ROBBERY AND MURDER ON THE POTTAWATOMIE
_A blush as of roses_
_Where rose never grew!_
_Great drops on the bunch-grass_
_But not of the dew!_
_A taint in the sweet air_
_For wild bees to shun!_
_A stain that will never_
_Bleach out in the sun!_
_Back, steed of the prairies!_
_Sweet song bird, fly back!_
_Wheel hither, bald vulture!_
_Gray wolf, call thy pack!_
_The foul human vultures_
_Have feasted and fled;_
_The wolves of the Border_
_Have crept from the dead._
--FROM LE MARAIS DU CYGNE. WHITTIER.
From a rude home in the bleak mountains of northern New York, John Brown
went to Kansas; not for the purpose of fighting, but inspired by the
hope of bettering his shattered fortunes; a hope that withered in the
budding, and gave place to feelings of deep disappointment and
discouragement. He wrote February 1st:
It is now nearly six weeks that the snow has almost
constantly been driven, like dry sand, by the fierce winds
of Kansas. By means of the sale of our horse and wagon, our
present wants are tolerably well met; so that, if health is
continued to us, we shall not probably suffer much....
Thermometer on Sunday and Monday at twenty-eight to
twenty-nine below zero. Ice in the river, in the timber,
and under the snow, eighteen inches thick this week....
Jason down again with the ague, but he was some better
yesterday. Oliver was also laid up by freezing his
toes,--one great toe so badly frozen that the nail has come
off. He will be crippled for some days yet. Owen has one
foot frozen. We have middling tough times (as some would
call them) but have enough to eat, and abundant reason for
the most unfeigned gratitude....[110]
These were hard conditions. It would be difficult to imagine
circumstances of greater discomfort and hopelessness. But what about the
future--the future for himself and for the wife and the daughters
depending upon him for the necessaries of life, for whose benefit he had
come to Kansas? Did Brown think of them? Present inconvenience and
privation may be borne with fortitude if the future holds out a promise
of betterment. In his case we may reasonably assume that the problems of
the future, rather than the present conditions and discouragements,
engrossed his thoughts. It is altogether unreasonable to suppose that
this unscrupulous man of affairs--this restless, aggressive
speculator--sat listlessly, amid his environment of discomfort and
poverty, and permitted the dreary months to pass without thinking of his
precarious financial condition, and of the incessantly urgent family
responsibilities impending; and of the possibilities of bettering his
fortunes in the immediate future. His biographers have wisely avoided
discussion of the practical side of Brown's condition at this time,
preferring to wander in more intangible fields, and to speculate upon
the emotional and metaphysical phenomena they seek to involve in the
situation. The record of his life at this time, however, reveals the
fact that Brown did think of the future and of its responsibilities; and
that he did mature a plan to better his financial condition. Also, that
his plan was in harmony with his latest and best biographer's estimate
of his character: "It was not only that he was visionary as a business
man,"[111] says Mr. Villard, "but that he developed the fatal tendency
to speculate; doubtless the outgrowth of his restlessness, and the usual
desire of the bankrupt for a sudden coup to restore his fortune," To his
wife he wrote as follows:
Brown's Station, K. T., April 7, 1856.
DEAR WIFE AND CHILDREN, EVERY ONE,--I wrote you last
week,... We do not want you to borrow trouble about us, but
trust us to the care of "Him who feeds the young ravens
when they cry." I have, as usual, but little to write. We
are doing off a house for Orson Day, which we hope to get
through with soon; after which we shall probably soon leave
this neighborhood, but will advise you further when we
leave. It may be that Watson can manage to get a little
money for shearing sheep if you do not get any from
Connecticut. I still hope you will get help from that
source. We have no wars as yet, but we still have abundance
of "rumors." We still have frosty nights, but the grass
starts a little. There are none of us complaining much just
now, all being able to do something. John has just returned
from Topeka, not having met with any difficulty; but we
hear that preparations are making in the United States
Court for numerous arrests of Free State men. For one, I
have no desire (all things considered) to have the slave
power cease from its acts of aggression. "Their foot shall
slide in due time." May God bless and keep you all.
Your affectionate husband and father,
JOHN BROWN.
This letter foreshadows the turning point in John Brown's career. It
discloses the fact that he and his sons intended to engage in an
enterprise that was related to danger, against which he sought to quiet
his wife's apprehensions. The letter also foreshadows the fact that as a
result of what they intended to do, they would probably leave the
neighborhood; but as to either the nature of the undertaking which they
had in view, or the time at which the venture would be executed, she
would not be informed until they left the country. It discloses further
the significant fact, that his attitude toward the Free-State cause had
undergone a change. That instead of treasuring in his heart a patriotic
desire to win freedom for Kansas by peaceable means, he had assumed a
hostile attitude. He now desired, not peace, but war.
Three important facts appear at this point in Brown's history: That he
had decided to do something of a dangerous character and leave the
neighborhood; that he desired a revival of pro-slavery aggressions; and
that he had disbanded the "Liberty Guards."
On the 16th of April, 1856, John Brown, Jr., was in command of the
"Pottawatomie Rifles."[112] He said: "During the winter of 1856, I
raised a company of riflemen, from the Free-State settlers who had their
homes in the vicinity of Osawatomie and Pottawatomie Creek."[113] James
Townsley, in his "confession," made December 6, 1879, said: "I joined
the Pottawatomie Rifle Company at its reorganization in May, 1856, at
which time John Brown, Jr., was elected captain."
Why Brown should desire a revival of pro-slavery aggressions, if he
intended to leave the neighborhood; and what he intended to do, are
important questions in this analysis which his versatile biographers
have failed to attempt to explain. Brown could not have desired a
provocation from the pro-slavery people because he wanted an opportunity
to fight--to march against them at the head of the "Liberty Guards," and
"stagger the slave-power by the driving force of his iron will;"--for he
intended to leave the neighborhood; he intended to go away from the
scene of the prospective aggressions. He was no longer "Captain of the
Liberty Guards," but a private citizen; therefore, he must have desired
an outbreak of pro-slavery hostility for personal reasons; for reasons
relating to operations which he intended to engage in with Henry
Thompson as an associate; who wrote, equivocally, to his wife in May,
1856, that "Upon Brown's plans would depend his own, until School is
out."
[Illustration: John Brown]
The operations that Brown and his four unmarried sons and Henry Thompson
engaged in immediately after the letter containing this extract was
written, show that the "plans" therein referred to related to the
capital tragedy in the history of Kansas Territory. These plans provided
for the theft of a large number of horses on Pottawatomie Creek. The
horses were duly stolen by Brown and his band. To make the theft
possible, and personally safe, they planned to quietly assassinate the
owners of the horses. To avoid identification, and to dispose of the
horses which they intended to steal, they planned to deliver them to
confederates, who would run them out of the neighborhood; and, at the
same time, they were to receive from such confederates horses of a more
desirable character--fast running horses--which were to be brought from
the northern part of the Territory to a designated rendezvous.
It was the original intention to steal four lots of horses and murder
seven men. The persons murdered in pursuance of their plans were John
Doyle and two of his sons, Hon. Allen Wilkinson, and William Sherman.
Those who escaped death were Henry Sherman, a brother of William, and
another person whose name has been withheld from publication.[114] The
_silent_ weapons used in these murders were some of the short swords,
ground to a keen edge, that Brown had brought with him when he came to
the Territory. The unfortunate victims, in holding up their arms in vain
attempts to shield their heads from impending blows, were struck upon
their forearms and hands; these in some instances were almost severed
from their bodies. The heads of the murdered men, except in the case of
Doyle, were split open and their bodies otherwise mutilated. In the
case of Doyle, he was shot in the head; and in addition thereto, a sword
was run through his breast. He was the first victim of the tragedies.
The shot which struck him was the only shot that was fired in these
murders, and the firing of it stands charged to John Brown himself. Of
this Mr. Villard says:[115] "Salmon Brown will not positively state that
his father fired it but admits that no one else pulled a trigger."
An account in detail of these murders is found in the testimony of the
widows of Doyle and Wilkinson, and of James Harris, and others, taken
before Hon. M. N. Oliver, of Missouri, minority member of a
congressional committee of which Hon. W. A. Howard was chairman. The
committee was appointed in 1855 to investigate and report to Congress
upon the troubles in Kansas. The character of the evidence brought out
in this investigation incriminated the Browns; but for more than twenty
years thereafter the surviving members of the family stoutly denied
having any participation in the crime. Even at Harper's Ferry, when
standing within the shadow of the gallows, John Brown denied having had
anything to do with it. To Judge Russell "the prisoner reiterated his
assertion often made in those prison days that he was not personally
concerned in the Pottawatomie murders."[116] But after the confession of
James Townsley, his biographers and friends were forced to acknowledge
Brown's directing hand in the crime. Since that time, they have
continuously sought, by various pretexts--defensive, patriotic and
altruistic--to justify him in the killing of these men; and to distract
attention away from the real motive that prompted it; with the result
that they have thus far succeeded in so agitating discussion upon the
merits of the _murders_, as to concentrate public attention upon that
feature of the crime--the murders--and to eliminate or silence any
allusion whatever to the fundamental feature of it--_robbery_. As a
consequence of their propaganda, writers of history have not made any
reference to the robberies to which the murders were subordinate and
incidental. After the manner of sheep, they have followed the lead of
Brown's eulogists into the interesting field of metaphysics; and have
there engaged in profitless speculation upon Brown's mental processes,
and the probable psychical impulses which may have controlled his
actions.[117]
The confession of James Townsley is as follows:
I joined the Potawatomie rifle company at its
reorganization in May, 1856, at which time John Brown, Jr.,
was elected captain. On the 21st of the same month
information was received that the Georgians were marching
on Lawrence, threatening its destruction. The company was
immediately called together, and about four o'clock P. M.
we started on a forced march to aid in its defense.
About two miles south of Middle Creek, we were joined by
the Osawatomie company under Captain Dayton, and proceeded
to Mount Vernon, where we waited about two hours, until the
moon rose. We then marched all night, camping the next
morning, the 22nd, for breakfast, near Ottawa Jones's.
Before we arrived at this point, news had been received
that Lawrence had been destroyed, and a question was raised
whether we should return or go on. During the forenoon,
however, we proceeded up Ottawa Creek to within about five
miles of Palmyra, and went into camp near the residence of
Captain Shore. Here we remained, undecided, over night.
About noon the next day, the 23rd, Old John Brown came to
me and said he had just received information that trouble
was expected on the Potawatomie, and wanted to know if I
would take my team and take him and his boys back, so they
could keep watch on what was going on. I told him I would
do so. The party, consisting of Old John Brown, Watson
Brown, Oliver Brown, Henry Thompson, (John Brown's
son-in-law), and Mr. Winer, were soon ready for the trip
and we started, as near as I can remember, about two
o'clock P. M. All of the party except Winer, who rode a
pony, rode with me in my wagon. When within two or three
miles of Potawatomie Creek, we turned off the main road to
the right, drove down to the edge of the timber between two
deep ravines, and camped about one mile above Dutch Henry's
crossing.... We remained in camp that night and all the
next day. Some time after dark we were ordered to march.
We started, the whole company, in a northerly direction,
crossing Mosquito Creek, above the residence of the Doyles.
Soon after crossing the creek, some one of the party
knocked at the door of a cabin, but received no reply--I
have forgotten whose cabin it was, if I knew at the time.
The next place we came to was the residence of the Doyles.
John Brown, three of his sons, and son-in-law, went to the
door, leaving Frederick Brown, Winer, and myself, a short
distance from the house. About this time a large dog
attacked us. Frederick Brown struck the dog a blow with his
short two edged sword, after which I dealt him a blow with
my sabre, and heard no more of him. The old man Doyle and
two sons were called out and marched some distance from the
house toward Dutch Henry's, in the road, where a halt was
made. Old John Brown drew a revolver and shot the old man
Doyle in the forehead and Brown's two youngest sons
immediately fell upon the younger Doyles with their short
two-edged swords.
One of the young Doyles was stricken down in an instant,
but the other attempted to escape, and was pursued a short
distance by his assailant and cut down. The company then
proceeded down Mosquito Creek to the house of Allen
Wilkinson. Here the old man Brown, three of his sons, and
son-in-law as at the Doyle residence, went to the door and
ordered Wilkinson to come out, leaving Frederick Brown,
Winer, and myself standing in the road east of the house.
Wilkinson was taken and marched some distance south of his
house and slain in the road, with a short sword, by one of
the younger Browns. After he was killed, his body was
dragged out to one side and left.
We then crossed the Potawatomie and came to the house of
Henry Sherman, generally known as Dutch Henry. Here John
Brown and the party, excepting Frederick Brown, Winer, and
myself, who were left outside a short distance from the
door, went into the house and brought out one or two
persons, talked with them some, and then took them in
again. They afterwards brought out William Sherman, Dutch
Henry's brother, marched him down into the Potawatomie
Creek, where he was slain with swords, by Brown's two
youngest sons, and left lying in the creek....
JAMES TOWNSLEY.
Lane, Kansas, December 6, 1879.
From this statement it appears that John Brown set the example for his
sons to follow by killing Doyle. "Old John Brown drew his revolver and
shot old man Doyle in the forehead, and Brown's two younger sons
immediately fell upon the younger Doyles with their short, two edged
swords."
Mrs. Doyle, in her testimony said:
... My son John was spared because I asked them in tears to
spare him....
The son testified:
I found my father and one brother, William, lying dead in
the road about two hundred yards from the house. I saw my
other brother lying dead on the ground about one hundred
and fifty yards from the house, in the grass, near a
ravine, his fingers were cut off, and his arms were cut
off; his head was cut open; there was a hole in his breast.
William's head was cut open, and a hole was in his jaw, as
though it was made by a knife, and a hole was in his side.
My father was shot in the forehead and stabbed in the
breast.[118]
Allen Wilkinson was the postmaster for the community, and was a member
of the Territorial Legislature. Like Doyle, he was married, and had a
family of small children. Mrs. Wilkinson states that the persons who
murdered her husband, came to their home after midnight, and after
knocking at the door, inquired "the way to Dutch Henry's." Wilkinson
began to tell them, but they told him to "come out and show them." Her
testimony is in part as follows:
... One of them said, "You are our prisoner. Do you
surrender?" He said, "Gentlemen, I do." They said, "Open
the door." Mr. Wilkinson told them to wait till he made a
light and they replied, "If you don't open it, we will open
it for you." He opened the door against my wishes, and four
men came in and my husband was told to put on his clothes,
and they asked him if there were not more men about. They
searched for arms, and took a gun and powder flask, all the
weapon that was about the house.... They then took my
husband away. One of them came back and took two saddles. I
asked him what they were going to do with him and he said,
"Take him a prisoner to the camp." ... After they were
gone, I thought I heard my husband's voice, in complaint,
but do not know; went to the door and all was still. Next
morning Mr. Wilkinson was found about one hundred and fifty
yards from the house dead, in some bushes. A lady who saw
my husband's body said, that there was a gash in his head
and in his side; others said he was cut in the throat
twice.[119]
James Harris, at whose house William Sherman was staying on the night of
May 24th, states in his testimony, what came under his observation.
Harris was a day laborer. He testified in part as follows:
On last Sunday morning about two o'clock (the 25th of last
May) whilst my wife and child and myself were in bed in the
house where we lived, we were aroused by a company of men
who said they belonged to the Northern army, and who were
each armed with a sabre and two revolvers, two of whom I
recognized, namely, a Mr. Brown, whose name I do not
remember, commonly known by the appellation of "old man
Brown" and his son Owen Brown.... When they came up to the
bed, some had drawn sabres in their hands, and some
revolvers. They then took possession of two rifles and a
Bowie knife which I had with me in the room--there was but
one room in my house--and afterward ransacked the whole
establishment after ammunition.... They asked me where
Henry Sherman was. Henry Sherman was a brother to William
Sherman. I told them that he was out on the plains in
search of some cattle that he had lost. They asked me if
there were any bridles or saddles about the premises. I
told them there was one saddle which they took, and they
also took possession of Henry Sherman's horse which I had
at my place, and made me saddle him. They then said if I
would answer no, to all questions which they asked me, they
would let [me] loose. Old Mr. Brown and his son then went
into the house with me.... Old man Brown asked Mr. Sherman
to go out with him, and Mr. Sherman then went out with old
man Brown, and another man came into the house in Brown's
place. I heard nothing more for about fifteen minutes. Two
of the northern army, as they styled themselves, stayed on
with us until we heard a cap burst and then these two men
left. That morning about ten o'clock I found William
Sherman dead in the creek near my house. I was looking for
Mr. Sherman; as he had not come back, I thought he had been
murdered. I took Mr. William Sherman out of the creek and
examined him. Mr. Whiteman was with me. Sherman's skull was
split open in two places, and some of his brains was washed
out by the water. A large hole was cut in his breast, and
his left hand was cut off except a little piece of skin on
one side. We buried him.[120]
It should be remembered that prior to the date of these murders and
robberies, the zone of conflict in the Territory had been confined
within the limits of Douglas, Leavenworth, and Atchison counties. Also,
that the settlers living south of Douglas county had, up to this time,
enjoyed the repose and benefits of a condition of profound peace; and
that during all of the time that Brown was formulating his plans to rob
and murder his unsuspecting neighbors, the "Shannon Treaty" was in full
force and effect, and a season of peace prevailing throughout the whole
Territory. Mr. Villard says of this period:[121]
Not a single person had been killed in the region around
Osawatomie either by the lawless characters, or by armed
representatives of the pro-slavery cause. The instances of
brutality or murder narrated in the preceding chapters, all
took place miles to the north in the vicinity of Lawrence
or Leavenworth.
And John Brown himself, in his speech before a committee of the
Massachusetts Legislature, February 18, 1857, said:[122]
Things do not look one iota more encouraging now than they
did last year at this time. You may remember that from the
Shannon Treaty, (December 9th, 1855) which ended the
Wakarusa war, till early in May, 1856, there was general
quiet in Kansas. No violence was offered to our citizens
when they went to Missouri. I frequently went there myself
to buy corn and other supplies. I was known there, yet they
treated me well.
Some of Buford's men had been in the neighborhood but they were not
brutal toward the Free-State settlers. There was a potent restraining
influence controlling their conduct. They were at the time on the pay
roll of the General Government as deputy United States marshals, and the
respectability and responsibility of their official positions demanded
reasonably proper behavior on their part.[123]
The most important evidence upon the important subject under
consideration, appears in Brown's letter to his wife, written after his
fight at Black Jack; and in a personal statement made by John Brown,
Jr., to F. B. Sanborn. The letter is, in part, as follows:[124]
Near Brown's Station, K. T., June, 1856.
DEAR WIFE AND CHILDREN, EVERY ONE,--It is now about five
weeks since I have seen a line from North Elba, or had any
chance of writing you. During that period we have passed
through an almost constant series of very trying events. We
were called to go to the relief of Lawrence, May 22, and
every man (eight in all), except Orson turned out; he
staying with the women and children and to take care of the
cattle. John was captain of a company to which Jason
belonged; _the other six were a little company by
ourselves_.[125] On our way to Lawrence we learned that it
had been already destroyed, and we encamped with John's
company over night. Next day our little company left and
during the day we stopped and searched three men....
On the second day and evening after we left John's men, we
encountered quite a number of pro-slavery men and took
quite a number of prisoners. Our prisoners we let go, but
we kept some four or five horses. We were immediately after
this, accused of murdering five men at Pottawatomie and
great efforts have since been made by the Missourians and
their ruffian allies to capture us. John's company soon
afterward disbanded, and also the Osawatomie men.[126]
Since then, we have, like David of old, had our dwelling
with the serpents of the rocks and wild beasts of the
wilderness; being obliged to hide away from our enemies. We
are not disheartened, though nearly destitute of food,
clothing and money. God, who has not given us over to the
will of our enemies, but has moreover delivered them into
our hand, will we humbly trust, still keep and deliver us.
We feel assured that He who sees not as men see, does not
lay the guilt of innocent blood to our charge.
If, under God, this letter reaches you so that it can be
read, I wish it at once carefully copied, and a copy of it
sent to Gerrit Smith. I know of no other way to get these
facts and our situation before the world, nor when I can
write again....
The statement that John Brown, Jr., made to Mr. Sanborn is, in part, as
follows:[127]
We got back to Osawatomie from our five days' campaign,
toward evening on the 26th of May.... I took my rifle and
horse and went into the ravine on Mr. Adair's land,
remaining there through that day (May 27) and the following
night. About four o'clock P. M. I was joined by my brother
Owen, who had been informed at Mr. Adair's of my
whereabouts. He brought with him into the brush a valuable
running horse, mate of the one I had with me. These horses
had been taken by Free-State men near the Nebraska line and
exchanged for horses obtained in the way of reprisals
further south; and while on foot a few miles south of
Ottawa Jones's place, May 26, I had been offered one of
these to ride the remaining distance to Osawatomie. Owen's
horse was wet with sweat; and he told me of the narrow
escape he had just had from a number of armed pro-slavery
men who had their headquarters at Tooley's,--a house at the
foot of the hill, about a mile and a half west of Mr.
Adair's. Their guards, seeing him in the road coming down
the hill, gave a signal and at once the whole gang were in
hot chase. The superior fleetness of the horse Owen rode
alone saved him. He exchanged horses with me, and that
night forded the Marais des Cygnes, and going by Stanton,
(or Standiford as it was sometimes called), recrossed the
river to father's camp about a mile north of the house of
Mr. Day. Until Owen told me that night, I did not know
where father could be found....
Referring to a horse whose mane and tail had been shaved--"Dutch Henry's
gray pony"--Mr. Sanborn states:[128] "This horse was soon taken to
northern Kansas by some Free State men who gave in exchange for that and
other horses captured on the Pottawatomie, some fast Kentucky horses, on
one of which Owen Brown afterward escaped from his pursuers."
But John Brown, Jr., received his fast running horse on the morning of
May 26th and "upon a mate to it" Owen Brown escaped from his pursuers on
the same day near Osawatomie. Therefore, the exchange of the horses
"taken as reprisals" on the Pottawatomie, for the fast running horses,
was not made in northern Kansas some time afterward, as Mr. Sanborn
states, but was made immediately after the robbery--May 25th or 26th--at
the appointed time and place; probably on Middle Creek.
These statements, made by John Brown, and by his son, complete the
recorded evidence of Brown's plan to retrieve his shattered fortunes by
a plunge in horse stealing. It shows that he was in partnership with
others in the transaction, and that his confederates brought the
northern horses, eight at least, to the appointed rendezvous and
delivered them to him. It shows also, that John Brown, Jr., was in his
father's confidence, and that he knew enough about his father's plans
and of what had been done on the night of the 24th, to enable him to
walk to a point "a few miles south of Ottawa Jones's place" where he was
"offered one of the northern horses," and accepted it as his own.
Who Brown's confederates were in this transaction, except as to Weiner,
is as yet unknown. Salmon Brown still guards the sacred secret. But it
is probable that the "mysterious courier," who came to the camp of the
Pottawatomie Rifles on the morning of the 23d, was one of them, and
that he delivered a message to John Brown. There has been much debate
concerning this messenger and his identity.[129] B. L. Cochrane may have
been the important person, or it may have been Jacob Benjamin that bore
the important message, or Charles Lenhart, or Mr. John E. Cook. None of
these men have heretofore been charged with having taken any part in the
Pottawatomie episode, but there are incidents in this history which
connect them with it as confederates. Weiner owned the store at "Dutch
Henry's Crossing," and Benjamin was in his employ. Weiner disposed of
his stock of merchandise and gave up the business to engage in this
speculation in horses. He was from Texas and to Texas he returned. It is
also probable that he was a pro-slavery man. Benjamin was subsequently
"imprisoned" for some act that he committed while in Brown's service; as
appears from a reference which the latter made, during July, concerning
him.[130] The name of Benjamin Cochrane also appears in the same
reference, as having been with Brown at the Pottawatomie and at the
Black Jack.
On page 101, Mr. Redpath states that Charles Lenhart and John E. Cook
left Lawrence on the 21st to "commence reprisals." There is also
evidence that they went southward. They were horse thieves, and at
Cleveland in May, 1858, Cook stated that he had killed five men in
Kansas.[131] It is therefore probable that these men were accomplices
with the Browns in this deal; and participated, directly or indirectly,
in the murders. Cook was a guest in their camp June 4th, two days after
the fight at Black Jack, when they had Pate's horses and mules in their
possession. Thereafter he continued to be Brown's faithful lieutenant,
and followed his fortunes to the gallows at Charlestown. Charles
Lenhart, too, appeared at Charlestown, engaged in an effort to effect
Cook's escape from the jail.
The terms of the agreement which the Browns made with these
confederates, and the details for the execution of the Pottawatomie
transaction, would make history of absorbing interest. How many horses
did Brown turn over to them? Did they trade one bunch of horses for the
other, and let it go at that? Or, did his confederates charge him with
the value of the horses which they turned over to him; and then, after
offsetting their services in selling Brown's horses, against his
services in stealing them, did they divide the net profits, or the
difference in value between the two lots of horses? Then as to the time
when Brown was to make his delivery; it would be interesting to know
about that. Were the parties to wait until the Border Ruffians started
something, and raised some friendly dust that would distract public
attention from their operations? Probably so, for Brown was prepared to
kill his neighbors and take their horses at any time. His letter of
April 7th shows that he intended to do this whether the slave-power
renewed its acts of aggression or not. He simply preferred to commit his
robbery under cover of some pro-slavery provocation. Otherwise, after
the grass had well started, he intended to execute it in cold blood and
leave the country. In that event, he probably intended to "go to
Louisiana," and "head an uprising of the slaves there."[132]
For reasons obvious, Mr. Villard could not obtain the exact facts as to
all these incriminating matters from his friends, Salmon Brown and Henry
Thompson; but the former is still living,[133] and can yet supply them
if he desires to do so. He can, if he be so disposed, give out the
"exact facts" as to _all_ the principal happenings on the Pottawatomie.
For instance: He can give the name of the man whose horses they intended
to steal, but failed to get, and the number of them. Townsley referred
to this incident, but Salmon Brown gave further details and spoke very
interestingly upon the subject. He said:[134]
Soon after crossing the creek, some one of the party
knocked at the door of a cabin. There was no reply, but
from within came the sound of a gun rammed through the
chinks of the cabin walls. It saved the owner's life, for
at that we all scattered. We did not disturb that man. With
some candle wicking soaked in coal oil to light and throw
inside, so that we could see within while he could not see
outside, we would have managed it, but we had none. It was
a method much used later.
From the expression "it was a method much used later" we derive a
confession that the Browns continued in the horse stealing business.
Upon the number of horses that Brown expected to get as a result of the
murder of seven men, depends this interesting problem in his psychology:
his estimate of the value of a human life in terms of horses. In the
case of the Doyles, he took three lives and got, probably, eight or ten
horses; but the whole number of horses taken will never be known unless
Salmon Brown, or some one who has his confidence, should decide to
reveal it.
"The Shermans," Bondi says, "had amassed considerable property by
robbing cattle droves and emigrant trains."[135] They lived at a
"crossing" of the Pottawatomie, and were buyers and traders in horses,
oxen, and cattle passing over the trail. "Crossings" are usually camping
places for emigrants and drovers; and at such locations lame, footsore,
or otherwise unserviceable stock, can be, frequently, bought or traded
for at a very profitable margin in favor of the trader. Travelers must
either sell or abandon their lame stuff, and replace it with serviceable
animals, or lie over and wait until such animals get in condition to
travel. The trader not being compelled to trade, names the price he
will pay, or the terms upon which he will exchange good stuff for bad.
When the stock which he buys is recuperated, he sells it for a good
profit to other travelers, or to immigrants who locate in his
neighborhood. In this way the Shermans, William and Henry, had
accumulated wealth in horses and cattle; and since there was then much
travel on the trail, they may have had on hand at that time, from
twenty-five to forty or fifty horses.[136]
The importance of exchanging the Pottawatomie horses immediately, and
getting them out of the country was a high card in Brown's play. If he
and his gang had been caught with their murdered neighbors' horses in
their possession the next morning, there would not have been any
sophistical discussion fifty years after about how the "killings on the
Pottawatomie" could be "justified"; or about Brown's "sudden impulses";
or of his altruistic convictions that it was necessary to "_remove_"
anybody. The men of that outraged neighborhood, regardless of party
affiliation, would have promptly hanged the outlaws. But the robbers
were too deep for them. The neighbors lost the trail of the robbers and
murderers; also, they lost the trail of the Browns.
The horror of these murders, aggravated by the brutal mutilation of the
bodies of the victims, seems to have shocked that community into a
condition of semi-insensibility. In a lot of resolutions adopted at a
public meeting of citizens at Osawatomie, on the 27th, "denouncing the
murders"; the motive prompting the crime, _the theft of the horses owned
by the victims_, is not referred to. It is probable that the Osawatomie
people, who drew the resolutions, did not then know that any horses had
been stolen. At any rate, these resolutions came to be regarded as the
public or official announcement of what had occurred; and since they
contained no reference to any robbery, in connection with the murders,
the public was thus, unintentionally, led to believe that the
assassinations were acts of partisan warfare; a killing of obnoxious
pro-slavery men by unknown, but over zealous Free-State men. The
resolutions are as follows:[137]
_Whereas_, an outrage of the darkest and foulest nature has
been committed in our midst by some midnight assassins
unknown, who have taken five of our citizens at the hour of
midnight, from their homes and families, and murdered and
mangled them in the most awful manner; to prevent a
repetition of these deeds, we deem it necessary to adopt
some measures for our mutual protection and to aid and
assist in bringing these desperadoes to justice. Under
these circumstances we propose to act up to the following
resolutions:
_Resolved_, that we will repudiate and discountenance all
organized bands of men who leave their homes for the avowed
purpose of exciting others to acts of violence, believing
it to be the duty of all good disposed citizens to stay at
home during these exciting times and protect and if
possible restore the peace and harmony of the neighborhood;
furthermore we will discountenance all armed bodies of men
who may come amongst us from any other part of the
Territory or from the States unless said parties come under
the authority of the United States.
_Resolved_, That we pledge ourselves, individually and
collectively, to prevent a recurrence of a similar tragedy
and to ferret out and hand over to the criminal authorities
the perpetrators for punishment.
C. H. PRICE, President}
R. GOLDING, Chairman }
R. GILPATRICK }
W. C. MCDOW } Committee
S. V. VANDAMAN }
A. CASTELE }
JOHN BLUNT }
H. H. WILLIAMS, Secretary
The pillage and burning of Lawrence put the killings upon a war basis.
They were supposed to have been a war measure, instead of a case of
horse stealing; and, instead of the Browns _et al._ being hanged for
their crimes, as they would have been, by common consent, as undesirable
citizens, partisan spirit and sectional sentiment soon rallied in their
behalf and not only condoned their horrible crimes, but, in time,
approved of the murders, and recognized Brown as among the foremost
defenders of the Free-State cause. At a meeting of the Anti-Slavery
Society in Lawrence December 19, 1859, Governor Robinson said:
It made no difference whether he (Brown) raised his hand or
otherwise (at Pottawatomie); he was present aiding and
advising to it and did not attempt to stop the bloodshed,
and is, of course, responsible, though justifiable,
according to his understanding of affairs.
Robinson also stated at this meeting that he himself thought the murders
justifiable at the time.
The Anti-Slavery Society, after the discussion, voted that
the murders were not unjustifiable, and that they were
performed from the sad necessity ... to defend the lives
and liberty of the settlers of that region.[138]
Governor Robinson further said on February 5, 1878:
I never had much doubt that Captain Brown was the author of
the blow at Pottawatomie, for the reason that he was the
only man who comprehended the situation, and saw the
absolute necessity of some such blow and had the nerve to
strike it.
The character of Charles Robinson is evidence that if he had known, at
this time, that the murders on the Pottawatomie had been committed in
the promotion of robbery, instead of resulting from a supposed spasm of
patriotic resentment, provoked by the sack and burning of Lawrence, he
would not have declared them justifiable.
In the light of these occurrences, the student of history may readily
solve the enigmas involved in Brown's letter of April 7th and in Henry
Thompson's reference to his relation with Brown's plans: _until school
is out_. He finds in them a logical reason for the disbanding of the
"Liberty Guards"; for the organization of the Pottawatomie Rifles; and
for Brown's desire that the slave-power should not "cease from its acts
of aggression." These preliminary acts are in harmony with, and form a
part of his general plan for a "sudden coup" on the Pottawatomie.
The evidence is complete that the theft of the horses was the part to be
performed by Brown in this comprehensive scheme. His crime cannot be
excused or justified upon any pretext of supposed conditions or of
supposed circumstances. A condition of profound peace was prevailing
throughout the entire Territory when he laid his plans for this assault
upon his neighbors. The settlers in the region south of Douglas County
were living in a state of amity and neighborly interdependence; so much
so that Jason Brown and the members of the Pottawatomie Rifles, who
started to go to Lawrence, and who expected to be absent for an
indefinite period of time, deemed it safe to leave their families and
their property in the care of, or at the mercy of these same pro-slavery
neighbors. Neither can the crime be justified upon the ground that the
robbery and the attendant murders were acts of partisan or guerrilla
warfare. Such warfare is conducted in the open, with the knowledge and
approval of the side to which the guerrillas belong; there is no secrecy
concerning their operations. But Brown robbed and murdered in the night
for his personal gain; and sought by secretly exchanging the loot to
hide his identity therewith from the world, and denied his participation
in the crime to shield himself from the wrath of his outraged friends
and neighbors. Neither can Brown's crime be compared to the execution of
undesirable persons by vigilance committees, as some have attempted to
do. The swift vengeance of such committees falls upon criminals--persons
whose existence in a community is a menace to public order and safety;
it is exercised by reputable persons whose social and commercial
interests are involved; and in a public or semi-public manner, and after
notice has been served upon the offensive persons. It is simply
monstrous to conceive of a vigilance committee secretly murdering
well-to-do citizens--heads of families, engaged in legitimate
occupations; and then stealing their property and dividing it up among
themselves. Yet such is the logic of that comparison.
Also, it is gratuitous to assert that the persons who were killed were
disreputable. Wilkinson was the local postmaster, and was, when
assassinated, a member of the Territorial Legislature; the Sherman
brothers were successful horse dealers and stock men. Concerning the
Doyles, notwithstanding the efforts which have been made to defame them,
they seem to have been decent, respectable, well-to-do settlers. Of them
Mr. Eli Moore of Lawrence, Kansas, says:
William Doyle and his sons were good and desirable
citizens. In 1854-55 the elder Doyle and his oldest son
were contractors for building the mission houses at Miami,
Missouri. I never knew more quiet and industrious men. I
was with them almost daily for a year and never heard
either of them utter a word of politics.[139]
They were not "poor whites" as has been recently said.[140] If they had
been poor; if they had not owned a lot of good horses, they would not
have been murdered. The desperado always appeared upon the fringe of our
advancing settlements; but he was neither a settler nor a home builder.
The men who were murdered and robbed had taken claims, had built homes,
and were living peaceably and honorably in them. They did not in their
lives exhibit the characteristics of the desperado, but their assassins
measure up to the part. They had no homes; they were not cultivating
the fertile soil of eastern Kansas; they had abandoned their claims and
were living upon their wits; they were floaters who intended to leave
the neighborhood. These men wore the brands which distinguish the
desperado; they carried "slung-shots";[141] they were swearing,
swaggering bullies[142]--"rough-necks"--who infested that border and
preyed upon the home builders.
In the preface to his great book, Mr. Villard states that "to Salmon
Brown and Henry Thompson is due his ability to record for the first time
the exact facts as to the happenings on the Pottawatomie." It is evident
that he was imposed upon by these principals in the "happenings"; for it
is unfair to suppose that he would withhold the facts from his
publication if he had correct information in his possession concerning
them. He has written voluminously, and in a scholarly manner about this
episode, and has shown the inconsistency of a part of the brood of
fallacies which were conjured, and put forth as motives justifying
Brown's conduct therein; but he has not added any valuable fact to the
narrative that was given out by Mr. Townsley concerning it.
Mr. Townsley withheld the facts relating to the robbery and the
exchanging of the horses through confederates, for the personal reason
that he did not desire to incriminate himself as a horse thief. Salmon
Brown and Henry Thompson had greater reasons for withholding from Mr.
Villard, and from the public, the damning evidence of the brutal
selfishness of this crime. It was theirs rather to guard, _jealously
guard_ their father's fame and to defend his memory; and not to betray
it by giving up facts that would disclose the secret of his and of their
own dishonor. Statements made by criminals, concerning their
criminality, are not usually true. It is well enough to get such
statements, but it is the safer way not to attach much importance to
them. These men were not credible witnesses. John Brown, himself, was a
very unreliable witness upon any question wherein his personal interests
were involved; and was especially so in relation to this incident; and
these two men, as witnesses in their own behalf, continually denied
having any knowledge of the facts herein, until Townsley gave out the
secret of their complicity with the murders. Salmon Brown wrote December
27, 1859:[143]
DEAR SIR: Your letter to my mother was received to-night.
You wish me to give you the facts in regard to the
Pottawatomie execution, or murder, and to know whether my
father was a participant in the act. I was one of the
company at the time of the homicide, and never away from
him one hour at a time after we took up arms in Kansas;
therefore, I say positively, that he was not a participator
in the deed,--although I should think none the less of him
if he had have been there; for it was the grandest thing
that was ever done in Kansas. It was all that saved the
Territory from being overrun with drunken land-pirates from
the Southern States. That was the first act in the history
of Kansas which proved to the demon of Slavery that there
was as much room to give blows as to take them. It was done
to save life and to strike terror through their wicked
ranks.
Yours respectfully,
SALMON BROWN.
Criminals who are tried and judged upon testimony furnished by
themselves are usually acquitted. In this important case it is
unfortunate that the distinguished author accepted the statements which
these men made to him, as being the whole truth, and that he certified
them to the public and wrote them into history as the exact facts
therein.
Salmon Brown and Henry Thompson could not fructify the desert, but they
held the secrets of the Pottawatomie, and if they had revealed them to
Mr. Villard instead of practicing a deception upon him, he would have
written the history of the tragedy differently.
But Mr. Villard was zealous in a quest for evidence that would sustain
the conception of the character of John Brown which he desired to
establish for him in history: a "complex character," which only those
can understand who hold a chart upon the mysteries of the soul. He
said:[144]
How may the killings on the Pottawatomie, this terrible
violation of the statute and the moral laws, 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.
It thus appears that it was not historical facts that he sought, but
evidence that would counteract the force of the historical facts already
existing. It was a partisan zeal that led him to seek the testimony of
partisans.
To obtain a true understanding of John Brown, the man, the student of
his life must take up the threads of history that lead to the character
making incident of May 24th. Mr. Villard concedes this[145] but he made
no effort to gather them up. In a chapter of more than thirty pages,
under the title, "The Captain of the Liberty Guards," he refers only to
the organization of the company, and to Brown's two days' service with
it at Lawrence--December 7th and 8th, 1855. The disorganization and
abandonment of this company by Brown in the spring of 1856, is of far
greater significance in this history than the organization of it. In
honor, as "Captain of the Liberty Guards in the Fifth Regiment Kansas
Volunteers," John Brown first received the historic title of "Captain,"
and _in dishonor he abandoned_ his commission three months later.
Back of every human action there is that which incites the action, that
which determines the choice or moves the will. There was that back of
the actions of John Brown, and of his sons and confederates, that moved
them to do what they did on the night of the 24th of May, 1856; this
inciting force was _motive_.
John Brown had a motive for disbanding the _Liberty Guards_. What was
it? He had a motive for quitting the Free-State army secretly. Why
secretly? He had "no desire all things considered, that the slave-power
should cease from its acts of aggression." Why should he not desire
peace? He had a purpose in view when he organized the Pottawatomie
Rifles under the command of his son, and a motive for organizing five of
his sons into a separate company: "a little company by ourselves." What
were the purposes? He wrote to his wife that he contemplated leaving the
neighborhood, but did not tell her when he would leave, or why he
expected to leave, or where he intended to go. What motive prompted him
to conceal from her the facts in relation to a subject in which she was
so intimately concerned? The matters referred to here are "stones" that
have lain in the path of this history for more than fifty years which
have not heretofore been turned over. Salmon Brown and Henry Thompson
could have answered all these questions correctly if they had been asked
so to do. Also, they could have cleared the atmosphere of the
Pottawatomie of the mockeries relating thereto, and of its glamour,
which have been foisted upon the public as history; and could have given
to Mr. Villard and to the public the exact facts concerning the
robberies, and brutal tragedies. It was the duty of Brown's historians
to take up these matters and to make clear interpretations of them. But,
because of his personal pledge of fidelity to the subject, it was
especially incumbent upon the author of _Fifty Years After_, to make
known the facts that these "stones" were in the record, and to turn them
over; and with an analysis characteristic of his distinguished ability,
make clear the essential truths which they covered; for without a clear
appreciation of them "a true understanding of Brown, the man, cannot be
reached." This he has not done; but has elected to conceal these motive
interpreting incidents from further historical research. He has excluded
from history the facts relating to this period of Brown's life. It may
be said of this biographer, that having determined to issue a
certificate of altruism for John Brown, he did not wish to take up these
threads of history and follow them to their logical sequence; because
they lead, unerringly, to the robberies and the murders which the Browns
intended to commit; and expose, in the character of his hero, the
extremity of selfishness.
None of Brown's biographers has found it convenient to explain or to
comment upon his letters of April 7th and June 16th, although the first
contains a personal statement that he intended to do something of a
dangerous nature, and the latter a similar statement concerning
dangerous things which he had done. In their treatment of the
Pottawatomie incident they have written without regard to the
restrictions and limitations contained in these authenticated papers
relating to the subject. Mr. Redpath chose to proceed along the lines of
the least resistance. He suppressed both of these letters; denied that
Brown had anything to do with the incident; and upon the "authority of
two witnesses" stated that "he was on Middle Creek twenty-five miles
distant, at the time."
Mr. Sanborn published both letters; made no comment upon the letter of
April 7th, and, concerning the letter of June 26th said:[146]
This is all that Brown says in his letter about the events
of that night in May when the Doyles were executed.
Doubtless his text the next morning was from the Book of
Judges: "Then Gideon took ten men of his servants, and did
as the Lord had said unto him; and so it was that he did it
by night. And when the men of the city arose early in the
morning, behold the altar of Baal was cast down. And they
said one to another, Who hath done this thing? And when
they inquired and asked, they said, Gideon, the son of
Joash, hath done this thing."
By this expedient he placed the responsibility for the murders and the
robbery upon the broad shoulders of the Almighty, and presented the
incident to the public as an interesting exhibit in theological,
metaphysical, and psychological phenomena. He called the murders
executions and said that the victims "were first tried and found guilty;
given time to pray; and were then executed."
Following the example of James Redpath, Mr. Villard suppressed the
letter of April 7th; and in view of his disregard for the statements
which Brown made in the letter of June 26th, he might as well have
suppressed that letter also. In it Brown reveals the fact that the band
that executed the Pottawatomie horror was already organized when the
alarm bells rang out from Lawrence. He says that he and his sons "were a
little company by ourselves. On our way to Lawrence we learned that it
had been already destroyed, and we camped with John's company over
night. Next day our little company left and we stopped and searched
three men." This language certifies that Brown's party moved
independently of the Pottawatomie Rifles, and that the camping "over
night" with "John's company" was but an incident of their march; it
certifies also that they were highwaymen--robbers.
When men who have banded together during a time of peace, subsequently
commit acts of robbery, persons naturally suppose that they united for
the purpose of committing such acts, and that the motives prompting them
were selfish. So in this case. If Mr. Villard had admitted that Brown
organized his little company as early as April, 1856, persons would
think that the men composing the company united to do the things which
they afterward did do; and that the motives prompting Brown and his sons
to hold up and search men, on the 23d, and to steal these horses, were
selfish. Therefore, he decided to rewrite this bit of history, and
change the time of the organization of Brown's company, and make it
appear that it was formed on May 23d, under the popular excitement and
indignation existing on that day, that had been aroused by the Lawrence
outrage; and that the criminal acts included the murders only, and that
they were committed the next day, before the excitement had cooled; thus
making it possible for him to assume that the motives prompting these
murders were unselfish. Contradicting what Brown said in his letter of
June 26th, relating to the time when his band was organized, Mr. Villard
makes the following remarkable statement:[147]
About noon, May 23, John Brown selected for his party Henry
Thompson, Theodore Weiner, and four sons, Owen, Frederick,
Salmon and Oliver.
The author herein could not otherwise than have known that this
statement was a contradiction of the truth, a falsification of the
record, and a perversion of history. It is a clear contradiction of a
vital point in the authenticated record concerning the history of the
organization of this historic company. It is a direct assault upon an
established historical fact.
Following this statement the author proceeds to repeat the fictions,
theretofore put forth, concerning the grinding of the sabres for the
party, and of the publicity given to the preparations for leaving the
camp, and of the departure of the expedition "with the shouts of their
comrades ringing in their ears." And, in support of this perversion of
history he publishes an illogical, and scurrilous statement prepared for
the purpose by Salmon Brown.[148]
Secrecy was characteristic of all Brown's planning. To the Gileadites he
had written: "Let no man appear upon the ground unequipped or with his
weapons exposed to view. Your plans must be known only to yourself."
Brown's expedition herein had for its object the accomplishment of an
atrocity, conspicuous for its cowardice and selfish brutality; a crime
that involved the honor, as well as the lives, of every person who was
connected with it. The grinding of sabres usually signifies an intention
to cut somebody to death. The men of this party intended to murder their
victims quietly with swords; and had planned, long before the date of
this supposed occasion, how to conceal their connection with the
cutting, and therefore did not thus advertise their undertaking. There
was no "enthusiasm" in the camp of the Pottawatomie Rifles two days
later, when a messenger "came tearing into it,--his horse panting and
lathered with foam,--and without dismounting yelled out: 'Five men have
been killed on Pottawatomie Creek, butchered and most brutally mangled,
and old John Brown has done it.'"[149] No "cheering," such as "you never
heard," greeted this announcement. There was excitement, but not the
"wild excitement" and enthusiasm of victory. There were no cheers for
John Brown and his "avengers." There was, however, the deeper excitement
of indignation and resentment against the tribe of Browns. Instead of
adopting resolutions and presenting them to Captain John Brown, Jr.,
congratulating him upon the prompt and splendid achievements of his
father's expedition, a drum-head court martial was convened in the camp
of the Pottawatomie Rifles, which stripped him of his command and
dismissed him in disgrace from the company; First Lieutenant H. H.
Williams being elected captain to succeed him. Jason Brown said:
This information caused great excitement and fear among the
men of our company and a feeling arose against John and
myself that led the men all to desert us.[150]
If Jason Brown, "whose hatred of blood-letting had deprived him of his
fathers confidence," when violent deeds were under way,[151] "had
devoted" himself to sharpening the cutlasses in John's camp May 23d, as
stated by Mr. Villard,[152] he would have known that "blood-letting" was
to ensue; and the news that blood had been shed, would not have come to
him as a shock--"'the worst shock' that ever came to him in his
life."[153] Nor would he have "tremblingly" _demanded_ of his father on
the night of the 25th: "Did you have anything to do with the killing of
those men on the Pottawatomie?" For he would not only have known that
there were to be killings, and who were to be killed, but he would have
been a party to them, and to the robbery. He would have known all about
what was to happen. But to his eternal credit let it be said that his
father and brothers had not taken him into their confidence in this
matter. Townsley, in his confession, said nothing about the calling for
volunteers, and the grinding of sabres, although it is probable that his
connection with Brown's scheme began on May 23d, as he stated.
There were suspicious circumstances which tended to incriminate the
Brown party; but the facts that the horses which were stolen had been
run out of the country, while the Browns remained in the neighborhood,
and did not have the murdered men's horses in their possession, were
potent in allaying these suspicions, and gave them an opportunity to
deny their guilt. But if the sensational scenes of calling for
volunteers for a hostile purpose, and the sharpening of their sabres had
actually occurred, they would have had no possible defense. This
evidence would have connected them directly with the crime, and it would
have been published immediately upon the return of the resentful
Pottawatomie Rifles to their homes at Osawatomie and on the
Pottawatomie. Whereas the resolutions adopted at the mass-meeting of
citizens at Osawatomie May 27th, refer to "midnight assassins unknown;"
and on May 31st, Mr. James H. Carruth wrote to the Watertown (New York)
_Reformer_:
... It was murder nevertheless and the Free-State men here
co-operate with the pro-slavery men in endeavoring to
arrest the murderers.
In his statement of the facts as to the happenings on the Pottawatomie,
Mr. Villard makes one sole reference to the robberies that happened. It
is, that when Owen Brown had been denounced by his uncle, the Rev. Mr.
Adair of Osawatomie, on the 26th, as a "vile murderer," and was refused
admission to his home, that "he rode away on one of the murdered men's
horses." Except for this and another incidental reference to theft, the
reader of _Fifty Years After_ would not be informed that any robbery had
been committed; and even this statement is artfully written. It is
incorrect and misleading. It conceals a thread in this history which
would, if exposed, unmask the selfishness that prompted this crime: Owen
Brown rode away on one of the "fast Kentucky horses" which John Brown
received _in exchange_ for the "murdered men's horses."
Mr. Villard assumes that Brown's motives for committing the murders
herein, and stealing these horses, were unselfish; a grace that should
logically apply to the swaggering, swearing infidels whom he directed.
In a summary of his conclusions he says:[154]
Fired with indignation at the wrongs he witnessed on every
hand, impelled by the Covenanter's spirit that made him so
strange a figure in the nineteenth century, and believing
fully that there should be an eye for an eye and a tooth
for a tooth, he killed his men in the conscientious belief
that he was a faithful servant of Kansas and of the Lord.
He killed not to kill, but to free; not to make wives
widows and children fatherless, but to attack on its own
ground the hideous institution of human slavery, against
which his whole life was a protest. He pictured himself a
modern crusader as much empowered to remove the unbeliever
as any armoured searcher after the Grail. It was to his
mind a righteous and necessary act; if he concealed his
part in it and always took refuge in half-truth that his
own hands were not stained, that was as near to a
compromise for the sake of policy as this rigid,
self-denying Roundhead ever came. Naturally a
tender-hearted man, he directed a particularly shocking
crime without remorse, because the men killed typified to
him the slave-drivers who counted their victims by the
hundreds. It was to him a necessary carrying into Africa of
the war in which he firmly desired himself engaged. And
always it must not be forgotten that his motives were
wholly unselfish, and that his aims were none other than
the freeing of a race. With his ardent, masterful
temperament, he needed no counsel from a Lane or a Robinson
to make him ready to strike a blow, or to tell him that the
time for it had come. The smoke of burning Lawrence was
more than sufficient.
From the point of view of ethics, John Brown's crime on the
Pottawatomie cannot be successfully palliated or excused.
It must ever remain a complete indictment of his judgment
and wisdom; a dark blot upon his memory; a proof that,
however self-controlled, he had neither true respect for
the laws nor for human life, nor a knowledge that two
wrongs never make a right. Call him a Cromwellian trooper
with the Old Testament view of the way of treating one's
enemies, as did James Freeman Clarke, if you please; it is
nevertheless true that Brown lived in the nineteenth
century and was properly called upon to conform to its
standard of morals and right living.
For John Brown no pleas can be made that will enable him to
escape coming before the bar of historical judgment. There
his wealth of self-sacrifice, and the nobility of his aims,
do not avail to prevent a complete condemnation of his
bloody crime at Pottawatomie, or a just penalty for his
taking human life without warrant or authority. If he
deserves to live in history, it is not because of his
cruel, gruesome, reprehensible acts on the Pottawatomie,
but despite them.
Conceptions of the distinguishing traits in Brown's character are widely
divergent; a divergence not attributable to a "blind prejudice." Those
who knew him best did not have the exalted opinions of the nobility of
his aims, or of the sublimity of his humanity, that inspired his
eulogists and biographers. Prominent among the dissenters was John Brown
himself. As late as March 31, 1857, he did not personally understand
that what he had been doing in Kansas was either sentimental, patriotic,
or romantic. It had not occurred to him that he had been impelled by the
covenanters spirit, or that he was a crusader, either ancient or modern.
On that date, replying to a letter that he had received from his wife,
in which she informed him that "his sons were now inclined to give up
war and remain at North Elba," he said:[155]
I have only to say as regards the resolution of the boys to
"learn and practice war no more," that it was not at my
solicitation that they engaged in it at first; and that
while I may perhaps feel no more love of the business than
they do, still I think there may be in their day what is
more to be dreaded if such things do not now exist.
Judged in the light of what has been already shown concerning Brown's
activities, this letter is fatal to any theory that he was instigated by
other than sordid motives when he engaged in his course of crime. So
judged it is an acknowledgment by himself that what he and his sons had
been engaged in, in Kansas, was "_business_," simply business. Also,
that it was disreputable; and he sought to absolve himself from any
responsibility for their participation therein, by denying that it was
at his solicitation "that they engaged in it at first." By the
declaration that what he had been doing was repulsive to him, John Brown
discredits every altruistic theory which has been put forth in
extenuation of his crimes, or in justification of his actions. It is
evidence that it was his hands, and not his heart, that were enlisted in
his operations. A man inspired by the righteousness of a cause is not
moved to make apology for having invited others to engage in it with
him. If he had believed that in these murders and robberies he had been
acting as a faithful servant of Kansas, and of the Lord, he would have
proudly asserted his conviction, and would have defended his conduct
upon the high grounds of duty, loyalty, and humanity.
Mr. Geo. B. Gill was one who knew Brown better than any of his
panegyrists knew him--Mr. Sanborn not excepted. Upon him he practiced no
hypocritical pretensions. He was honored by Brown with a place in his
cabinet, as secretary of the treasury, under the "Provisional Government
of the United States," which he organized in Canada in 1858; and was one
of the generals, in embryo, who was to command the Army of the Invasion.
In a letter (not heretofore published)[156] written from Milan, Kansas,
July 7, 1893, to Colonel Robert J. Hinton, author of _John Brown and His
Men_, Mr. Gill expressed, confidentially, his opinion of Brown's
personality. He said:
MY DEAR FRIEND:
It seems that all great men have their foibles or what we
in our differences from them call their weaknesses. "A man
is never a hero to his valet" and I am about to give you an
expression of truthfulness which I have never given to any
one yet.... I admit that I am sadly deficient as a God or
hero worshipper.... And the man who may do his fellows the
most good may be far from the goody-goody, but may be
personally absolutely offensive.
My intimate acquaintance with Brown demonstrated to me that
he was very human; the angel wings were so dim and shadowy
as to be almost unseen. Very superstitious, very selfish
and very intolerant, with great self esteem.... He could
not brook a rival. At first he was very fond of
Montgomery, but when he found that Montgomery had thoughts
of his own, and could not be dictated to, why, he loved him
no longer. Montgomery, Lane and all others went down before
his imperial self. He was intolerant in little things and
in little ways, for instance, his drink was tea, others
wanted coffee. He would wrangle and compel them to drink
tea or nothing, as he was cook and would not make coffee
for them. I had it from Owen in a quiet way and from other
sources in quite a loud way that in his family his methods
were of the most arbitrary kind.... I have known Stevens to
sometimes raise merry hell when the old man would get too
dictatorial. He was iron and had neither sympathy or
feeling for the timid or weak of will. Notwithstanding
claims to the contrary, he was essentially vindictive in
his nature. Just before we left Kansas, during a trip that
Brown and myself were some days away from the rest, the
boys arrested a man. (I think by the name of Jackson.)
Montgomery gave him a trial and he was released by general
consent as not meriting punishment. When we returned Brown
was furious because the man had not been shot.... It seems
hard and cruel in me to tell you of Brown's individuality
as I have told you, yet it seemed to me that you, perhaps
the last writer on the theme, should know all, whether it
be any use to you or not....
Yours truly,
GEORGE B. GILL.
There is nothing in Mr. Gill's pen picture of John Brown that suggests
to the mind a "misplaced Crusader," or a "self-denying Roundhead," a
"Cromwellian trooper" or an "armored searcher for the Grail;" but there
is that in it which does suggest a man of low instincts, trifling and
contentious about little things; of a vindictive and quarrelsome
disposition; inordinately selfish, inhuman and intolerant. It is for the
reader to determine which of the two estimates of the man is entitled to
credit.
In view of the facts presented herein, this much debated event in
Brown's life cannot be considered, abstractedly, as a study in altruism;
but as a premeditation in robbery, to which the murders were incidental.
The movement to execute the Pottawatomie robbery began when Brown and
his sons left their homes on the evening of May 21st, ostensibly to
engage in the defense of Lawrence. They did not belong to the
Pottawatomie Rifles. That was, says John Brown, the company of which
"John was Captain" and to which Jason belonged. The six were "a little
company by themselves." This party did not intend to go to Lawrence.
They had matters of a personal nature to attend to. After camping "with
John's company over night" they left his camp and retracing their steps,
proceeded to a secluded spot, about a mile from the scene of their
prospective operations; where they remained thirty hours, awaiting,
doubtless, the arrival of their confederates with the northern horses.
The owners of the horses that were to be stolen stood in the pathway of
the thieves and they thrust them aside in death. If Brown and his band
"killed these men in the conscientious belief that they were faithful
servants of the Lord and of Kansas," then they stole these horses in the
same exalted inspiration. The theft of the horses cannot be put in
harmony with any theory of either patriotism or humanity. The _murders_
have been defended, quite successfully, from a spiritual point of view;
but there is nothing spiritual in horse-trading, nor is there anything
in horse-stealing which appeals to the tender susceptibilities of our
nature, or to the refinements of life. It is impossible, by any
contortions of the imagination, to conceive of anything æsthetic,
altruistic, or spiritual being connected with a horse trade wherein all
the horses involved in the trade have been stolen, and the trade is
being made between the thieves, even though some of the thieves be
murderers. The event herein was a plain case of murder and robbery,
deliberately planned and executed under most revolting circumstances.
"Murder is murder" and robbery is robbery, therefore this combining
incident cannot be accepted as an exhibit in metaphysics. The victims of
these men were not murdered and their horses taken in behalf of Kansas
and of the Lord, but for the exclusive benefit of the Browns and their
associates in the crime; they were not moved to "murder these men and
boys" by any "sudden overpowering impulse" excited by the spectacle of
burning Lawrence; but by a brutal desire to get possession of their
horses. Brown was impatient of the cruel fortune that kept him, as he
tersely stated it, "like a toad under a harrow," and he determined to
break asunder the chains that bound him within his environment of
poverty, and to seek relief from their fetters in a life of crime; a
decision due to "an outgrowth of his restlessness and the usual desire
of the bankrupt for a sudden coup to restore his fortune."
If the robbery on the Pottawatomie were undertaken and executed in
behalf of the Free-State cause, then all the horses which the Browns
stole during the time they remained in Kansas, were stolen from motives
of patriotism and humanity. The term "attacking slavery" was a joke in
the vocabulary of these bandits. The theft of a horse was spoken of,
wittily, as an "attack upon slavery" or as "fighting for freedom."
On page 122 Mr. Villard stoutly says: "Where John Brown was, he led."
Did he lead in these midnight murders? Were his methods and conduct
throughout this bloody affair those of a hero inspired by a devotion to
humanity and by the nobility of his aims; or were they characteristic of
the assassin and thief, who kills and robs under cover of the night and
hides his identity by flight? In view of his actions as set forth
herein, it is violently illogical to suppose that in planning to murder
these settlers and steal their horses, Brown's motives were unselfish;
and that he was moved by the higher impulses of altruism. Yet such are
the assumptions of his biographers.
A public sentiment in sympathy with "the men in bondage," and excited by
the fierce storm of sectional animosity prevailing during the later
fifties, created, of John Brown, an altruistic hero; and his biographers
have been diligent and successful in perpetuating the fiction. When
these murders were committed, had the public known that they were
executed in promoting the robbery of these settlers; and that Brown and
his sons were a band of thieves, working jointly with another party of
thieves; and that they intended to continue their thieving operations
while they remained in the Territory; the metamorphosis of John Brown,
the criminal into John Brown, the hero, would have been impossible.
History would have dealt differently with him.