I have only to say as regards the resolution of the boys to "learn and practice war no more," that it was not at my solicitation that they engaged in it at first; and that while I may perhaps feel no more love of the business than they do, still I think there may be in their day what is more to be dreaded if such things do not now exist.

Judged in the light of what has been already shown concerning Brown's activities, this letter is fatal to any theory that he was instigated by other than sordid motives when he engaged in his course of crime. So judged it is an acknowledgment by himself that what he and his sons had been engaged in, in Kansas, was "business," simply business. Also, that it was disreputable; and he sought to absolve himself from any responsibility for their participation therein, by denying that it was at his solicitation "that they engaged in it at first." By the declaration that what he had been doing was repulsive to him, John Brown discredits every altruistic theory which has been put forth in extenuation of his crimes, or in justification of his actions. It is evidence that it was his hands, and not his heart, that were enlisted in his operations. A man inspired by the righteousness of a cause is not moved to make apology for having invited others to engage in it with him. If he had believed that in these murders and robberies he had been acting as a faithful servant of Kansas, and of the Lord, he would have proudly asserted his conviction, and would have defended his conduct upon the high grounds of duty, loyalty, and humanity.

Mr. Geo. B. Gill was one who knew Brown better than any of his panegyrists knew him—Mr. Sanborn not excepted. Upon him he practiced no hypocritical pretensions. He was honored by Brown with a place in his cabinet, as secretary of the treasury, under the "Provisional Government of the United States," which he organized in Canada in 1858; and was one of the generals, in embryo, who was to command the Army of the Invasion. In a letter (not heretofore published)[156] written from Milan, Kansas, July 7, 1893, to Colonel Robert J. Hinton, author of John Brown and His Men, Mr. Gill expressed, confidentially, his opinion of Brown's personality. He said:

My dear friend:

It seems that all great men have their foibles or what we in our differences from them call their weaknesses. "A man is never a hero to his valet" and I am about to give you an expression of truthfulness which I have never given to any one yet.... I admit that I am sadly deficient as a God or hero worshipper.... And the man who may do his fellows the most good may be far from the goody-goody, but may be personally absolutely offensive.

My intimate acquaintance with Brown demonstrated to me that he was very human; the angel wings were so dim and shadowy as to be almost unseen. Very superstitious, very selfish and very intolerant, with great self esteem.... He could not brook a rival. At first he was very fond of Montgomery, but when he found that Montgomery had thoughts of his own, and could not be dictated to, why, he loved him no longer. Montgomery, Lane and all others went down before his imperial self. He was intolerant in little things and in little ways, for instance, his drink was tea, others wanted coffee. He would wrangle and compel them to drink tea or nothing, as he was cook and would not make coffee for them. I had it from Owen in a quiet way and from other sources in quite a loud way that in his family his methods were of the most arbitrary kind.... I have known Stevens to sometimes raise merry hell when the old man would get too dictatorial. He was iron and had neither sympathy or feeling for the timid or weak of will. Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, he was essentially vindictive in his nature. Just before we left Kansas, during a trip that Brown and myself were some days away from the rest, the boys arrested a man. (I think by the name of Jackson.) Montgomery gave him a trial and he was released by general consent as not meriting punishment. When we returned Brown was furious because the man had not been shot.... It seems hard and cruel in me to tell you of Brown's individuality as I have told you, yet it seemed to me that you, perhaps the last writer on the theme, should know all, whether it be any use to you or not....

Yours truly,
George B. Gill.

There is nothing in Mr. Gill's pen picture of John Brown that suggests to the mind a "misplaced Crusader," or a "self-denying Roundhead," a "Cromwellian trooper" or an "armored searcher for the Grail;" but there is that in it which does suggest a man of low instincts, trifling and contentious about little things; of a vindictive and quarrelsome disposition; inordinately selfish, inhuman and intolerant. It is for the reader to determine which of the two estimates of the man is entitled to credit.

In view of the facts presented herein, this much debated event in Brown's life cannot be considered, abstractedly, as a study in altruism; but as a premeditation in robbery, to which the murders were incidental.

The movement to execute the Pottawatomie robbery began when Brown and his sons left their homes on the evening of May 21st, ostensibly to engage in the defense of Lawrence. They did not belong to the Pottawatomie Rifles. That was, says John Brown, the company of which "John was Captain" and to which Jason belonged. The six were "a little company by themselves." This party did not intend to go to Lawrence. They had matters of a personal nature to attend to. After camping "with John's company over night" they left his camp and retracing their steps, proceeded to a secluded spot, about a mile from the scene of their prospective operations; where they remained thirty hours, awaiting, doubtless, the arrival of their confederates with the northern horses. The owners of the horses that were to be stolen stood in the pathway of the thieves and they thrust them aside in death. If Brown and his band "killed these men in the conscientious belief that they were faithful servants of the Lord and of Kansas," then they stole these horses in the same exalted inspiration. The theft of the horses cannot be put in harmony with any theory of either patriotism or humanity. The murders have been defended, quite successfully, from a spiritual point of view; but there is nothing spiritual in horse-trading, nor is there anything in horse-stealing which appeals to the tender susceptibilities of our nature, or to the refinements of life. It is impossible, by any contortions of the imagination, to conceive of anything æsthetic, altruistic, or spiritual being connected with a horse trade wherein all the horses involved in the trade have been stolen, and the trade is being made between the thieves, even though some of the thieves be murderers. The event herein was a plain case of murder and robbery, deliberately planned and executed under most revolting circumstances. "Murder is murder" and robbery is robbery, therefore this combining incident cannot be accepted as an exhibit in metaphysics. The victims of these men were not murdered and their horses taken in behalf of Kansas and of the Lord, but for the exclusive benefit of the Browns and their associates in the crime; they were not moved to "murder these men and boys" by any "sudden overpowering impulse" excited by the spectacle of burning Lawrence; but by a brutal desire to get possession of their horses. Brown was impatient of the cruel fortune that kept him, as he tersely stated it, "like a toad under a harrow," and he determined to break asunder the chains that bound him within his environment of poverty, and to seek relief from their fetters in a life of crime; a decision due to "an outgrowth of his restlessness and the usual desire of the bankrupt for a sudden coup to restore his fortune."