, the man of iron will, the reckless speculator, optimist
and sportsman, was well pleased with the prospect of owning a plantation
of a thousand broad acres in Virginia; and with having it well stocked
with fine horses, fine cattle, fine sheep, and _fine slaves_.
This opinion of the man is consistent with his reckless speculative
career, and with his indifference as to the means for the accomplishment
of his ends. And after all, it is by a man's actions, and not by any
explanation of his motives, furnished by himself or by others, that we
must, in the final analysis, estimate his character.
CHAPTER III
KANSAS--A CRISIS IN OUR NATIONAL HISTORY
_There are no greater heroes in the history of our country
than Eli Thayer of Massachusetts, and Charles Robinson of
Kansas._--WILLIAM H. TAFT
In its relation to Government, our country has completed two periods of
its existence. The Colonial period ended at Yorktown. The period of
State Sovereignty had its ending at Appomattox. Kansas was the herald of
Appomattox; the climax in the series of political incidents which led to
secession and the war between the States.
By the Ordinance of 1787, the last Continental Congress excluded slavery
from all that part of the public domain lying north of the Ohio River.
In 1803 our territorial limits were expanded by the purchase of
Louisiana, and a serious clash between the Free and the Slave sections
of the country came upon the division, in relation to slavery, of this
newly acquired domain. It was precipitated upon Congress by the
application of Missouri, in 1818, to be admitted into the Union. Its
constitution provided for slavery. The northern part of the new state
extended from the Mississippi to the Missouri; the north boundary being
40° 30' north latitude; and this line, taken in connection with the
Platte River from the Missouri to the Rocky Mountains, suggested what
the South intended should be the dividing line between the sections in
the new territory. After two years of acrimonious debate a compromise
measure was adopted admitting Missouri, as prayed for, but excluding
slavery forever from all the remaining territory, acquired from France,
lying north of 36° 30' north latitude.
The debate upon the measure developed the existence, in the North, of a
growing hostile sentiment toward slavery, which confirmed in the minds
of Southern statesmen the necessity of keeping the number of Slave
States equal, at least, with the number of Free States; for only by thus
maintaining a balance of power in the Senate, could legislation adverse
to slavery be prevented. Also, the limitations of the compromise
agreement emphasized a further necessity; the acquisition of additional
territory south of 36° 30' from which Slave States could be created in
the future, to balance the admission into the Union of prospective Free
States. This resulted in a propaganda for territorial expansion
southward. In pursuance of such policy, the revolt against Mexico, by
Texas, was probably encouraged.[60] In discussing the recognition of the
Republic of Texas, in January, 1836, Mr. Calhoun said, "It prepared the
way for the speedy admission of Texas into the Union, which would be a
necessity to the proper balance of power in the Union between the
slave-holding and non-slave-holding Commonwealths, upon which the
preservation of the Union and the perpetuation of its institutions
rested.[61]
The State of Vermont "apprehended that the political strength which the
annexation of Texas would give to the slave-holding interests, would
soon lead to a dissolution of the Union, or to the political degradation
of the Free States"; and, in pursuance of that apprehension the
"Legislature of Vermont adopted a set of resolutions protesting against
the annexation of Texas or the admission of any Slave State into the
Union," which was presented in Congress.[62] Having respect for Northern
sentiment, Congress kept Florida waiting six years: until Iowa was ready
to come into the Union.[63] The South consented readily to the
settlement of the "Oregon Boundary Question" at 49° north latitude
instead of 54° 40'. In fact, at the time the Democratic National
Convention of 1844 declared our title to the whole of Oregon as far as
54° 40' to be "clear and unquestionable," Mr. Calhoun, secretary of
state, had proposed to Her Majesty's representative to settle the
controversy by adopting the 49th parallel as the boundary.[64] Texas was
admitted into the Union; the articles of annexation providing that it
might be subdivided into five states, at any time it chose to make such
division. Also, after a war of conquest with Mexico, Upper California
and New Mexico were added to the public domain.
The mutual congratulations indulged in by the Southern managers over the
accomplishment of the pro-slavery program for territorial expansion,
were interrupted by intelligence of the most startling character. Before
the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo had been signed, gold was discovered in
the Sierras, and the occupation of California by emigrants, principally
from the Northern States, was an immediate result. Thus, the conquest of
Mexico--the prize trophy in the triumphal procession of pro-slavery
events--carried with it, by the irony of fate, the Nemesis of her
despoiled people. Within two years a Free State had been carved out of
the Territory which the South had won for slavery.
The contests which were had over the admission of Missouri into the
Union, and the annexation of Texas, were trivial in comparison with the
storm that burst upon the Thirty-first Congress over the admission of
California. The already strained relations between the North and the
South reached the limits of tension; and but for the tabling of the
"Wilmot Proviso," and the adoption of the "Compromise" measures, the
cords that bound the Union would have snapped then and there. "The first
weeks of the session were more than enough to show in its full breadth
and depth, even to the duller eyes, the abyss that yawned between the
North and the South."[65] "All the Union men, North and South, Whigs and
Democrats, for the period of six months were assembled in caucuses every
day, with Clay in the chair, Cass upon his right hand, Webster upon his
left hand, and the Whigs and Democrats on either side."[66] It was
during this debate that Mr. Seward announced the doctrine of the
"_higher law_":
The Constitution regulates our stewardship; the
Constitution devotes the domain (the territories not formed
into states) to union, to justice, to defence, to welfare,
and to liberty. But there is a _higher law than the
Constitution_, which regulates our authority over the
domain and devotes it to the same noble purposes.
Webster thus began his great speech:
I wish to speak today, not as a Massachusetts man, nor as a
Northern man, but as an American.... The imprisoned winds
are let loose. The East, the North, and the stormy South
combine to throw the whole sea into commotion, to toss its
billows to the skies, and disclose its profoundest
depths.... I speak today for the preservation of the Union.
Hear me for my Cause.[67]
Said Toombs of Georgia:
I do not then hesitate to avow before this House and the
Country, and in the presence of the living God, that if by
your legislation you seek to drive us from the territories
of California and New Mexico, purchased by the common blood
and treasure of the whole people, and to abolish slavery in
this district, thereby attempting to fix a National
degradation upon half of the states of this confederacy _I
am for disunion_, and if my physical courage be equal to
the maintenance of my convictions of duty, I will devote
all I am, and all I have on earth to its consummation.[68]
This speech was repeatedly interrupted by storms of applause. And
Stephens, too, was greeted with loud acclamations when he announced his
concurrence in every word of his colleague, and declared the Union
dissolved from the moment an attack upon a section became an
accomplished fact.
Colcock of South Carolina then announced that he would bring in a formal
motion for the dissolution of the Union, as soon as the abolition of
slavery in the District of Columbia should have been resolved upon, or
the Wilmot Proviso passed.[69] The compromise agreement was effected by
the fine patriotism, the sagacity, and the personal sacrifice of two
great figures of that generation: Clay and Webster. In promoting this
measure, they exhausted their political resources, and forfeited their
political fortunes. Neither of them could have been reëlected to the
senate.
Nothing was settled by the compromise of 1850; both sides accepting it
in a tentative way. "The present Crisis may pass," wrote Mr. Stephens in
1850,[70] "the present adjustment may be made, but the great question of
permanence of slavery in the Southern states will be far from being
settled thereby. And, in my opinion, the crisis of that question is not
far ahead."
This review, altogether too brief, is made herein to show the extreme
tension of the sectional feeling which existed in the country on account
of the extension of slavery; and the national significance of the
struggle that was soon to develop over the question in Kansas. It also
foreshadows the action the Southern States would surely take, if the
Kansas decision declared against them.
By the admission of California into the Union as a Free State, the South
lost the "balance of power"; but the general situation at the time was
far from being hopeless. Further territorial expansion was
necessary--imperatively so--but the prospect was still full of promising
possibilities. There was Cuba, that Buchanan had offered a hundred
millions for in 1848; out of which two, or, if necessary, three States
could be made. And, looming up in the more remote horizon, were
Nicaragua and the remainder of Mexico. And, last but not least,
"Squatter Sovereignty," or, in more modern parlance: "Let the People
Rule."
The "Pearl of the Antilles" was the prize trophy in the new crusade for
territorial acquisition, and "Free Cuba" the slogan. The efforts to get
control of the island, for purposes of annexation, were persistent, and
the history of them is intensely interesting. First came filibustering
operations. Three expeditions were sent out in 1849-1851. The command of
the last of these was offered--first to Jefferson Davis, and then to
Robert E. Lee.[71] It sailed August 3, 1851, under Lopez. In the first
scrimmage with the Spaniards, Colonel Crittenden (son of Senator
Crittenden of Kentucky) and fifty of his men were captured, taken to
Havana, and shot, August 24th. The remainder of the Army of Invasion was
defeated; Lopez was taken and garroted; and his followers who had been
taken prisoners, were sent to Spain.
General Quitman's expedition, organized in 1853-1854, would have been
more formidable than any theretofore undertaken. He had commanded a
brigade in General Scott's army, in Mexico, and had been Governor of
Mississippi. His demonstrations, however, may have been merely in
support of Mr. Marcy's efforts, at the time, to open negotiations with
Spain for purchasing the island. Meanwhile the Black Warrior incident
offered the most promising opportunity of all. The provocation in that
case could have been held to be sufficient to justify a declaration of
war; and that surely would have been the result, had it not been for
the tornado of anti-slavery sentiment which was let loose at the time by
the promulgation, in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, then pending in Congress,
of the new doctrine of "Squatter Sovereignty"; and by Mr. Dixon's
amendment thereto, expressly repealing the restriction of the time
honored Missouri Compromise. "It may be affirmed with confidence," says
Mr. Rhodes,[72] "that Northern public opinion, excited by the
Kansas-Nebraska act, alone prevented this unjust war." The New York
_Courier and Inquirer_ said June 1st:
Does any sane man live who believes that if Cuba was
tendered to us tomorrow, with the full sanction of England
and France, that this people would consent to receive and
annex her?... There was a time when the North would have
consented to annex Cuba, but the Nebraska wrong has forever
rendered annexation impossible.
A revolution in Spain gave an opportunity for negotiations to purchase
the island; but the suggestion that a few millions of money should be
placed at the disposal of the Executive, during the recess of Congress,
to be used in the Spanish-Cuban business, met no response;[73] while the
"Ostend Manifesto" received no consideration whatever. The trouble was
that the South had been moving with too much energy and too arrogantly.
Her statesmen had undertaken to do everything at once. Had they been
less aggressive, or more conciliatory and diplomatic, and concentrated
their efforts on the acquisition of Cuba, they surely could have
succeeded;[74] and would then have been in position to await the
psychological moment to move the Kansas question. The Missouri
Compromise was a "solemn covenant entered into by two opposing parties
for the preservation of amicable relations." It was not sustained by any
constitutional authority. Kansas Territory, therefore, might have been
peacefully occupied by emigrants from Missouri and the Southern States,
as Missouri had been, leaving, with confidence, the constitutionality of
the restrictions against slavery, for future settlement by the courts.
The creation of the State of Kansas was a political proposition pure and
simple. The amendment to the Nebraska bill creating Kansas Territory
provided for a "complete Territorial government; including a legislature
with two houses and thirty-nine members; although, at the time, there
was not one white man in the Territory, except those intermarried with
Indians and the few who were there under authority of Federal law....
The project fell upon Congress as suddenly and apparently as uncaused as
a meteor from the political sky."[75]
The settlement of the Territory was promoted by the leaders of the
pro-slavery and anti-slavery sections of the country. The South was
spurred to activity by the extremity of its political and commercial
necessities; while the North was impelled by a great moral sentiment,
that had developed with time and changes which had occurred in public
thought and in economic conditions. But the fact should not be lost
sight of, that the ethical emotions which nourished this sentiment had
their origin, or beginnings, in the unprofitable and unsatisfactory
character of slave labor in that section. The Southern statesmen staked
the entire stock of their political assets on the result in Kansas. The
North already had a majority of one State, with the Territories,
Minnesota and Oregon, waiting at the threshold of the Union for
admission into the family of States. If the South lost Kansas, its
political power and prestige would be destroyed; slavery would
thereafter be dependent, in the Union, upon the mercy or charity of the
aggressively hostile anti-slavery sentiment which it had too arrogantly
aroused.
The plans of the Southerners for the creation of the new State, were
well matured, and seemed in every way feasible. The geographical
situation was ideal. The close proximity of the friendly State of
Missouri, with a large percentage of its population on its western
border, backed by the mutuality of every Southern State, seemed to be
sufficient guaranty that the necessary voting population could, and
would, be promptly furnished. They had good cause to believe that they
could get their people into the Territory in sufficient numbers to
control the necessary elections.
In the Senate Mr. Seward said, May 25, 1854:
The sun has set for the last time upon the guaranteed and
certain liberties of all the unsettled portions of the
American continent that lie within the jurisdiction of the
United States. Tomorrow's sun will rise in deep eclipse
over these. How long that obscuration shall last, is known
only to the power that directs all human events. For myself
I know this: that no human power can prevent its coming on,
and that its passage off will be hastened and secured by
others than those now belonging to this generation.[76]
Authorities by the score might be cited to show the gloom and
despondency of the North at this time. The people had reason to believe
that Kansas and Nebraska would become Slave States, and that the
preponderance of Southern influence in governmental affairs would be
perpetuated indefinitely.
May 30, 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Bill was signed and the doctrine of
Squatter Sovereignty thereby crystallized into law. Immediately the
historic contest for the occupation and political control of Kansas
Territory was on: a contest that marks an epoch in the history of our
country. The great events of the succeeding decade: the acts of
secession, the war between the States, with its tragedies; and the
Emancipation Proclamation, were all involved in the result.
It cannot be said that the contest was of local concern, carried on
between factions in Kansas over the question whether the State should be
a Free State or a Slave State; for at that time there were no settlers
in the Territory to comprise such factions. The interest in the
impending struggle was nation wide. Congress had merely cleared the
ground for action; "pitched the ring," for what was to be the first
political battle in the "fight to a finish" between the slave-holding
and the non-slave-holding sections of our country: the beginning of the
final struggle between freedom and slavery.
The question of slavery in the Territory was to be decided by the votes
of the people who would emigrate to and occupy it. The South had chosen
to place its reliance upon votes in a contest where oratory, tact, and
statesmanship had theretofore failed. Its slogan was "Squatter
Sovereignty." The answer given back by the North was "Organized
Emigration:" "a power unknown before in the world's history."
The rapid settlement of California had shown that any country will draw
emigration thereto, if it offers an attractive lure. Mr. Eli Thayer, of
Massachusetts, had made a note of that fact and believed that what the
discovery of gold had done to promote emigration to that state, the
advantages of soil and climate for successful home building, would do
for Kansas, if properly advertised. The formation of the Massachusetts
Emigrant Aid Company, with an authorized capital of $5,000,000, was a
result of his conclusions upon the subject. It proved to be "a stronger
defiance to slavocracy than anything ever uttered in the hall of
Congress." This commercial novelty put its capital in the advance
instead of in the rear of the column of occupation. It assisted
emigrants to reach their destination, and helped them to develop their
farms. For this purpose it installed saw mills and flour mills, where
needed; furnished machinery and implements; built churches, school
houses, and hotels. Also, it proposed to earn dividends for its
stockholders by these and other investments. As Mr. Thayer expressed
it: "When a man can do a magnanimous act; when he can do a decidedly
good thing, and at the same time make money by it, all his faculties are
in harmony."
An incident of the period of the occupation of Kansas is thus related by
Mr. Thayer on page 187 of the _Crusade_: "One day, in 1855, Senator
Atchison, with some others, was at the wharf in Kansas City, when a
river boat approached with one of our engines on deck. Atchison turned
to those on the right and asked: 'What is that on the deck of the
steamboat?' His companion answered: 'Senator, that is a steam engine and
a steam boiler.' Turning to the others he repeated his question. They
repeated the answer before given. He replied: 'You are a pack of ----
fools. That is a Yankee city going to Kansas; and by ----! in six months
it will cast a hundred Abolition votes.'"
The affairs of the company in Kansas were placed under the direction of
Dr. Charles Robinson, also of Massachusetts. He came to the Territory
early in July, 1854; located the town of Lawrence, and established there
the headquarters of the bureau of northern immigration.
Naturally the first immigrants to arrive came from Missouri. In
sentiment they were quite unanimously pro-slavery; but that was not
discouraging, for the publicity bureau, organized by Mr. Thayer and ably
backed by Mr. Greeley through the columns of the New York _Tribune_, had
proclaimed the advantages and possibilities of the new Territory far and
wide; and the public interest thus awakened gave ample promise of
satisfactory results in the near future. July 31st, the first
consignment of emigrants from the North, twenty-nine in number, arrived
at Lawrence; and September 2d the second installment of one hundred and
fourteen arrived and joined the initial company. Within a few months
"Organized Emigration" was in successful operation; and by the close of
the year 1856, it had fulfilled the Kansas prophecy. As Mr. Thayer
states it:[77]
We had triumphed in the great conflict. We had in Kansas
four Free-State men to every one of our opponents; our
numbers were rapidly increasing while theirs were
diminishing. Buford had returned to Alabama. Atchinson and
Stringfellow had given up the fight.
Concerning the Kansas conflict Dr. Burgess says:
The record of this struggle is certainly one of the most
remarkable chapters in the history of the United States.
There is much to admire in it, much to be ashamed of, and
much to be repudiated as foul and devilish. The prudence,
moderation, tact, and bravery of Dr. Robinson and his
friends have rarely been excelled by the statesmen and
diplomatists of the New World or of the Old. They were
placed in a most trying situation both by their foes and by
those who, professing to be their friends, endangered the
cause more by violent and brutal deeds than did their open
enemies. Their triumph over all these difficulties is a
marvel of shrewd, honest, and conservative management,
which may well serve as one of the best object-lessons of
our history for succeeding generations.[78]
It is not within the purview of this sketch to recite in detail the
various incidents, accidents, and extremities which befell the Northern
emigrants in working out the problems of state building. They began to
acquire experience promptly with the arrival of the first colony; and
the authorities all agree, that, during the ensuing three years an area
of low political barometer was general throughout the Territory, with a
continuous storm center, of great energy, at Lawrence. "By the sharp
logic of the revolver and bowie knife, the people of Missouri became the
people of Kansas." Residents of Missouri furnished liberal pro-slavery
majorities at the elections, and their personal services were available
at all times, for the preservation of peace and order in the Territory;
as well as to enforce, by force, a proper respect for the dignity of
the Territorial officers, and for the authority of the Legislature
itself.
A revolt against these superimposed attentions, organized and led by
Charles Robinson, became the thorn that rankled in the pro-slavery
flesh, and led to the discomfiture and defeat of the Slave-State
propaganda. Robinson had the temerity to challenge the subtile logic of
the revolver and bowie-knife in determining the qualifications of
Territorial electors. His dissent, at first, took the mild form of a
petition to Governor Reeder, after the election of November 29, 1854.
asking that "the entire vote of the districts receiving the votes of
citizens of Missouri, be set aside; or that the entire election be set
aside." After a brutal usurpation of the polls, at the election for
members of the Territorial Legislature, March 30, 1855, a Legislature
which, under the organic act could determine whether the State should be
Free or Slave, Robinson again protested and sought redress of the
spoilation of the squatters' rights: and, failing to obtain justice,
united the Free-State men in a revolt against the authority of the
Territorial Legislature, and in a determination to repudiate the laws it
intended lawlessly to enact. Also, what had still greater significance,
he organized his followers into military companies to resist, by force
of arms, any further infringement upon their rights. Answering his call
to duty, the Free-State men of Lawrence and vicinity led the nation in
this crisis in public affairs, making its history, and directing its
destiny. It was the hour of Destiny. Sending for a second consignment of
Sharp's rifles, Robinson wrote these impressive and heroic words:
We are in the midst of a revolution, as you will see by the
papers. How we shall come out of the furnace, God only
knows. That we have got to enter it, some of us, there is
no doubt; but we are ready to be offered.
In haste very respectfully, Yours, for freedom for a world,
C. ROBINSON.
The organization of a military force by the Free-State men, gave to the
Free-State party a solidarity and prestige it had not theretofore
enjoyed. It at once became a popular party; and encouraged by daily
accessions to its ranks by immigration, combined with a prospective
certainty of becoming the majority party, it became bravely aggressive,
and boldly launched its campaign for Free-State supremacy. In
furtherance of their plan of campaign, the Free-State men adopted a
constitution for a Free State, and organized and put into effect a full
fledged State Government in opposition to the existing Territorial
Government; and under it, with Charles Robinson as Governor, sought
admission into the Union. Only a wise and courageous leadership combined
with a high order of executive ability, could successfully handle the
delicate problems involved in this complicated program. The leadership
required the necessary tact to unite and reconcile divergent convictions
and opinions, within the party, upon questions of principle as well as
of policy; it also required prudence to restrain the impetuous, and to
avoid complications which, at any time, might make shipwreck of the
cause.
The results accomplished by the Free-State settlers during the first two
years of their occupation of the Territory, amply justified the generous
congratulations in which they indulged. They had, wisely, withdrawn from
under the fire of an arrogant, domineering majority, and, in their
segregation, were surely creating a State to their own liking, in their
own way. They matched their wits against the management of their
political opponents, and were more than satisfied with the dilemma in
which the situation placed them. It became plainly evident that unless
the Free-State organizations, civil and military, were utterly destroyed
and further immigration from the North retarded, the Free-State cause
would certainly succeed. The situation, therefore, demanded the adoption
of more strenuous methods in dealing with it than could be approved by
the National Administration.
What they had failed to accomplish by "peaceful" methods, the
pro-slavery junta now sought to gain by the execution of more radical
measures. They accordingly organized an "Army of Invasion," and the
Wakarusa War of 1855 became an historical incident. They indicted the
Free-State Governor, Robinson, and the more prominent Free-State men,
for "constructive" treason; arrested them, and put them in prison. In
May, 1856, under cover of judicial authority, the town of Lawrence was
looted and burned. The Free-State Legislature that had been elected,
assembled at Topeka, only to be dispersed, July 4th, by the armed forces
of the United States. A blockade of the Missouri River was declared
against Free-State immigrants, and made effective. They also attempted,
without success, to cut off communications between Kansas and the
Northern States, which the Free-State men had opened up, via Iowa and
Nebraska. They murdered Dow, and Barber, and Brown, and Stewart, and
Jones, and Hoyt.
A third, and the final invasion, closed this chapter of heroic
undertakings and lamentable failures. September 14, 1856, their army,
2800 strong, occupied Franklin. During the night, Lieutenant Colonel
Joseph E. Johnston, U. S. Army, with a battalion of cavalry and a
section of artillery, arrived at Lawrence. Placing his battery in
position on Mount Oread, the muzzles of his guns pointing toward
Franklin, and deploying his cavalry in the valley in front of the town,
he awaited the crisis developing in the pro-slavery situation. On the
morning of the 15th, the newly appointed Territorial Governor, John W.
Geary, accompanied by Lieutenant Colonel Philip St. George Cooke, U. S.
Army, arrived upon the scene from Lecompton. After a short conversation
with Governor Robinson, they rode out to interview the invaders. It was
the hour of fate. A brief conference with General Atchison was held in
front of Atchison's lines; and then, it was all over; the Federal
Government had intervened. The campaign of violence had failed, and with
it expired the last substantial hope of the pro-slavery managers that
the balance of power between the warring sections of the country could
be restored. Upon receiving Governor Geary's ultimatum: that he must
retire with his forces from the Territory, immediately, Atchison turned
the head of his column toward Missouri. Arriving at Westport, he
disbanded his army and gave up the struggle. Buford returned to Alabama
and Jackson to Georgia. That Kansas would be a _Free State_ was
practically assured from that hour.
Involved in the corollary of the Free-State victory were the startling
incidents in history that followed in quick succession, culminating in
the stupendous tragedies of war. Mr. F. B. Sanborn said:[79]
Had Kansas in the death struggle of 1856 fallen a prey to
the slave holders, slave-holding would today be the law of
our imperial democracy. The sanctions of the Union and the
Constitution would now be on the side of human slavery, as
they were from 1840 to 1860.
The question of slavery domination must and will be fought
out on the plains of Kansas.[80]
Kansas must be a Slave State or the Union will be
dissolved.... If Kansas is not made a Slave State, it
requires no sage to foretell that there will never be
another Slave State.[81]
Slavery in South Carolina is dependent upon its
establishment in Kansas.[82]
The Touch-stone of our political existence is Kansas.[83]
Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama stand pledged to secede
from the Union, should Kansas applying for admission as a
slave state be refused admission.[84]
The question is one of life or death to the South upon the
simple alternative of the admission or rejection of Kansas
with her slave constitution.[85]
That American is little to be envied who can speak lightly
of the decisive contest in Kansas between the two
antagonistic civilizations of this continent. Either he
does not love his country, or he is incapable of
understanding her history.[86]
CHAPTER IV
HIS PUBLIC SERVICES
_Peace rules the day, where reason rules the mind._
--COLLINS
It was in the fall of 1855 that John Brown came to Kansas to try another
venture with fortune, in a new field of opportunity.
During the spring of 1854 his son John was seeking a new location, and
had written to his father in relation thereto; who replied to him in a
letter dated April 3, 1854, "I do not know of a good opening for you
this way."[87] But during the fall of that year five of Brown's
sons--John, Jason, Owen, Frederick, and Salmon--decided to settle in
Kansas. Having completed their arrangements they moved to the Territory
in the spring of 1855, arriving, about May 1st, in the vicinity of
Osawatomie. They were attracted to the Territory, as thousands of others
were, by the glowing accounts published by emigration societies north
and south. These prospectuses described the beauty of the prairies, the
fertility of the soil, the delightful and health-giving climate; and set
forth the prospective rewards in wealth, health, and happiness which
were awaiting all who took advantage of the great opportunities the
country offered. That they were not disappointed upon their arrival,
appears from their letters expressing eminent satisfaction with
everything pertaining to the settlement, and their desire to have their
father locate in Kansas with them.
May 24th John Brown, Jr., wrote to his father: "Salmon, Frederick, and
Owen say that they never was in a country that begun to please them as
well, and I will say that the present prospect for health, wealth, and
usefulness much exceeds even my most sanguine anticipations. I know of
no country where a poor man, endowed with a share of common sense and
with health, can get a start as easy. If we can succeed in making this a
free state, a great work will be accomplished for mankind."[88]
Long before the coming of the Browns, the Free State leaders in the
Territory had determined to repudiate the laws enacted by the
Territorial Legislature; also, to defend themselves by force of arms
against the aggressions of their over-zealous pro-slavery neighbors in
Missouri. They had during April, 1855, secured from Boston a hundred
Sharp's rifles to arm the companies organized at Lawrence, and were
negotiating for further consignments of arms. After their arrival in the
Territory, the Browns realized the importance of this movement, and
since they had not brought any serviceable arms with them--having come
with axes instead of rifles--they wrote to their father to try to get
some for them, and bring them with him when he came. The letter which
John Brown, Jr., wrote to his father on the subject is as follows:[89]
And now I come to the matter, that more than all else I
intended should be the principal subject of this letter. I
tell you the truth when I say, that while the interests of
despotism has secured to its cause hundreds and thousands
of the meanest and most desperate of men, armed to the
teeth with Revolvers, Bowie Knives, Rifles and
Cannon--while they are not only thoroughly organized, but
under pay from Slaveholders--the friends of freedom are NOT
ONE FOURTH of them HALF ARMED, and as to MILITARY
ORGANIZATION among them it NO WHERE EXISTS IN THIS
TERRITORY unless they have recently done something in
Lawrence. The result of this is that the people here
exhibit the most abject and cowardly spirit, whenever their
dearest rights are invaded and trampled down by the lawless
bands of Miscreants which Missouri has ready at a moment's
call to pour in upon them. This is the GENERAL effect upon
the people here so far as I have noticed, there are a few,
and but a few exceptions. Of course these foreign
Scoundrels know what kind of "ALLIES" they have to meet.
They boast that they can obtain possession of the polls in
any of our election precincts without having to fire a gun.
I enclose a piece which I cut from a St. Louis paper named
the St. Louis _Republican_; it shows the spirit which moves
them. Now Missouri is not alone in the undertaking to make
this a Slave State. Every Slaveholding State from Virginia
to Texas is furnishing men and money to fasten Slavery upon
this glorious land, by means no matter how foul.
Now the remedy we propose is, that the Anti slavery portion
of the inhabitants should IMMEDIATELY, THOROUGHLY ARM and
ORGANIZE THEMSELVES in MILITARY COMPANIES. In order to
effect this, some persons must begin and lead in the
matter. Here are 5 men of us who are not only anxious to
fully prepare, but are thoroughly determined to fight. We
can see no other way to meet the case. As in the language
of the memorial lately signed by the people here and sent
to Congress petitioning help, "it is no longer a question
of negro slavery, but it is the enslavement of ourselves."
The General Government may be petitioned until the people
here are grey, and no redress will be had so long as it
makes slavery its paramount interest.... We have among us
5, 1 Revolver, 1 Bowie Knife, 1 middling good Rifle, 1 poor
Rifle, 1 small pocket pistol and 2 slung shot. What we need
in order to be thoroughly armed for each man, is 1 Colts
large sized Revolver, 1 ALLEN & THURBER' RIFLE--they are
manufactured somewhere in Mass or Connecticut (Mr. Paine of
Springfield would probably know) and 1 heavy Bowie Knife--I
think the Minnie Rifles are made so that a sword bayonet
may be attached. With this we could compete with men who
even possessed Cannon. The real Minnie Rifle has a killing
range almost equal to Cannon and of course is more easily
handled, perhaps enough so to make up the difference. Now
we want you to get for us these arms. We need them more
than we do bread. Would not Gerrit Smith or someone,
furnish the money and loan it to us for one, two or three
years, for the purpose until we can raise enough to refund
it from the Free soil of Kansas?...
In so far as the Brown family is concerned, this letter contains the
first recorded evidence of an intention, or of a desire of any of them
to actively oppose slavery in Kansas or elsewhere. It treats the subject
as an original proposition; as though it had never been theretofore so
much as mentioned in their family councils. The letter has historical
significance: it secured John Brown's introduction to the public. It
opened the way that enabled him to go to Kansas; where he began a career
which led, ultimately, to Harper's Ferry and to Charlestown.
Following the suggestion of his son he took up with Gerrit Smith the
matter of securing a loan wherewith to purchase the arms desired. The
latter, instead of making an arrangement with them for the necessary
amount, personally presented the case before a convention of
Abolitionists that was held at Syracuse, New York, June 28th, with the
result that a collection was taken up which yielded Brown sixty dollars
in cash, twenty dollars of which was given by Smith.
The success Brown met with in collecting funds "for the cause of Kansas"
at the Syracuse convention, opened before his commercial vision that
easy field for profitable enterprise, which he afterward occupied and
worked, in a professional manner, until the end of his career. After the
Syracuse meeting he began a system of personal solicitations for money,
arms, and clothing. At Akron, Ohio, he held open meetings in one of the
public halls of the village. Mr. Villard says of these meetings:[90]
Because of their interest in the Kansas crisis, and in the
Browns, their former neighbors, the people were quickly
roused by Brown's graphic words, and liberally contributed
arms of all sorts, ammunition and clothing. Committees of
Aid were appointed and ex-Sheriff Lane was deputed to
accompany Brown in a canvass of the village shops and
offices for contributions.
At Cleveland, also, he solicited aid with very satisfactory results. He
obtained there guns, revolvers, swords, powder, caps, and money. He was
so successful "that he thought it best to detain a day or two longer on
that account." Mr. Villard says, "He had raised nearly two hundred
dollars in that way in the two previous days, principally in arms and
ammunition."
Brown, with his son Oliver and his son-in-law, Henry Thompson, left
Chicago August 23d, on their journey to Kansas. Brown states that before
leaving he purchased "a nice young horse for $120 but have so much load
that we shall have to walk, a good deal." The journey was accomplished
without either accident or incident worthy of the note, the party
arriving at Osawatomie, October 6, 1855.
Brown himself, being very tired, did not cover the last
mile or two until the next day. They arrived in all but
destitute condition, with but sixty cents between them, to
find the little family settlement in great distress, not
only because of the sickness already noted, but because of
the absence of any shelter save tents.[91]
At the time Brown arrived, the Free-State cause in the Territory was
well advanced and was progressing satisfactorily.
Out of all the meetings and conventions of the nine months
after the stolen March 30th election, there had come then,
great gains to the Free State Movement. The liberty party
had been organized, leaders had been developed, and a
regular policy of resistance by legal and constitutional
measures adopted. If counsels of compromise were still
entirely too apparent, and too potent, the train of events
which resulted in Kansas's admission as a free State was
well under way.[92]
As a result of the measures that had been adopted, an election was
pending for the selection of a Free-State Territorial Delegate to
Congress; and delegates to a Free-State Constitutional Convention. This
election had been called by the Free-State men to be held October 9th.
The regular Territorial election had been held October 1st, the
Free-State men not taking any part therein. Brown and his sons attended
the second, or Free-State election, October 9th.
An election is a political incident. A reference to an election by any
one invites an expression of his opinions upon the questions involved in
the election, if he have any special interest therein. Since Brown's
presence at this election was his introduction into the political
affairs of the Territory, we may reasonably conclude that his comments
on it cover the range of his general interest in the election and in the
issues involved therein. His letters to his family in the East
announcing his arrival at his destination, and describing the condition
of affairs, domestic as well as political, are herewith republished.
Osawatomie, K. T. Oct. 13, 1855.
Saturday Eve.
DEAR WIFE AND CHILDREN, EVERY ONE--We reached the place
where the boys are located one week ago, late at night; at
least Henry and Oliver did. I, being tired, stayed behind
in our tent, a mile or two back. As the mail goes from here
early Monday morning, we could get nothing here in time for
that mail. We found all more or less sick or feeble but
Wealthy and Johnny. All at Brownsville appear now to be
mending, but all sick or feeble here at Mr. Adair's. Fever
and ague and chill-fever seem to be very general. Oliver
has had a turn of the ague since he got here, but has got
it broken. Henry has had no return since first breaking it.
We met with no difficulty in passing through Missouri, but
from the sickness of our horse and our heavy load. The
horse has entirely recovered. We had, between us all, sixty
cents in cash when we arrived. We found our folks in a most
uncomfortable situation, with no houses to shelter one of
them, no hay or corn fodder of any account secured,
shivering over their little fires, all exposed to the
dreadful cutting winds, morning and evening and stormy
days. We have been trying to help them all in our power,
and hope to get them more comfortable soon. I think much of
their ill health is owing to most unreasonable exposure.
Mr. Adair's folks would be quite comfortable if they were
well. One letter from wife and Anne to Salmon, of August
10, and one from Ruth to John, of 19th September, is all I
have seen from any of you since getting here. Henry found
one from Ruth which he has not shown me. Need I write that
I shall be glad to hear from you? I did not write while in
Missouri, because I had no confidence in your getting my
letters. We took up little Austin and brought him on here,
which appears to be a great comfort to Jason and Ellen. We
were all out a good part of the last night, helping to keep
prairie fire from destroying everything; so that I am
almost blind today, or I would write you more.
Sabbath Eve, October 14.
I notice in your letter to Salmon your trouble about the
means of having the house made more comfortable for winter,
and I fondly hope you have been relieved on that score
before now, by funds from Mr. Hurlbut, of Winchester,
Conn., from the sale of the cattle there. Write me all
about your situation; for, if disappointed from that
source, I shall make every effort to relieve you in some
other way. Last Tuesday was an election day with Free State
men in Kansas, and hearing that there was a prospect of
difficulty we all turned out most thoroughly armed (except
Jason, who was too feeble); but no enemy appeared, nor have
I heard of any disturbance in any part of the Territory.
Indeed, I believe Missouri is fast becoming discouraged
about making Kansas a slave State, and I think the prospect
of its becoming free is brightening every day. Try to be
cheerful, and always "hope in God," who will not leave nor
forsake them that trust in him. Try to comfort and
encourage each other all you can. You are all very dear to
me, and I humbly trust we may be kept and spared to meet
again on earth; but if not, let us all endeavor earnestly
to secure admission to that eternal home, where will be no
more bitter separations, "where the wicked shall cease from
troubling and the weary be at rest." We shall probably
spend a few days more in helping the boys to provide some
kind of shelter for winter, and mean to write you often.
May God in infinite mercy bless, comfort, and save you all,
for Christ's sake!
Your Affectionate husband and father,
JOHN BROWN.
In simple language and at considerable length. Brown thus announced his
arrival at his destination, and described the conditions prevailing in
Kansas and in the Brown colony. A half dozen lines in this letter
sufficed to relate the incident of the important election of October
9th, and to give his opinions of the vital questions involved in the
political situation as it then appeared to him. These lines are void of
any hostile word or phrase; also they are void of any sentiment that can
be made to suggest that Brown was different from the ordinary immigrant
that came from the North to found a home and help to make a Free State.
No settler from the North ever wrote a letter less war-like or more
peaceful and domestic in its character than this letter written by John
Brown. The clause, "I think the prospect of its becoming free is
brightening every day," is a truer index to the state of Brown's mind,
and is better evidence of the peaceful character of his quest in Kansas,
than the combined reckless assertions of his biographers to the
contrary.
In violence of contemporary evidence, all of his biographers and some
of the historians have sought to educate the public to believe that
Brown came to Kansas on a hostile mission. The public has been led to
accept the fictitious John Brown, the picturesque character of history,
instead of the real man under consideration. To this character
constructing propaganda Mr. Redpath was an ardent contributor. One of
his many effective flights has reference to the letter, heretofore
published, which his son John wrote May 24th. He said concerning it:
He undoubtedly regarded it as a call from the Almighty to
gird up his loins and go forth to do battle "as the warrior
of the Lord" as "the warrior of the Lord against the
Mighty" in behalf of His despised poor and His downtrodden
people. The moment long waited for had at length arrived;
the sign he had patiently expected had been given; and the
brave old soldier of the God of Battles prepared at once,
to obey the summons.... John Brown did _not_ go to Kansas
to settle there. He did not dare to remain tending sheep at
North Elba when the American Goliath and his hosts were in
the field, defying the little armies of the living
Lord.[93]
While Mr. Redpath did very well, his panegyric is not comparable with
some of the latest and more scholarly studies of Brown. Here is one of
Mr. Villard's efforts:
Thenceforth John Brown could give free rein to his
_wanderlust_; the shackles of business life dropped from
him. He was now bowed and rapidly turning gray; to
everyone's lips the adjective "old" leaped as they saw him.
But this was not the age of senility, nor of weariness with
life; nor were the lines of care due solely to family and
business anxieties or to the hard labor of the fields. They
were rather the marks of the fires consuming within; of the
indomitable purpose that was the main spring of every
action; of a life devoted, a spirit inspired. Emancipation
from the counter and the harrow came joyfully to him at the
time of life when most men begin to long for rest and the
repose of a quiet, well ordered home. Thenceforth he was
free to move where he pleased, to devote every thought to
his battle with the slave-power he staggered, which then,
knew nothing of his existence.
The metamorphosis was now complete. The staid, sombre
merchant and patriarchal family-head was ready to become
Captain John Brown of Osawatomie, at the mere mention of
whose name Border Ruffians and swashbuckling adherents to
the institution of slavery trembled and often fled. Kansas
gave John Brown the opportunity to test himself as a
guerrilla leader for which he had longed; for no other
purpose did he proceed to the Territory; to become a
settler there as he had hoped to in Virginia in 1840 was
furthest from his thoughts.[94]
At the time the chrysalis of the Osawatomie guerilla is said to have
emancipated himself bodily from the harrow and was burning to take up
arms against the "swashbucklers," he wrote a letter to his son Salmon
concerning his intentions to join the colony and asked him some
questions relating to their condition, and to their requirements.
Strange as it may seem this letter contained nothing that called for a
war-like, or even a moderately ferocious reply from Salmon. His answer
to it is scarcely dramatic; in fact it seems to relate more to the
harrow, and to such disinteresting sublunary topics as the condition of
his simple but more or less dilapidated wardrobe, than it does to
"indomitable purposes" or to armies of a Lord who Mr. Redpath represents
as being still alive. He wrote, June 22d:[95]
In answer to your questions about what you will need for
your company, I would say that I have an acre of corn that
looks very well, and some beans and squashes and turnips.
You will want to get some pork and meal, and beans enough
to last till the crop comes in, and then I think we will
have enough grain to last through the winter. I will have a
house up by the time you get here. My boots are very near
worn out, and I shall need some summer pants and a hat. I
bought an ax and that you will not have to get.
In a series of thirty-eight letters, published in Mr. Sanborn's _Life
and Letters of John Brown_, commencing with the date, January 18, 1841;
and ending with the letter herein, of October 14, 1855, there is not an
expression relating to slavery that has not been heretofore quoted or
referred to in this work. That Mr. Sanborn was a partisan writer, and
that he sifted Brown's correspondence in a search for letters which
could be quoted in support of the assumptions of these and other
panegyrists, concerning his alleged hostility to slavery, will not be
denied. Their assumptions are therefore, wholly fanciful; there is not a
sentence contained in any of these letters, that can be quoted in
justification of them. The attributes put forth in these eulogies are
not only gratuitous, but they are illogical and inconsistent with
Brown's circumstances, and incompatible with his environment. Mrs. Anne
Brown Adams in a few plain words told why John Brown went to Kansas. She
said:
Father said his object in going to Kansas was to see if
something would not turn up to his advantage.[96]
The often repeated statement that Brown came to Kansas "to fight," and
not "to settle" after the manner of other immigrants, is further
discredited in this history.
Before the Mason Committee, in January, 1860, Mr. Wm. F. Arny, who knew
Brown to have been a non-resistant, testified that he had conversed with
him in Kansas, in 1858; and that he, on that occasion, asked him "how he
reconciled his opinions then, with the peace principles which he held
when he knew him in Virginia twenty years before. To this Brown replied,
that the 'aggressions of slavery, the murders and robbery perpetrated
upon himself and members of his family, the lawlessness by Atchison and
others in 1855 and from that time down to the Marais-des-Cygnes,
convinced him that peace was but an empty word.'"[97]
Before the same committee Mr. Augustus Wattles testified:[98]
Captain Brown told me that he had no idea of fighting until
he heard the Missourians, during the winter he was there,
make arrangements to come over into the Territory to vote.
He said to me that he had not come to Kansas to settle
himself, having left his family at North Elba, but that he
had come to assist his sons in their settlement and to
defend them, if necessary, in a peaceable exercise of their
political rights.
Writing to his wife February 1, 1856, Brown said:
The idea of again visiting those of my dear family at North
Elba is so calculated to unman me, that I seldom allow my
thoughts to dwell upon it.
This language bears the interpretation that he had located with the
other members of his family in Kansas, and that a return to North Elba
would be in the nature of a visit.
Brown told Mr. Arney that it was his intention, originally, to settle in
Kansas. In his testimony before the Mason Committee, he said: "He
(Brown) then referred to the fact that he had sent his sons into the
Territory of Kansas in 1853 or 1854 with a lot of blooded cattle and
other stock with the intention of settling."[99] There is presumptive
evidence too, that he did "settle" in Kansas and that he did take a
claim; also that it was "jumped." In a letter to Brown dated June 24.
1857, the late Wm. A. Phillips wrote as follows:[100] "Your old claim I
believe, has been jumped. If you do not desire to contest it, let me
suggest that you make a new settlement at some good point of which you
will be the head. Lay off a town and take claims around it."
Among the real conditions of poverty described by Brown in his letters
of October 13th and 14th, and with but "sixty cents" in his pocket, it
is irrational to assume that he was free to move "where he pleased" or
that he was "free to devote every thought," or any of his thoughts, for
that matter, to this "battling" business. He was not "emancipated from
the counter and the harrow," and from his natural obligation to continue
to provide for the dependent wife and children, who were suffering the
acute privations of poverty in a miserable home. The letters quoted are
evidence of the domestic character of the thoughts which occupied his
mind, and of his deep solicitude for the wants of his family. They are
earnest letters, written about the pressing affairs of his domestic
life, by a man of more than ordinary experience. He dismisses any
reference to the subject of the "driving force of a mighty and unselfish
purpose," with the moderate and sensible opinion, that the "prospect of
Kansas becoming a Free state is brightening every day."
November 2, 1855, Brown wrote a long and interesting letter to his wife
about affairs in their Kansas home, concluding with this very
conservative and peaceful statement: "I feel more and more confident
that slavery will soon die out here,--and to God be the praise."[101]
The letter is as follows:
Brownsville, K. T., Nov. 2, 1855.
DEAR WIFE AND CHILDREN, EVERY ONE--
I feel grateful to learn that you were all then well, and I
think I fully sympathize with you in all the hardships and
discouragements you have to meet; but you may be assured
you are not alone in having trials. I believe I wrote you
that we found everyone here more or less unwell but Wealthy
and Johnny, without any sort of a place where a stout man
even could protect himself from the cutting, cold winds and
storms, which prevail here, much more than in any place
where we have ever lived; and no crops of hay or anything
raised had been taken care of; with corn wasting by cattle
and horses, without fences; and, I may add without any
meat; and Jason's folks without sugar, or any kind of bread
stuffs but corn ground with great labor in a hand-mill
about two miles off. Since I wrote you before, Wealthy,
Johnny, Elen and myself have escaped being sick. Some have
had the ague, but lightly; but Jason and Oliver have had a
hard time of it and are yet feeble. Under existing
circumstances, we have made but little progress; but we
have made a little. We have got a shanty three logs high,
chinked and mudded and roofed with our tent; and a chimney
so far advanced that we can keep a fire in it for Jason.
John has his shanty a little better fixed than it was, but
miserable enough now; and we have got their little crop of
beans secured, which, together with johnny cake, mush and
milk, pumpkins and squashes, constitute our fare. Potatoes
they have none of any account; milk, beans, pumpkins and
squashes, a very moderate supply just for the present use.
We have also got a few house logs cut for Jason. I do not
send you this account to render you more unhappy but merely
to let you know that those here are not altogether in
paradise, while you have to stay in that miserable frosty
region.... I feel more and more confident that slavery will
soon die out here.--and to God be the praise!...
November 23d, he wrote:
Since Watson wrote, I have felt a great deal troubled about
your prospects for a cold house to winter in, and since I
wrote last, I have thought of a cheap, ready way to help it
much. Take any common straight-edged boards, and run them
from the ground up to the eaves, barn fashion, not driving
the nails in so far but that they may easily be drawn,
covering all but doors and windows, as close as may be in
that way, and breaking joints if need be. This can be done
by any one and in any weather not very severe, and the
boards may afterwards mostly be saved for other uses. I
think much too, of your widowed state, and I sometimes
allow myself to dream a little of again sometime enjoying
the comforts of a home; but I do not dare to dream much....
There were no disturbances in the Territory until the latter part of
November, when the "Wakurusa War" became imminent. On the 27th the
following dispatch was sent from Westport:
Hon. E. C. McLaren, Jefferson City--Governor Shannon has
ordered out the militia against Lawrence. They are now in
open rebellion against the laws. Jones is in danger.
December 6th, notice was sent out to all Free-State men to come to
Lawrence. John Brown, with others from the vicinity of Osawatomie,
answered the call, and upon their arrival at Lawrence he was appointed a
captain in the Fifth Regiment, Kansas Volunteers. The men from Brown's
neighborhood were assigned to his company which was named the "Liberty
Guards."
There has been much controversy concerning Brown's actions during this
brief but very interesting campaign; due, in some instances, perhaps, to
political contention, but principally to the efforts of his biographers
and eulogists to make him appear as a conspicuous figure in the
proceedings, the hero of the occasion. However, Brown's plain sensible
letter, written to his wife at the time, giving her a full and
interesting account of what occurred, will be accepted by all sane
persons, as evidence of what did occur, as well as evidence of his
personal opinions of all matters pertaining thereto, so far as they came
under his observation. His letter is as follows:[102]
Osawatomie, K. T., Dec. 16, 1855.
Sabbath Evening.
DEAR WIFE AND CHILDREN, EVERY ONE--I improve the first mail
since my return from the camp of volunteers, who lately
turned out for the defense of the town of Lawrence in this
Territory, and notwithstanding, I suppose you have learned
the result before this, (possibly), I will give a brief
account of the invasion in my own way.
About three or four weeks ago news came that a Free-State
man by the name of Dow had been murdered by a pro-slavery
man by the name of Coleman, who had gone and given himself
up for trial to the pro-slavery Governor Shannon. This was
soon followed by further news that a Free State man, who
was the only reliable witness against the murderer had been
seized by a Missourian (appointed sheriff by the bogus
Legislature of Kansas) upon false pretexts, examined, and
held to bail under such heavy bonds, to answer to those
false charges, as he could not give; that while on his way
to trial, in charge of the bogus sheriff, he was rescued by
some men belonging to a company near Lawrence; and that in
consequence of the rescue. Governor Shannon had ordered out
all the pro-slavery force he could muster in the Territory,
and called on Missouri for further help; that about two
thousand had collected, demanding a surrender of the
rescued witness and of the rescuers, the destruction of
several buildings and printing-presses and a giving up of
the Sharpe's rifles by the Free-State men,--threatening to
destroy the town with cannon, with which they were
provided, etc.; that about an equal number of Free-State
men had turned out to resist them, and that a battle was
hourly expected or supposed to have been already fought.
These reports appeared to be well authenticated, but we
could get no further account of matters; and I left this
for the place where the boys are settled, at evening,
intending to go to Lawrence to learn the facts the next
day. John was, however, started on horseback, but before he
had gone many rods, word came that our help was immediately
wanted. On getting this last news, it was at once agreed to
break up at John's camp, and take Wealthy and Johnny to
Jason's camp (some two miles off), and that all the men but
Henry, Jason, and Oliver should at once set off for
Lawrence under arms; those three being wholly unfit for
duty. We then set about providing a little corn-bread and
meat, blankets, and cooking utensils, running bullets and
loading all our guns, pistols, etc. The five set off in the
afternoon and after a short rest in the night (which was
quite dark), continued our march until after daylight next
morning, when we got our breakfast, started again, and
reached Lawrence in the forenoon, all of us more or less
lamed by our tramp. On reaching the place, we found that
negotiations had commenced between Governor Shannon (having
a force of some fifteen or sixteen hundred men) and the
principal leaders of the Free-State men, they having a
force of some five hundred men at that time. These were
busy, night and day, fortifying the town with embankments
and circular earthworks, up to the time of the treaty with
the Governor, as an attack was constantly looked for,
notwithstanding the negotiations then pending. This state
of things continued from Friday until Sunday evening. On
the evening we left Osawatomie, a company of the invaders,
of from fifteen to twenty-five attacked some three or four
Free-State men, mostly unarmed, killing a Mr. Barber from
Ohio, wholly unarmed. His body was afterward brought in and
lay for some days in the room afterwards occupied by a part
of the company to which we belong (it being organized after
we reached Lawrence). The building was a large unfinished
stone hotel, in which a great part of the volunteers were
quartered, who witnessed the scene of bringing in the wife
and other friends of the murdered man. I will only say of
this scene that it was heart-rending, and calculated to
exasperate the men exceedingly, and one of the sure results
of civil war.
After frequently calling on the leaders of the Free-State
men to come and have an interview with him, by Governor
Shannon, and after as often getting for an answer that if
he had any business to transact with any one in Lawrence,
to come and attend to it, he signified his wish to come
into the town, and an escort was sent to the invaders' camp
to conduct him in. When there, the leading Free-State men,
finding out his weakness, frailty, and consciousness of the
awkward circumstances into which he had really got himself,
took advantage of his cowardice and folly and by means of
that and the free use of whiskey and some trickery
succeeded in getting a written arrangement with him much to
their own liking. He stipulated with them to order the
pro-slavery men of Kansas home, and to proclaim to the
Missouri invaders that they must quit the Territory without
delay, and also to give up General Pomeroy (a prisoner in
their camp),--which was all done; he also recognizing the
volunteers as the militia of Kansas, and empowering their
officers to call them out whenever in their discretion the
safety of Lawrence or other portions of the Territory might
require it to be done. He (Governor Shannon) gave up all
pretension of further attempt to enforce the enactment of
the bogus Legislature, and retired, subject to the derision
and scoffs of the Free-State men (into whose hands he had
committed the welfare and protection of Kansas), and to the
pity of some, and the curses of others of the invading
force.
So ended this last Kansas invasion--the Missourians
returning with _flying colors_, after incurring heavy
expenses, suffering great exposure, hardships, and
privations, not having fought any battles, burned or
destroyed any infant towns or Abolition presses; leaving
the Free-State men organized and armed, and in full
possession of the Territory; not having fulfilled any of
all their dreadful threatenings, except to murder one
_unarmed_ man, and to commit some robberies and waste of
property upon defenseless families, unfortunately within
their power. We learn by their papers that they boast of a
great victory over the Abolitionists; and well they may.
Free-State men have only hereafter to retain the footing
they have gained, and _Kansas is free_. Yesterday the
people passed upon the Free-State constitution. The result,
though not yet known, no one doubts....
We have received fifty dollars from father, and learned
from him that he has sent you the same amount,--for which
we ought to be grateful, as we are much relieved, both as
respects ourselves and you....
This letter will always stand in its completeness as an official
expression by John Brown of his entire satisfaction with everything that
was done by the Free-State men on this occasion. The stipulations
contained in the peace treaty not only covered every point for which
the Free-State men were contending, but gave them official recognition,
in Territorial affairs, with authority therein far greater than they
could have hoped to obtain. Brown's entire approval of the agreement,
without any reservation whatever, is clearly and fully expressed in the
sentence:
Free-State men have only hereafter to retain the footing
they have gained and _Kansas is free_.
No language could make his approval of what had been done more complete
or specific; and yet, notwithstanding this unequivocal record, by Brown
himself, of his approval of what had been done, his biographers insist
that he was not only dissatisfied with the proceedings that were had,
but that "the peace treaty itself produced in him only anger when he
first heard of it."
John Brown, boiling over with anger, mounted the shaky
platform and addressed the audience when Robinson had
finished. He declared that Lawrence had been betrayed, and
told his hearers that they should make a night attack upon
the pro-slavery forces and drive them from the territory.
"I am an Abolitionist," he said, "dyed in the wool," and
then he offered to be one of ten men to make a night attack
upon the Border Ruffian camp. Armed, and with lanterns, his
plan was to string his men along the camp far apart. At a
given signal in the early morning hours, they were to shout
and fire on the slumbering enemy.[103]
That this speech will stand for all time, as a classic in the existing
melodramatic literature of John Brown, will be conceded. The novel plan
of a night attack by ten men, furnished with lanterns, as targets,
"strung far apart," against a force of fifteen hundred men, will, of
itself, commend it to such recognition.
A summary of the speeches, recently referred to as "harangues," made by
Governor Shannon, and by General Lane, and by Charles Robinson, on this
occasion, was duly reported at the time and published throughout the
country, for this was a notable incident in our national history. But
not a word was reported about Brown's speech. It ought to have been the
climax--the fire-works--of the whole performance for he was the only one
of the speakers who is said to have been "boiling over" with anything.
It may be assumed however that if John Brown had made a violent speech
_from this platform_ on this occasion, the fact would have been reported
by the reporter for the _Herald of Freedom_, who was present, and who
felt very kindly toward him. It may be true that Brown did some
grumbling in camp, or some loud talking somewhere, about the treaty
which he may not have understood at the time.
A very extended report of the incidents occurring in the "Wakurusa War"
is contained in the Lawrence _Herald of Freedom_ of December 15,
1855,[104] from which the following are extracts:
Sunday the negotiations were resumed with Governor Shannon
and finally completed, the substance of which was
communicated to the people by the Governor. The settlement
was received with satisfaction and yet the terms were not
coincided in so fully as many supposed it would be. It was
apparent that the Governor was in bad odor, as several
attempts to get up cheers in his favor proved a failure,
though no insult was shown him.
Colonel Lane followed and was loudly cheered. He assured
the public there had been no concession of honor and that
the people of Lawrence and Kansas, would cheerfully
acquiesce in the terms of the settlement as soon as they
could learn the particulars....
General Robinson was also loudly cheered and congratulated
by the people on account of the settlement.... The day
closed by Governor Shannon giving General Robinson and
Colonel Lane each a commission, and clothing them with full
power to preserve the peace in the vicinity and to use the
volunteer force at their command for that purpose.
Tuesday was full of animation. The soldiers were reviewed
and finally formed in a square and addressed by the
commanding officers. General Lane spoke as follows:...
At the close of General Lane's speech, he was vociferously
cheered.
General Robinson, as Commander in Chief, delivered the
following speech which was loudly applauded. He said:
"...The moral strength of our position is such that even
the 'gates of hell' could not prevail against us, much less
a foreign mob and we gained a bloodless victory."... As
General Robinson closed, six cheers were given to him.
Even a reporter and journalist so enterprising as James Redpath failed
to know of Brown's much advertised speech. He said:[105]
I had no personal knowledge of his opposition to the Treaty
of Peace.... The first time I heard of old Brown was in
connection with a caucus at the town of Osawatomie.
It was not Redpath's fault that he did not then know John Brown or that
he had not even heard of him. It was simply because Brown was an
ordinary person, and had not done anything yet to attract public
attention to his personality. Opportunity did not happen to knock at his
door on that occasion; if it had, Brown, doubtless, would have acquitted
himself creditably, and Mr. Redpath would have heard of him. As soon as
Brown did even a little thing, Redpath heard of it promptly. April 16,
1856, a meeting or caucus was held at Osawatomie to consider the
question of paying the taxes that had been levied by authority of the
Territorial Legislature, and other public measures. To pay the taxes
would be a recognition of the "Bogus Legislature" that had enacted the
laws relating to taxation. Richard Mendenhall was chairman of the
meeting and Oscar V. Dayton was secretary. Brown, among others, spoke
in opposition to paying the taxes. There was nothing sensational in this
incident, but Redpath heard of the meeting and located Brown in his
mind, because of it. Referring to the incident Mr. Redpath made this
authoritative statement:[106] "This was John Brown's first and last
appearance in a public meeting in Kansas." Therefore, it appears that
Mr. Villard has been imposed upon.
Of Brown himself, the _Herald_ published the following sane and
_restful_ paragraph:
About noon Mr. John Brown, an aged gentleman from Essex
County, New York, who has been a resident of the Territory
for several months, arrived with four of his sons,--leaving
several others at home sick, bringing a quantity of arms
with him which were placed in his hands by eastern friends
for the defense of the cause of freedom. Having more than
he could well use to advantage, a portion of them were
placed in the hands of those who were more destitute. A
company was organized and the command given to Mr. Brown
for the zeal he had exhibited in the cause of freedom, both
before and after his arrival in the Territory.[107]
Brown, with his sons, returned to their homes December 14th, and under
that date, in a letter to Orson Day, he expressed, further, his
satisfaction with what had been accomplished at Lawrence by the
Free-State managers. He said: "The Territory is now entirely in the
power of the Free-State men," and stated hopefully his opinion that "the
Missourians will give up all further hope of making Kansas a slave
state."[108] January 1, 1856, he wrote from West Point, Missouri: "In
this part of the state there seems to be but little feeling on the slave
question."[109]
January 5th, a Free-State county convention was held at Osawatomie to
nominate candidates for members of the Free-State Legislature. The
Browns took a prominent part in the proceedings. John Brown was chairman
of the meeting. Frederick Brown received the nomination for member of
the House of Representatives, but at the request of his father, he
declined the nomination, and it was given to John Brown, Jr.
With his participation in this convention, John Brown closed his public
services. Later--probably during March--he abandoned his honorable
commission as captain of the "Liberty Guards," disbanded the company,
and with his sons, Owen, Salmon, Frederick, Oliver, and his son-in-law,
Henry Thompson, planned and decided to abandon the Free-State cause,
enter upon a career of crime, and leave the neighborhood. The course was
agreed upon with John Brown, Jr., as accessory thereto; but not with the
knowledge of Jason Brown. These men comprised John Brown's "little
company of six" who, with others, committed the robbery on the
Pottawatomie on the night of May 24th--a robbery that included in the
plans for its execution, the murder of seven persons, five of whom fell
beneath the blows of the assassins.
CHAPTER V
ROBBERY AND MURDER ON THE POTTAWATOMIE
_A blush as of roses_
_Where rose never grew!_
_Great drops on the bunch-grass_
_But not of the dew!_
_A taint in the sweet air_
_For wild bees to shun!_
_A stain that will never_
_Bleach out in the sun!_
_Back, steed of the prairies!_
_Sweet song bird, fly back!_
_Wheel hither, bald vulture!_
_Gray wolf, call thy pack!_
_The foul human vultures_
_Have feasted and fled;_
_The wolves of the Border_
_Have crept from the dead._
--FROM LE MARAIS DU CYGNE. WHITTIER.
From a rude home in the bleak mountains of northern New York, John Brown
went to Kansas; not for the purpose of fighting, but inspired by the
hope of bettering his shattered fortunes; a hope that withered in the
budding, and gave place to feelings of deep disappointment and
discouragement. He wrote February 1st:
It is now nearly six weeks that the snow has almost
constantly been driven, like dry sand, by the fierce winds
of Kansas. By means of the sale of our horse and wagon, our
present wants are tolerably well met; so that, if health is
continued to us, we shall not probably suffer much....
Thermometer on Sunday and Monday at twenty-eight to
twenty-nine below zero. Ice in the river, in the timber,
and under the snow, eighteen inches thick this week....
Jason down again with the ague, but he was some better
yesterday. Oliver was also laid up by freezing his
toes,--one great toe so badly frozen that the nail has come
off. He will be crippled for some days yet. Owen has one
foot frozen. We have middling tough times (as some would
call them) but have enough to eat, and abundant reason for
the most unfeigned gratitude....[110]
These were hard conditions. It would be difficult to imagine
circumstances of greater discomfort and hopelessness. But what about the
future--the future for himself and for the wife and the daughters
depending upon him for the necessaries of life, for whose benefit he had
come to Kansas? Did Brown think of them? Present inconvenience and
privation may be borne with fortitude if the future holds out a promise
of betterment. In his case we may reasonably assume that the problems of
the future, rather than the present conditions and discouragements,
engrossed his thoughts. It is altogether unreasonable to suppose that
this unscrupulous man of affairs--this restless, aggressive
speculator--sat listlessly, amid his environment of discomfort and
poverty, and permitted the dreary months to pass without thinking of his
precarious financial condition, and of the incessantly urgent family
responsibilities impending; and of the possibilities of bettering his
fortunes in the immediate future. His biographers have wisely avoided
discussion of the practical side of Brown's condition at this time,
preferring to wander in more intangible fields, and to speculate upon
the emotional and metaphysical phenomena they seek to involve in the
situation. The record of his life at this time, however, reveals the
fact that Brown did think of the future and of its responsibilities; and
that he did mature a plan to better his financial condition. Also, that
his plan was in harmony with his latest and best biographer's estimate
of his character: "It was not only that he was visionary as a business
man,"[111] says Mr. Villard, "but that he developed the fatal tendency
to speculate; doubtless the outgrowth of his restlessness, and the usual
desire of the bankrupt for a sudden coup to restore his fortune," To his
wife he wrote as follows:
Brown's Station, K. T., April 7, 1856.
DEAR WIFE AND CHILDREN, EVERY ONE,--I wrote you last
week,... We do not want you to borrow trouble about us, but
trust us to the care of "Him who feeds the young ravens
when they cry." I have, as usual, but little to write. We
are doing off a house for Orson Day, which we hope to get
through with soon; after which we shall probably soon leave
this neighborhood, but will advise you further when we
leave. It may be that Watson can manage to get a little
money for shearing sheep if you do not get any from
Connecticut. I still hope you will get help from that
source. We have no wars as yet, but we still have abundance
of "rumors." We still have frosty nights, but the grass
starts a little. There are none of us complaining much just
now, all being able to do something. John has just returned
from Topeka, not having met with any difficulty; but we
hear that preparations are making in the United States
Court for numerous arrests of Free State men. For one, I
have no desire (all things considered) to have the slave
power cease from its acts of aggression. "Their foot shall
slide in due time." May God bless and keep you all.
Your affectionate husband and father,
JOHN BROWN.
This letter foreshadows the turning point in John Brown's career. It
discloses the fact that he and his sons intended to engage in an
enterprise that was related to danger, against which he sought to quiet
his wife's apprehensions. The letter also foreshadows the fact that as a
result of what they intended to do, they would probably leave the
neighborhood; but as to either the nature of the undertaking which they
had in view, or the time at which the venture would be executed, she
would not be informed until they left the country. It discloses further
the significant fact, that his attitude toward the Free-State cause had
undergone a change. That instead of treasuring in his heart a patriotic
desire to win freedom for Kansas by peaceable means, he had assumed a
hostile attitude. He now desired, not peace, but war.
Three important facts appear at this point in Brown's history: That he
had decided to do something of a dangerous character and leave the
neighborhood; that he desired a revival of pro-slavery aggressions; and
that he had disbanded the "Liberty Guards."
On the 16th of April, 1856, John Brown, Jr., was in command of the
"Pottawatomie Rifles."[112] He said: "During the winter of 1856, I
raised a company of riflemen, from the Free-State settlers who had their
homes in the vicinity of Osawatomie and Pottawatomie Creek."[113] James
Townsley, in his "confession," made December 6, 1879, said: "I joined
the Pottawatomie Rifle Company at its reorganization in May, 1856, at
which time John Brown, Jr., was elected captain."
Why Brown should desire a revival of pro-slavery aggressions, if he
intended to leave the neighborhood; and what he intended to do, are
important questions in this analysis which his versatile biographers
have failed to attempt to explain. Brown could not have desired a
provocation from the pro-slavery people because he wanted an opportunity
to fight--to march against them at the head of the "Liberty Guards," and
"stagger the slave-power by the driving force of his iron will;"--for he
intended to leave the neighborhood; he intended to go away from the
scene of the prospective aggressions. He was no longer "Captain of the
Liberty Guards," but a private citizen; therefore, he must have desired
an outbreak of pro-slavery hostility for personal reasons; for reasons
relating to operations which he intended to engage in with Henry
Thompson as an associate; who wrote, equivocally, to his wife in May,
1856, that "Upon Brown's plans would depend his own, until School is
out."
[Illustration: John Brown]
The operations that Brown and his four unmarried sons and Henry Thompson
engaged in immediately after the letter containing this extract was
written, show that the "plans" therein referred to related to the
capital tragedy in the history of Kansas Territory. These plans provided
for the theft of a large number of horses on Pottawatomie Creek. The
horses were duly stolen by Brown and his band. To make the theft
possible, and personally safe, they planned to quietly assassinate the
owners of the horses. To avoid identification, and to dispose of the
horses which they intended to steal, they planned to deliver them to
confederates, who would run them out of the neighborhood; and, at the
same time, they were to receive from such confederates horses of a more
desirable character--fast running horses--which were to be brought from
the northern part of the Territory to a designated rendezvous.
It was the original intention to steal four lots of horses and murder
seven men. The persons murdered in pursuance of their plans were John
Doyle and two of his sons, Hon. Allen Wilkinson, and William Sherman.
Those who escaped death were Henry Sherman, a brother of William, and
another person whose name has been withheld from publication.[114] The
_silent_ weapons used in these murders were some of the short swords,
ground to a keen edge, that Brown had brought with him when he came to
the Territory. The unfortunate victims, in holding up their arms in vain
attempts to shield their heads from impending blows, were struck upon
their forearms and hands; these in some instances were almost severed
from their bodies. The heads of the murdered men, except in the case of
Doyle, were split open and their bodies otherwise mutilated. In the
case of Doyle, he was shot in the head; and in addition thereto, a sword
was run through his breast. He was the first victim of the tragedies.
The shot which struck him was the only shot that was fired in these
murders, and the firing of it stands charged to John Brown himself. Of
this Mr. Villard says:[115] "Salmon Brown will not positively state that
his father fired it but admits that no one else pulled a trigger."
An account in detail of these murders is found in the testimony of the
widows of Doyle and Wilkinson, and of James Harris, and others, taken
before Hon. M. N. Oliver, of Missouri, minority member of a
congressional committee of which Hon. W. A. Howard was chairman. The
committee was appointed in 1855 to investigate and report to Congress
upon the troubles in Kansas. The character of the evidence brought out
in this investigation incriminated the Browns; but for more than twenty
years thereafter the surviving members of the family stoutly denied
having any participation in the crime. Even at Harper's Ferry, when
standing within the shadow of the gallows, John Brown denied having had
anything to do with it. To Judge Russell "the prisoner reiterated his
assertion often made in those prison days that he was not personally
concerned in the Pottawatomie murders."[116] But after the confession of
James Townsley, his biographers and friends were forced to acknowledge
Brown's directing hand in the crime. Since that time, they have
continuously sought, by various pretexts--defensive, patriotic and
altruistic--to justify him in the killing of these men; and to distract
attention away from the real motive that prompted it; with the result
that they have thus far succeeded in so agitating discussion upon the
merits of the _murders_, as to concentrate public attention upon that
feature of the crime--the murders--and to eliminate or silence any
allusion whatever to the fundamental feature of it--_robbery_. As a
consequence of their propaganda, writers of history have not made any
reference to the robberies to which the murders were subordinate and
incidental. After the manner of sheep, they have followed the lead of
Brown's eulogists into the interesting field of metaphysics; and have
there engaged in profitless speculation upon Brown's mental processes,
and the probable psychical impulses which may have controlled his
actions.[117]
The confession of James Townsley is as follows:
I joined the Potawatomie rifle company at its
reorganization in May, 1856, at which time John Brown, Jr.,
was elected captain. On the 21st of the same month
information was received that the Georgians were marching
on Lawrence, threatening its destruction. The company was
immediately called together, and about four o'clock P. M.
we started on a forced march to aid in its defense.
About two miles south of Middle Creek, we were joined by
the Osawatomie company under Captain Dayton, and proceeded
to Mount Vernon, where we waited about two hours, until the
moon rose. We then marched all night, camping the next
morning, the 22nd, for breakfast, near Ottawa Jones's.
Before we arrived at this point, news had been received
that Lawrence had been destroyed, and a question was raised
whether we should return or go on. During the forenoon,
however, we proceeded up Ottawa Creek to within about five
miles of Palmyra, and went into camp near the residence of
Captain Shore. Here we remained, undecided, over night.
About noon the next day, the 23rd, Old John Brown came to
me and said he had just received information that trouble
was expected on the Potawatomie, and wanted to know if I
would take my team and take him and his boys back, so they
could keep watch on what was going on. I told him I would
do so. The party, consisting of Old John Brown, Watson
Brown, Oliver Brown, Henry Thompson, (John Brown's
son-in-law), and Mr. Winer, were soon ready for the trip
and we started, as near as I can remember, about two
o'clock P. M. All of the party except Winer, who rode a
pony, rode with me in my wagon. When within two or three
miles of Potawatomie Creek, we turned off the main road to
the right, drove down to the edge of the timber between two
deep ravines, and camped about one mile above Dutch Henry's
crossing.... We remained in camp that night and all the
next day. Some time after dark we were ordered to march.
We started, the whole company, in a northerly direction,
crossing Mosquito Creek, above the residence of the Doyles.
Soon after crossing the creek, some one of the party
knocked at the door of a cabin, but received no reply--I
have forgotten whose cabin it was, if I knew at the time.
The next place we came to was the residence of the Doyles.
John Brown, three of his sons, and son-in-law, went to the
door, leaving Frederick Brown, Winer, and myself, a short
distance from the house. About this time a large dog
attacked us. Frederick Brown struck the dog a blow with his
short two edged sword, after which I dealt him a blow with
my sabre, and heard no more of him. The old man Doyle and
two sons were called out and marched some distance from the
house toward Dutch Henry's, in the road, where a halt was
made. Old John Brown drew a revolver and shot the old man
Doyle in the forehead and Brown's two youngest sons
immediately fell upon the younger Doyles with their short
two-edged swords.
One of the young Doyles was stricken down in an instant,
but the other attempted to escape, and was pursued a short
distance by his assailant and cut down. The company then
proceeded down Mosquito Creek to the house of Allen
Wilkinson. Here the old man Brown, three of his sons, and
son-in-law as at the Doyle residence, went to the door and
ordered Wilkinson to come out, leaving Frederick Brown,
Winer, and myself standing in the road east of the house.
Wilkinson was taken and marched some distance south of his
house and slain in the road, with a short sword, by one of
the younger Browns. After he was killed, his body was
dragged out to one side and left.
We then crossed the Potawatomie and came to the house of
Henry Sherman, generally known as Dutch Henry. Here John
Brown and the party, excepting Frederick Brown, Winer, and
myself, who were left outside a short distance from the
door, went into the house and brought out one or two
persons, talked with them some, and then took them in
again. They afterwards brought out William Sherman, Dutch
Henry's brother, marched him down into the Potawatomie
Creek, where he was slain with swords, by Brown's two
youngest sons, and left lying in the creek....
JAMES TOWNSLEY.
Lane, Kansas, December 6, 1879.
From this statement it appears that John Brown set the example for his
sons to follow by killing Doyle. "Old John Brown drew his revolver and
shot old man Doyle in the forehead, and Brown's two younger sons
immediately fell upon the younger Doyles with their short, two edged
swords."
Mrs. Doyle, in her testimony said:
... My son John was spared because I asked them in tears to
spare him....
The son testified:
I found my father and one brother, William, lying dead in
the road about two hundred yards from the house. I saw my
other brother lying dead on the ground about one hundred
and fifty yards from the house, in the grass, near a
ravine, his fingers were cut off, and his arms were cut
off; his head was cut open; there was a hole in his breast.
William's head was cut open, and a hole was in his jaw, as
though it was made by a knife, and a hole was in his side.
My father was shot in the forehead and stabbed in the
breast.[118]
Allen Wilkinson was the postmaster for the community, and was a member
of the Territorial Legislature. Like Doyle, he was married, and had a
family of small children. Mrs. Wilkinson states that the persons who
murdered her husband, came to their home after midnight, and after
knocking at the door, inquired "the way to Dutch Henry's." Wilkinson
began to tell them, but they told him to "come out and show them." Her
testimony is in part as follows:
... One of them said, "You are our prisoner. Do you
surrender?" He said, "Gentlemen, I do." They said, "Open
the door." Mr. Wilkinson told them to wait till he made a
light and they replied, "If you don't open it, we will open
it for you." He opened the door against my wishes, and four
men came in and my husband was told to put on his clothes,
and they asked him if there were not more men about. They
searched for arms, and took a gun and powder flask, all the
weapon that was about the house.... They then took my
husband away. One of them came back and took two saddles. I
asked him what they were going to do with him and he said,
"Take him a prisoner to the camp." ... After they were
gone, I thought I heard my husband's voice, in complaint,
but do not know; went to the door and all was still. Next
morning Mr. Wilkinson was found about one hundred and fifty
yards from the house dead, in some bushes. A lady who saw
my husband's body said, that there was a gash in his head
and in his side; others said he was cut in the throat
twice.[119]
James Harris, at whose house William Sherman was staying on the night of
May 24th, states in his testimony, what came under his observation.
Harris was a day laborer. He testified in part as follows:
On last Sunday morning about two o'clock (the 25th of last
May) whilst my wife and child and myself were in bed in the
house where we lived, we were aroused by a company of men
who said they belonged to the Northern army, and who were
each armed with a sabre and two revolvers, two of whom I
recognized, namely, a Mr. Brown, whose name I do not
remember, commonly known by the appellation of "old man
Brown" and his son Owen Brown.... When they came up to the
bed, some had drawn sabres in their hands, and some
revolvers. They then took possession of two rifles and a
Bowie knife which I had with me in the room--there was but
one room in my house--and afterward ransacked the whole
establishment after ammunition.... They asked me where
Henry Sherman was. Henry Sherman was a brother to William
Sherman. I told them that he was out on the plains in
search of some cattle that he had lost. They asked me if
there were any bridles or saddles about the premises. I
told them there was one saddle which they took, and they
also took possession of Henry Sherman's horse which I had
at my place, and made me saddle him. They then said if I
would answer no, to all questions which they asked me, they
would let [me] loose. Old Mr. Brown and his son then went
into the house with me.... Old man Brown asked Mr. Sherman
to go out with him, and Mr. Sherman then went out with old
man Brown, and another man came into the house in Brown's
place. I heard nothing more for about fifteen minutes. Two
of the northern army, as they styled themselves, stayed on
with us until we heard a cap burst and then these two men
left. That morning about ten o'clock I found William
Sherman dead in the creek near my house. I was looking for
Mr. Sherman; as he had not come back, I thought he had been
murdered. I took Mr. William Sherman out of the creek and
examined him. Mr. Whiteman was with me. Sherman's skull was
split open in two places, and some of his brains was washed
out by the water. A large hole was cut in his breast, and
his left hand was cut off except a little piece of skin on
one side. We buried him.[120]
It should be remembered that prior to the date of these murders and
robberies, the zone of conflict in the Territory had been confined
within the limits of Douglas, Leavenworth, and Atchison counties. Also,
that the settlers living south of Douglas county had, up to this time,
enjoyed the repose and benefits of a condition of profound peace; and
that during all of the time that Brown was formulating his plans to rob
and murder his unsuspecting neighbors, the "Shannon Treaty" was in full
force and effect, and a season of peace prevailing throughout the whole
Territory. Mr. Villard says of this period:[121]
Not a single person had been killed in the region around
Osawatomie either by the lawless characters, or by armed
representatives of the pro-slavery cause. The instances of
brutality or murder narrated in the preceding chapters, all
took place miles to the north in the vicinity of Lawrence
or Leavenworth.
And John Brown himself, in his speech before a committee of the
Massachusetts Legislature, February 18, 1857, said:[122]
Things do not look one iota more encouraging now than they
did last year at this time. You may remember that from the
Shannon Treaty, (December 9th, 1855) which ended the
Wakarusa war, till early in May, 1856, there was general
quiet in Kansas. No violence was offered to our citizens
when they went to Missouri. I frequently went there myself
to buy corn and other supplies. I was known there, yet they
treated me well.
Some of Buford's men had been in the neighborhood but they were not
brutal toward the Free-State settlers. There was a potent restraining
influence controlling their conduct. They were at the time on the pay
roll of the General Government as deputy United States marshals, and the
respectability and responsibility of their official positions demanded
reasonably proper behavior on their part.[123]
The most important evidence upon the important subject under
consideration, appears in Brown's letter to his wife, written after his
fight at Black Jack; and in a personal statement made by John Brown,
Jr., to F. B. Sanborn. The letter is, in part, as follows:[124]
Near Brown's Station, K. T., June, 1856.
DEAR WIFE AND CHILDREN, EVERY ONE,--It is now about five
weeks since I have seen a line from North Elba, or had any
chance of writing you. During that period we have passed
through an almost constant series of very trying events. We
were called to go to the relief of Lawrence, May 22, and
every man (eight in all), except Orson turned out; he
staying with the women and children and to take care of the
cattle. John was captain of a company to which Jason
belonged; _the other six were a little company by
ourselves_.[125] On our way to Lawrence we learned that it
had been already destroyed, and we encamped with John's
company over night. Next day our little company left and
during the day we stopped and searched three men....
On the second day and evening after we left John's men, we
encountered quite a number of pro-slavery men and took
quite a number of prisoners. Our prisoners we let go, but
we kept some four or five horses. We were immediately after
this, accused of murdering five men at Pottawatomie and
great efforts have since been made by the Missourians and
their ruffian allies to capture us. John's company soon
afterward disbanded, and also the Osawatomie men.[126]
Since then, we have, like David of old, had our dwelling
with the serpents of the rocks and wild beasts of the
wilderness; being obliged to hide away from our enemies. We
are not disheartened, though nearly destitute of food,
clothing and money. God, who has not given us over to the
will of our enemies, but has moreover delivered them into
our hand, will we humbly trust, still keep and deliver us.
We feel assured that He who sees not as men see, does not
lay the guilt of innocent blood to our charge.
If, under God, this letter reaches you so that it can be
read, I wish it at once carefully copied, and a copy of it
sent to Gerrit Smith. I know of no other way to get these
facts and our situation before the world, nor when I can
write again....
The statement that John Brown, Jr., made to Mr. Sanborn is, in part, as
follows:[127]
We got back to Osawatomie from our five days' campaign,
toward evening on the 26th of May.... I took my rifle and
horse and went into the ravine on Mr. Adair's land,
remaining there through that day (May 27) and the following
night. About four o'clock P. M. I was joined by my brother
Owen, who had been informed at Mr. Adair's of my
whereabouts. He brought with him into the brush a valuable
running horse, mate of the one I had with me. These horses
had been taken by Free-State men near the Nebraska line and
exchanged for horses obtained in the way of reprisals
further south; and while on foot a few miles south of
Ottawa Jones's place, May 26, I had been offered one of
these to ride the remaining distance to Osawatomie. Owen's
horse was wet with sweat; and he told me of the narrow
escape he had just had from a number of armed pro-slavery
men who had their headquarters at Tooley's,--a house at the
foot of the hill, about a mile and a half west of Mr.
Adair's. Their guards, seeing him in the road coming down
the hill, gave a signal and at once the whole gang were in
hot chase. The superior fleetness of the horse Owen rode
alone saved him. He exchanged horses with me, and that
night forded the Marais des Cygnes, and going by Stanton,
(or Standiford as it was sometimes called), recrossed the
river to father's camp about a mile north of the house of
Mr. Day. Until Owen told me that night, I did not know
where father could be found....
Referring to a horse whose mane and tail had been shaved--"Dutch Henry's
gray pony"--Mr. Sanborn states:[128] "This horse was soon taken to
northern Kansas by some Free State men who gave in exchange for that and
other horses captured on the Pottawatomie, some fast Kentucky horses, on
one of which Owen Brown afterward escaped from his pursuers."
But John Brown, Jr., received his fast running horse on the morning of
May 26th and "upon a mate to it" Owen Brown escaped from his pursuers on
the same day near Osawatomie. Therefore, the exchange of the horses
"taken as reprisals" on the Pottawatomie, for the fast running horses,
was not made in northern Kansas some time afterward, as Mr. Sanborn
states, but was made immediately after the robbery--May 25th or 26th--at
the appointed time and place; probably on Middle Creek.
These statements, made by John Brown, and by his son, complete the
recorded evidence of Brown's plan to retrieve his shattered fortunes by
a plunge in horse stealing. It shows that he was in partnership with
others in the transaction, and that his confederates brought the
northern horses, eight at least, to the appointed rendezvous and
delivered them to him. It shows also, that John Brown, Jr., was in his
father's confidence, and that he knew enough about his father's plans
and of what had been done on the night of the 24th, to enable him to
walk to a point "a few miles south of Ottawa Jones's place" where he was
"offered one of the northern horses," and accepted it as his own.
Who Brown's confederates were in this transaction, except as to Weiner,
is as yet unknown. Salmon Brown still guards the sacred secret. But it
is probable that the "mysterious courier," who came to the camp of the
Pottawatomie Rifles on the morning of the 23d, was one of them, and
that he delivered a message to John Brown. There has been much debate
concerning this messenger and his identity.[129] B. L. Cochrane may have
been the important person, or it may have been Jacob Benjamin that bore
the important message, or Charles Lenhart, or Mr. John E. Cook. None of
these men have heretofore been charged with having taken any part in the
Pottawatomie episode, but there are incidents in this history which
connect them with it as confederates. Weiner owned the store at "Dutch
Henry's Crossing," and Benjamin was in his employ. Weiner disposed of
his stock of merchandise and gave up the business to engage in this
speculation in horses. He was from Texas and to Texas he returned. It is
also probable that he was a pro-slavery man. Benjamin was subsequently
"imprisoned" for some act that he committed while in Brown's service; as
appears from a reference which the latter made, during July, concerning
him.[130] The name of Benjamin Cochrane also appears in the same
reference, as having been with Brown at the Pottawatomie and at the
Black Jack.
On page 101, Mr. Redpath states that Charles Lenhart and John E. Cook
left Lawrence on the 21st to "commence reprisals." There is also
evidence that they went southward. They were horse thieves, and at
Cleveland in May, 1858, Cook stated that he had killed five men in
Kansas.[131] It is therefore probable that these men were accomplices
with the Browns in this deal; and participated, directly or indirectly,
in the murders. Cook was a guest in their camp June 4th, two days after
the fight at Black Jack, when they had Pate's horses and mules in their
possession. Thereafter he continued to be Brown's faithful lieutenant,
and followed his fortunes to the gallows at Charlestown. Charles
Lenhart, too, appeared at Charlestown, engaged in an effort to effect
Cook's escape from the jail.
The terms of the agreement which the Browns made with these
confederates, and the details for the execution of the Pottawatomie
transaction, would make history of absorbing interest. How many horses
did Brown turn over to them? Did they trade one bunch of horses for the
other, and let it go at that? Or, did his confederates charge him with
the value of the horses which they turned over to him; and then, after
offsetting their services in selling Brown's horses, against his
services in stealing them, did they divide the net profits, or the
difference in value between the two lots of horses? Then as to the time
when Brown was to make his delivery; it would be interesting to know
about that. Were the parties to wait until the Border Ruffians started
something, and raised some friendly dust that would distract public
attention from their operations? Probably so, for Brown was prepared to
kill his neighbors and take their horses at any time. His letter of
April 7th shows that he intended to do this whether the slave-power
renewed its acts of aggression or not. He simply preferred to commit his
robbery under cover of some pro-slavery provocation. Otherwise, after
the grass had well started, he intended to execute it in cold blood and
leave the country. In that event, he probably intended to "go to
Louisiana," and "head an uprising of the slaves there."[132]
For reasons obvious, Mr. Villard could not obtain the exact facts as to
all these incriminating matters from his friends, Salmon Brown and Henry
Thompson; but the former is still living,[133] and can yet supply them
if he desires to do so. He can, if he be so disposed, give out the
"exact facts" as to _all_ the principal happenings on the Pottawatomie.
For instance: He can give the name of the man whose horses they intended
to steal, but failed to get, and the number of them. Townsley referred
to this incident, but Salmon Brown gave further details and spoke very
interestingly upon the subject. He said:[134]
Soon after crossing the creek, some one of the party
knocked at the door of a cabin. There was no reply, but
from within came the sound of a gun rammed through the
chinks of the cabin walls. It saved the owner's life, for
at that we all scattered. We did not disturb that man. With
some candle wicking soaked in coal oil to light and throw
inside, so that we could see within while he could not see
outside, we would have managed it, but we had none. It was
a method much used later.
From the expression "it was a method much used later" we derive a
confession that the Browns continued in the horse stealing business.
Upon the number of horses that Brown expected to get as a result of the
murder of seven men, depends this interesting problem in his psychology:
his estimate of the value of a human life in terms of horses. In the
case of the Doyles, he took three lives and got, probably, eight or ten
horses; but the whole number of horses taken will never be known unless
Salmon Brown, or some one who has his confidence, should decide to
reveal it.
"The Shermans," Bondi says, "had amassed considerable property by
robbing cattle droves and emigrant trains."[135] They lived at a
"crossing" of the Pottawatomie, and were buyers and traders in horses,
oxen, and cattle passing over the trail. "Crossings" are usually camping
places for emigrants and drovers; and at such locations lame, footsore,
or otherwise unserviceable stock, can be, frequently, bought or traded
for at a very profitable margin in favor of the trader. Travelers must
either sell or abandon their lame stuff, and replace it with serviceable
animals, or lie over and wait until such animals get in condition to
travel. The trader not being compelled to trade, names the price he
will pay, or the terms upon which he will exchange good stuff for bad.
When the stock which he buys is recuperated, he sells it for a good
profit to other travelers, or to immigrants who locate in his
neighborhood. In this way the Shermans, William and Henry, had
accumulated wealth in horses and cattle; and since there was then much
travel on the trail, they may have had on hand at that time, from
twenty-five to forty or fifty horses.[136]
The importance of exchanging the Pottawatomie horses immediately, and
getting them out of the country was a high card in Brown's play. If he
and his gang had been caught with their murdered neighbors' horses in
their possession the next morning, there would not have been any
sophistical discussion fifty years after about how the "killings on the
Pottawatomie" could be "justified"; or about Brown's "sudden impulses";
or of his altruistic convictions that it was necessary to "_remove_"
anybody. The men of that outraged neighborhood, regardless of party
affiliation, would have promptly hanged the outlaws. But the robbers
were too deep for them. The neighbors lost the trail of the robbers and
murderers; also, they lost the trail of the Browns.
The horror of these murders, aggravated by the brutal mutilation of the
bodies of the victims, seems to have shocked that community into a
condition of semi-insensibility. In a lot of resolutions adopted at a
public meeting of citizens at Osawatomie, on the 27th, "denouncing the
murders"; the motive prompting the crime, _the theft of the horses owned
by the victims_, is not referred to. It is probable that the Osawatomie
people, who drew the resolutions, did not then know that any horses had
been stolen. At any rate, these resolutions came to be regarded as the
public or official announcement of what had occurred; and since they
contained no reference to any robbery, in connection with the murders,
the public was thus, unintentionally, led to believe that the
assassinations were acts of partisan warfare; a killing of obnoxious
pro-slavery men by unknown, but over zealous Free-State men. The
resolutions are as follows:[137]
_Whereas_, an outrage of the darkest and foulest nature has
been committed in our midst by some midnight assassins
unknown, who have taken five of our citizens at the hour of
midnight, from their homes and families, and murdered and
mangled them in the most awful manner; to prevent a
repetition of these deeds, we deem it necessary to adopt
some measures for our mutual protection and to aid and
assist in bringing these desperadoes to justice. Under
these circumstances we propose to act up to the following
resolutions:
_Resolved_, that we will repudiate and discounten
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/41582