John Brown
Soldier of Fortune

A Critique

John Brown

John Brown
Soldier of Fortune

A Critique

BY

HILL PEEBLES WILSON

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.