John Brown
Soldier of Fortune
A Critique
[Illustration: John Brown]
JOHN BROWN
SOLDIER OF FORTUNE
_A Critique_
BY
HILL PEEBLES WILSON
[Illustration]
_Mr. Vallandigham_: Mr. Brown, who sent you here?
_John Brown_: No man sent me here; it was my own prompting
and that of my Maker, or that of the Devil, whichever you
please to ascribe it to. I acknowledge no master in human
form.
_Post, 313_
THE CORNHILL COMPANY
BOSTON
Copyright, 1913
HILL PEEBLES WILSON
Copyright, 1918
THE CORNHILL COMPANY
TO THE MEMORY OF
MRS. SARA T. D. ROBINSON
OF KANSAS
PREFACE
The writer of this book is not an iconoclast, neither has he prejudged
John Brown. In 1859 the character was impressed upon his attention in a
personal way. An older brother, Joseph E. Wilson, was a member of the
company of marines that made the assault on the engine-house at Harper's
Ferry, on the morning of October 18th; and from him he heard the story
of the fight, and about Brown.
In 1889 the Topeka (Kansas) _Daily Capital_ took a poll of the members
of the Kansas Legislature on the question: "Who was the most
distinguished Kansan?" or something to that effect. At that time the
writer held the opinion that the public services rendered by John Brown
in Kansas Territory, were of paramount importance in the settlement of
the Free-State contention; and since the course which the nation was at
that time pursuing had been arrested by the result of that contention,
and diverted into the path which led to the marvelous achievements of
the succeeding years; he, therefore, over his signature cast his vote in
favor of John Brown; saying, among other things, in his little
panegyric, that Brown is the only Kansan whose fame was immortal.
In 1898 he reformed his opinions concerning Brown's character and
conduct, and the importance of his public services in Kansas. The change
came about through an effort on his part to write a sketch of his life
for a work entitled "Eminent Men of Kansas." In good faith, and with
much of the confidence and enthusiasm characteristic of Brown's
eulogists, he began an investigation of the available historical data
relating to the subject; when he found to his surprise, and disgust,
that the history of Brown's career contained nothing to justify the
public estimate of him.
Reporting to his associate that he would not write the sketch, he said
that he "could find but little in the record of his life which gave him
creditable distinction, and that he did not wish to write the
discreditable things about him which it contained."
Later he gathered up the threads of Brown's life and has woven them,
conscientiously, into the web of history. The story reveals little which
is creditable to Brown or worthy of emulation and much that is
abhorrent. But he indulges the hope that he has made it clear that his
conceptions of the character have not been inspired by "prejudice,"
"blind" or otherwise, for he has examined the records in the case; an
examination which has led him through all the existing testimony
concerning Brown; except, that he has not explored the writings which
have been put forth by those who have sought, viciously, to attack
Brown's character. The opinions therefore which he has set forth are
convictions resulting from serious investigation and thought.
In conclusion, the author takes great pleasure in acknowledging the deep
sense of his obligation to the late Mrs. Sara T. D. Robinson, wife of
Charles Robinson of Kansas, whose generosity, and deep interest in the
history of our country, made the publication of this book possible.
Also, he desires to express his gratitude to Dr. William Watson Davis,
of the University of Kansas, for the cordial encouragement which he
received from him while preparing the work, and for his kindly
assistance in molding the text into its present form. Also, to Dr.
William Savage Johnson, and to Professor William Asbury Whitaker, Jr.,
both of the University of Kansas, he wishes to return his thanks for
many valuable suggestions.
Lawrence, Kansas, April 15, 1913.
CONTENTS
I THE SUBJECT MATTER 15
II THE MAN 26
III KANSAS--A CRISIS IN OUR NATIONAL HISTORY 55
IV HIS PUBLIC SERVICES 72
V ROBBERY AND MURDER ON THE POTTAWATOMIE 95
VI BLACK JACK 135
VII OSAWATOMIE 154
VIII HYPOCRISY 181
IX A SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 223
X THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT 243
XI THE SHUBEL MORGAN PLUNDER COMPANY 259
XII MOBILIZING THE PROVISIONAL ARMY 283
XIII THE FIASCO 296
XIV A PERVERSION OF HISTORY 323
XV HIS GREAT ADVENTURE 341
XVI A SOLDIER OF THE CROSS 364
XVII "YET SHALL HE LIVE" 395
APPENDICES
I CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE LATE D. W.
WILDER CONCERNING JOHN BROWN 411
II RECOLLECTIONS OF JOHN BROWN AT HARPER'S
FERRY BY ALEXANDER BOTELER, A VIRGINIAN
WHO WITNESSED THE FIGHT 414
III CONSTITUTION AND ORDINANCE FOR THE PEOPLE
OF THE UNITED STATES 417
IV JOHN BROWN'S AUTOBIOGRAPHY 431
ILLUSTRATIONS
JOHN BROWN Frontispiece
Steel engraving made from a photograph compared with a
photogravure. The photograph was taken about 1859. Original
in the Kansas State Historical Society. The photogravure is
from Mr. Oswald Garrison Villard's book: John Brown--A
Biography Fifty Years After.
JOHN BROWN facing page 98
Steel engraving, made as above. The photograph was copied
from a daguerreotype taken in 1856. Original in the Kansas
State Historical Society.
CHAPTER I
THE SUBJECT MATTER
_Truth, crushed to earth shall rise again;_
--BRYANT
The object of the writer, in publishing this book, is to correct a
perversion of truth, whereby John Brown has acquired fame, as an
altruist and a martyr, which should not be attributed to him.
The book is a review of the historical data that have been collected and
published by his principal biographers: Mr. James Redpath, Mr. Frank B.
Sanborn and Mr. Oswald Garrison Villard. It is also a criticism of these
writers, who have sought to suppress, and have suppressed, important
truths relating to the subject of which they wrote, and who have
misinformed and misled the public concerning the true character of this
figure in our national history; and have established in its stead a
fictitious character, which is wholly illogical and inconsistent with
the facts and circumstances of Brown's life.
Mr. Redpath, his first and most lurid biographer, was a newspaper
correspondent of the type now generally called "yellow." He was a
"Disunionist," and seems to have been a malcontent, who went to Kansas
Territory to oppose the policy which the Free-State men had adopted for
a safe and sane solution of the Free-State problem; and who sought to
thwart their efforts to create a free state by peaceable means. He
said:[1]
I believed that a civil war between the North and South
would ultimate in insurrection and that the Kansas troubles
would probably create a military conflict of the sections.
Hence, I left the South, and went to Kansas; and endeavored
personally, and by my pen, to precipitate a revolution.
After Brown's spectacular fiasco in Virginia, and tragical death, his
cultured partisans, in most conspicuous eloquence proclaimed him to have
been a philanthropist--an altruistic hero; and placed a martyr's crown
upon his brow. Mr. Redpath's purpose, in putting forth his work, was to
make Brown over to fit the part; to make his life appear to conform with
the extravagant attributes of his improvised estate. In pursuance
thereof he sought to conceal the facts concerning the actions and
purposes of his life, rather than to develop them; and to blind the
trails leading to the facts with masses of sentimental rubbish; and to
divert public attention away from them. Upon the publication of his
book, _The Public Life of Captain John Brown_, Mr. Charles Eliot Norton,
in a review of the work, expressed his disapproval of it in vigorous
language. He said:[2]
It would be well had this book never been written. Mr.
Redpath has understood neither the opportunities opened to
him, nor the responsibilities laid upon him, in being
permitted to write the "authorized" life of John Brown. His
book, in whatever light it is viewed--whether as the
biography of a remarkable man, as an historic narrative of
a series of important events, or simply as a mere piece of
literary job-work--is equally unsatisfactory....
There never was more need for a good life of any man than
there was for one of John Brown.... Those who thought best
of him, and those who thought the worst, were alike
desirous to know more of him than the newspapers had
furnished, and to become acquainted with the course of his
life, and the training which had prepared him for Kansas
and brought him to Harper's Ferry. Whatever view be taken
of his character, he was a man so remarkable as to be well
worthy of study....
In seasons of excitement, and amid the struggles of
political contention, the men who use the most extravagant
and the most violent words have, for a time, the advantage;
but, in the long run, they damage whatever cause they may
adopt; and the truth, which their declamations have
obscured or their falsehoods have violated, finally asserts
itself.... Extravagance in condemnation has been answered
by extravagance in praise of his life and deeds.
Twenty-five years later, when Mr. Sanborn published his book, _Life and
Letters of John Brown, Liberator of Kansas, and Martyr of Virginia_, Mr.
John F. Morse, Jr., voiced the disappointment felt by discriminating
persons, in an article published in February, 1886.[3] He said:
So grand a subject cannot fail to inspire a writer able to
do justice to the theme; and when such an one draws Brown,
he will produce one of the most attractive books in the
language. But meantime the ill-starred "martyr" suffers a
prolongation of martyrdom, standing like another St.
Sebastian to be riddled with the odious arrows of fulsome
panegyrists. With other unfortunate men of like stamp, he
has attracted a horde of writers, who, with rills of
versicles and oceans of prose, have overwhelmed his simple
noble memory beneath torrents of wild extravagant
admiration, foolish thoughts expressed in appropriately
silly language, absurd adulation inducing only protest and
a dangerous contradictory emotion. Amid this throng of ill
advised worshippers, Mr. Sanborn, by virtue of his lately
published biographical volume, has assumed the most
prominent place.
Referring to the opinions expressed by these writers, Mr. Villard, in
the preface to his book, _John Brown, A Biography Fifty Years After_,
says: "Since 1886 there have appeared five other lives of Brown,[4] the
most important being that of Richard J. Hinton, who, in his preface
gloried in holding a brief for Brown and his men." Concerning his book
he says:
The present volume is inspired by no such purpose, but is
due to a belief that fifty years after the Harper's Ferry
tragedy, the time is ripe for a study of John Brown, free
from bias, from the errors of taste and fact of the mere
panegyrist, and from the blind prejudice of those who can
see in John Brown nothing but a criminal. The pages that
follow were written to detract from or champion no man or
set of men, but to put forth the essential truths of
history as far as ascertainable, and to judge Brown, his
followers and associates, in the light thereof. How
successful this attempt has been is for the reader to
judge. That this volume in no wise approaches the
attractiveness which Mr. Morse looked for, the author fully
understands. On the other hand no stone has been left
unturned to make accurate the smallest detail; the original
documents, contemporary letters and living witnesses, have
been examined in every quarter of the United States.
Materials never before utilized have been drawn upon, and
others discovered whose existence has heretofore been
unknown....
Under this broad pledge of personal fidelity to the subject, this
historian introduced his volume, and has asked the public to give him
its full confidence and to accept his work as a faithful and complete
record of the ascertainable truths of history relating to the subject.
For the ardor which he has exhibited, and for the great labor which he
has expended in his compilation, and for much material of minor
importance, which he has uncovered, the student of history will not fail
to acknowledge to Mr. Villard the sense of his obligation. In these
respects, and in the scholarly features characteristic of the writings,
it is an interesting and dramatic contribution to this literature. But,
he will not be stampeded by protestations of zeal, and by professions of
integrity, to accept it as a presentation of the ascertainable truth.
The work is more conspicuous for the absence from its pages of important
historical truths, and for the contradiction of others which have been
authenticated, than it is for the great volume of trivial facts which
it presents. A line of derelictions conspicuously prevailing throughout
the pages of the book, amply justify the charge that it was not written,
primarily, for an historical purpose--"to put forth the truths of
history as far as ascertainable, and to judge Brown and his followers in
the light thereof." The true purpose seems to be ulterior to that which
is effusively proclaimed in the prefatory declarations. He has written
into the history of our country a concept of the character of John Brown
which is incongruous with the actions and circumstances of Brown's
life. He has created a semi-supernatural person--"a complex
character"--embodying the virtues of the "Hebrew prophets" and
"Cromwellian Roundheads" with the depraved instincts and practices of
thieves and murderers. He presents a man who, for righteous purposes,
"violated the statute and moral laws"; whose conduct was vile, but whose
aims were pure; whose actions were brutal and criminal, but whose
motives were unselfish.
If this author had redeemed the pledge which he solemnly gave to the
public, to put forth the truths of history as far as ascertainable, and,
judging Brown and his followers in the light of them, had justified his
"terrible violation of the statute and moral laws," the nature of this
criticism would be different; it would be directed against his
discrimination or, perhaps, against his intelligence. But that is not
the case. The author referred to has sifted the truths of this history,
and from the fragments has framed an hypothetical case; and has judged
Brown and his followers in the light of that creation. "How may the
killings on the Pottawatomie, this terrible violation of the statute and
the moral law be justified? This is the question that has confronted
every student of John Brown's life since it was definitely established
that Brown was, if not actually a principal in the crime, an accessory
and an instigator,"[5] is not the language of an impartial historian;
but it is consistently the language of an advocate who writes for a
specious, for an ulterior purpose. Why should an historian seek to
justify a crime? Why should this author, if he intended to write
impartially, seek for evidence to justify this horror? It was the desire
to justify the crime that impelled the author to seek for pretexts for
justification of it among the surviving criminals, and to garble the
historical facts concerning it.
The crime was the theft of a large number of horses; to accomplish it,
and to safeguard the loot, it was necessary to kill the owners thereof.
It was a premeditation. The plans for it were laid several weeks before
it was executed, and during a time of profound peace. The principals
were John Brown; his unmarried sons; Henry Thompson, his son-in-law;
Theodore Weiner, and four confederates: Jacob Benjamin, B. L. Cochrane,
John E. Cook and Charles Lenhart, whose names are herein associated with
this crime for the first time in history. These confederates received
from Brown's party the horses which belonged to the men whom they
murdered, and ran them out of the country; leaving with Brown a number
of horses, "fast running horses," which they had stolen in the northern
part of the Territory. That is the crime which this author seeks to
justify; he has concealed these truths, and has suppressed the evidence
concerning them. Pretending to put forth the "exact facts as to the
happenings on the Pottawatomie," he has suppressed the evidence
concerning the most important of the happenings, and has added no
material fact concerning them which James Townsley had not, years
before, put forth in his confession.
The public should know that as early as April 16, 1856, John Brown and
his unmarried sons planned to abandon Kansas and the Free-State Cause
and had disbanded the Free-State company to which they belonged, the
"Liberty Guards," of which John Brown was captain; also, that the
"Pottawatomie Rifles" had been organized in its stead, with John Brown,
Jr., as captain; and that neither John Brown nor his unmarried sons
belonged to it. They were "a little company" by themselves.[6] The
public should also know that prior to that date, as early as April 7th,
Brown and the members of his little company had decided to abandon their
claims and leave the country; and further, that they desired a
recrudescence of pro-slavery atrocities. Concerning Brown's character
and his life in Kansas, as well as his relation to territorial affairs,
and a correct understanding of the Pottawatomie affair, no more
important letter was written by him than his letter of April 7th
disclosing these facts, a letter which Mr. Villard, in furtherance of
his purpose, has seen fit to sift from history and suppress. The public
has a right to know what Henry Thompson meant when he wrote in May that
"upon Brown's plans would depend his own 'until School is out.'" This
biographer, who said that he had left no stone unturned to make accurate
the smallest detail,[7] interviewed Henry Thompson, and could have
obtained from him a statement concerning the plans to which he intended
to subordinate his conduct, which involved matters of so much importance
as leaving the country. Salmon Brown and Henry Thompson could have told
this historian why the "Liberty Guards" were disbanded and the
"Pottawatomie Rifles" organized; and when, and for what purpose the
"little company of six," which intended to leave the neighborhood, was
formed; and he could have included the information in his statement of
the "exact facts." Mr. Villard says it was organized May 23d; but that
is not an "exact" statement; it is a contradiction of a statement which
John Brown made over his signature concerning it.[8] These men could
have told Mr. Villard specifically why they abandoned their claims,
whither they intended to go, and what they intended to do. And further,
they could have told him where they were, and what they were doing,
during the fifty days their "whereabouts" are by this biographer
reported as being "unknown," and their actions unaccounted for.[9]
These matters are not trifling details in this history. In view of the
author's fine panegyrics concerning Brown's devotion to the Free-State
cause, his intention to abandon it, and quit the Territory as early as
March, 1856, is of more striking consequence than his coming into it;
and the disbanding of the "Liberty Guards" in March, 1856, was an act of
greater significance than was the organization of the company in
December, 1855.
Mr. Villard's treatment of the Pottawatomie incident, "without a clear
appreciation of which a true understanding of Brown, the man, cannot be
reached,"[10] must stand as an indictment, either of his discrimination
or of the integrity of his purpose, concerning it. Not being a dull man,
he could not have been imposed upon by the participants in this riot of
robbery and blood whom he interviewed, and whose evasions he has
certified to the world as the exact facts. It was not the happenings on
the night of May 24, 1856, that determine "the degree of criminality, if
any," [mark the language, _if any_] "that should attach to Brown, for
his part in the proceedings,"[11] for they were but the execution of the
plans which had theretofore been laid for the adventure. Whatever the
circumstances of the author's dereliction may have been, the fact
remains, that the truths concerning this historical episode have been
sifted, and such documents and concurrent evidence as tend to establish
the fact that the motive for these murders was robbery, have been
consistently suppressed from his exposition of it.
Brown made no attempt to justify his conduct in the affair. He would
have acknowledged his responsibility and would have pleaded
justification for his acts, if there had been even a shadow of a pretext
for any justification; for he was shifty and crafty as well as vain; and
was sensitive concerning his reputation.[12] Not having the murdered
men's horses in his possession, he denied his complicity with the
murders, denied that he was concerned in the crime. If he had "killed
his men" (and stolen their horses) "in the conscientious belief that he
was a faithful servant of Kansas and of the Lord," as this author
asserts, he would not have denied his relationship with the Lord in the
matter, and offended Deity by persistently denying his participation in
it with Him; neither would he have abandoned Kansas and the Free-State
cause within the ensuing sixty days. Cowardly midnight robbery is
impossible of justification upon any ordinary circumstantial hypothesis;
and is preëminently so when the crime is aggravated by brutal
assassinations, such as were incidental to this wholesale theft of
horses.
The derelictions concerning the history of the Pottawatomie are
characteristic of Mr. Villard's treatment of the more vital episode of
Brown's career: his attempt to incite a revolution in the Southern
States and to establish over them the authority of a "provisional
government." This Brown planned to precipitate and accomplish by an
insurrection of the slaves, and a resulting indiscriminate assassination
of the slave-holding population: such as the people of that generation,
North and South, believed to be impending, if not imminent. This central
truth Mr. Villard denies, and seeks to substitute for Brown's
intentions, the invention that his movement was merely a transitory
raid, the forerunner of a series of similar raids to be undertaken by
"small bands hidden in the mountain fastnesses." This conception is
gratituitous and illogical; a contradiction of history and inconsistent
with the bold, intrepid, daring, courageous characteristics which he
has, except in this sole instance, consistently ascribed to Brown's
character.
Brown's purposes, at Harper's Ferry, are logically foreshadowed by every
act of his life, beginning with March, 1857; and are written in letters
of living light in the "Constitution and Ordinances for the People of
the United States," and in "General Order, No. 1," dated:
"HEADQUARTERS WAR DEPARTMENT, PROVISIONAL ARMY.
"Harper's Ferry, October 10, 1859."
As in the Pottawatomie incident, and consistent with a purpose to
pervert this history, and fasten an imposition upon the public, these
two "public documents," uttered, _ex cathedra_, by John Brown, find no
place in Mr. Villard's book; they are not put forth as essential truths
of history. The general order providing for the formation of the
Provisional Army is not even remotely referred to; while the
Constitution and Ordinances are treated contemptuously, and passed over
slightingly with a few commonplace and irrelevant criticisms; and
dismissed from consideration with manifest impatience and irritation as
being so inconsistent--_not_ with Brown's purposes, but with the
author's theory of them--as to "forbid discussion."[13]
As a study of John Brown, Mr. Villard's book is misleading, and, in
places, worthless. It is a jargon of facts and fancies; a juggling with
the truths of history; a recital of the long list of Brown's minor
peculations, and the bloody deeds which accent his career, interlarded
with half-hearted denunciations of his moral obliquity and conspicuously
fulsome panegyrics upon his character, and extravagantly illogical
attributes concerning the nobility of his aims. The book seems to have
been put forth not with reference to the truth, but to ennoble an
ignoble character; to shroud the character in a mantle of mystery; to
create in the twentieth century, a "complex" character: a mystic with a
propensity to do wrong; wherein there is a compromise of virtue with
vice. To the accomplishment of this end, this author has not only bent
his energies in subordinating the truth, but, as a furtherance of his
purpose, he has deemed it necessary to pass beyond the boundaries of
historical research, and seek to strengthen his cause by inviting
discredit upon the opinions of any who may venture to dissent from his
inventions.
It may not be held to be a suspicious circumstance, but it certainly is
not good form for an historian to presuppose that his statements of fact
will be disbelieved, and that the logic of his conclusions concerning
them will be challenged by any one. Nor should he seek to discredit
hypothetical opinions by the cheap, or vulgar, assertion that such
opinions have their origin in prejudice--"blind prejudice"; for jurors,
and even judges, sometimes disagree; and it is possible for persons, who
are conscientious, to receive divergent impressions in relation to the
same subject. He would have preserved a better decorum if he had relied
upon candor, and the supreme truthfulness of his narrative, and the
clearness of his reasoning, whereby to supplant disbelief with faith,
and to dispel prejudice by enlightening it.
The tree is better known by its fruits, than by any tag which the owner
may attach to the trunk. An historian who conscientiously writes the
truths of history, is not solicitous concerning the criticisms of any
who may read his lines.