Outgoing Summit County Historical Society Director: John Brown's Legacy "Just Not That Important" to the "Foundation Community"

She Tried Unsuccessfully "For Years" to Raise Enough Money to Have John Brown's Home in Akron Renovated*

To Paula Moran, abolitionist John Brown ''is the quintessential historic figure'' from Summit County. That is just one of the things she has learned about local history after heading the Summit County Historical Society (SCHS) for the past dozen years.

Moran, 51, worked her last day Wednesday as executive director of the nonprofit group and will be moving to Maryland and then to Norfolk, Va., to join her husband, Harry P. ''Hank'' Lynch, former president and CEO of Stan Hywet Hall & Gardens. He is now executive director of Nauticus, a marine science museum. Leianne Neff Heppner, curator of the historical society, has been named interim executive director.

Moran answered Beacon Journal [Akron, Ohio] questions about Brown, Akron and her hopes for the future of the historical society.

Q: What are you proudest of during your time here?

A: I am most grateful — I never say proud — for the incredible relationships I have enjoyed, many of whom have assembled to work together for the benefit of the Summit County Historical Society [SCHS]. It was a pure team effort, and I am a very lucky woman to have been right here, right now, as a part of that wonderful team.

Q: What story will you tell people when they ask you for a quick tale about the history of Summit County?

A: The story I will tell is Akron is home to many firsts, such as public education, mass-produced toys, breakfast cereals and marbles . . . but all we talk about is the big ditch. We have what is arguably the best park system around, between Metro Parks and the National Park, easy access ski resorts and unique shopping experiences to rival much bigger cities. West Point Market and Mustard Seed Market I will miss terribly. We forget that the catalyst for the Civil War was our very own John Brown, discounting his life and legacy by pronouncing him a madman. Our weather may leave something to be desired some of the time, but it is still a wonderful, warm, and friendly place to live with myriad opportunities for living a wonderful quality of life.

Q: Can you talk more about John Brown and would you like to see more done at the John Brown home to explain his life here?

A: John Brown is the quintessential historic figure here and I have fought to get that recognition for him the entire time I have been at the helm of SCHS. However, SCHS does not and will not for the foreseeable future, have the resources to renovate the exterior of his historic home. The assessments (city highway maintenance taxes) we pay the city of Akron are so high that we have often had to access a line of credit just to pay them. I quite frankly am appalled by this. I have tried for three years to raise the $100,000 required to cover the John Brown Home [with special siding] to preserve and maintain it and have been able to raise only a fraction of that thus far. It just isn't that important to the foundation community or to international history and to the cause of civil rights.

*excerpted from Jim Carney, "Historical Society Director Reminisces," Beacon Journal [Akron, Ohio], August 27, 2009, posted on Ohio.com.

Quentin Tarantino: On Doing a John Brown Movie (Again)

An article in the New York Magazine (on line) posted on Aug. 26 notes the appearance of film maker Quentin Tarantino on The Charlie Rose Show on Aug. 21. Tarantino was naturally discussing his recent cinematic triumph, but as in a former interview [April 18, 2007] by Rose, the subject of making a John Brown movie came up again.

Tarantino: . . . there is one story that I could be interested in doing, and probably it would be one of the last movies I'd do--ah, my favorite hero in America, is John Brown.

Rose: Of course.

Tarantino: John Brown is my favorite American who ever lived.

Rose: And why is that. . .because of what he did?

Tarantino: Yeah, you know. He basically, you know, he basically, single-handedly, started the road to end slavery, and the fact that he killed people to do it, you know, he decided, "OK, we start spilling white blood, then they're going to start getting the idea."

The film maker went on to note that Brown has not been portrayed in too many movies, and he alluded to Raymond Massey's portrayal of Brown in the fundamentally negative and hostile (Southern) cinematic interpretation, Santa Fe Trail [1940]. Actually, Massey portrayed Brown again in the slightly more sympathetic Seven Angry Men [1955], but the latter was not influential, and certainly failed to challenge the negative cultural impact of Santa Fe Trail.

As John Brown bio-pics go, Tarantino says that he does not want to make a "solemn" bio-pic. That is, he doesn't want to try to portray a life story, but would rather do an epic moment or episode. For instance, he would portray Brown's role as a guerilla fighter, making raids on pro-slavery men. His production would be biographical in that it would be "true," but he would not make a "musty" life-to-death story about Brown because he feels those kinds of movies are "showcases for actors but not really showcases for story-tellers or directors."

Unfortunately, Tarantino reiterated the idea that this project is something he will do later in life, perhaps toward the end of his career. We would like to remind Mr. Tarantino that, notwithstanding our hopes that he has a long and fruitful career, tomorrow is not promised. Indeed, the time is ripe for him to begin working on a John Brown movie before someone else who despises Brown or who thinks he was a prairie psycho makes the ground-breaking movie.

Biographers and historians obviously have a different set of expectations of a bio-pic than film makers, and my own record suggests concern that Tarantino might reduce Brown's life to a blood-fest. After some consideration, I would like to think that Quentin Tarantino would take a higher road to telling John Brown's story because, unlike many historians, he seems to "get" John Brown--notwithstanding the fact that his descriptions of Brown are idealistic and simplistic. Certainly it is unfair to a great cloud of witnesses to say that Brown started the road that led to the end of slavery. For instance, Brown was deeply moved and educated by black revolts in the U.S. (Denmark Vesey, Nat Turner) and Haiti (Toussaint L'Overture). My fellow Brown biographer David Reynolds makes this case to be sure, but he is careful to make the necessary qualifications of a historian in pointing out how Brown can be said to have been on the vanguard in ending slavery. Likewise, to reduce Brown's contribution to killing white people also begs for qualification and explanation. In fact, Brown failed at Harper's Ferry precisely because he was trying to avoid the killing of whites--he knew how easily his effort could slide from a self-defense liberation effort to a full-scale insurrection and bloodletting. His error at Harper's Ferry was overcompensating in favor of protecting the moral and ethical quality of his raid, and ended up forcing him and his surviving raiders to sacrifice their own lives instead of conducting what could easily have been a successful terrorist campaign. But Brown was not a terrorist and I hope that when Quentin Tarantino makes his John Brown movie (next year!), he will be careful to make that point clear toward the re-education of many ill-informed viewers.

Mr. Tarantino is urged to take this project on now, in the sesquicentennial year of John Brown's raid and hanging by the State of Virginia.

Descendants of John Brown and his followers attend reception

CHARLES TOWN, W.Va. — Brenda Pitts remembers standing where her uncle, John Anthony Copeland, was hanged Dec. 16, 1859.

“It felt very somber,” the Columbia, Ind., woman said. “I thought about what he went through. They used the wrong rope. It took 30 minutes for him to die.”

Pitts was among less than a dozen descendants of John Brown, his followers and others involved in the raid on Harpers Ferry who attended a reception Friday night in the parking lot behind the Jefferson County Courthouse.

The event was sponsored by the Jefferson County chapter of the NAACP as part of its 17th Annual Jefferson County African American Culture & Heritage Festival this weekend.

Pitts said she learned about her great-great-great uncle by reading about the raid on Harpers Ferry, which occurred Oct. 16-18,1859.

Copeland, one of Brown’s 21 followers in the raid, was a free black man and a student at Oberlin College in Ohio. His uncle, Lewis Leary, was also one of Brown’s men.

Pitts said her family plans to come to Harpers Ferry for a reunion in mid-October during the 150th anniversary of Brown’s raid on the town.

“My family feels so strong about the contribution Uncle John made,” she said.

The guest of honor Friday was Alice Keesey Mecoy of Allen, Texas, Brown’s great-great-great granddaughter. She said Brown’s raid was a family secret no one ever talked about.

Thursday was her first visit to Harpers Ferry.

Judy Ashelman of Ranson, W.Va., has family connections with Barclay and Edwin Coppoc, two of Brown’s raiders. Barclay escaped; Edwin was captured and hanged.

The brothers were nephews of Ashelman’s great-great grandfather, Joshua Coppoc.

Deana Steece of Shepherdstown, W.Va., said her great-great grandfather, the Rev. Joshua Young, officiated at Brown’s funeral in New York.

Elliott B. “Bud” Perrett of Frederick, Md., said his great-great grandfather, Seldon Perrett, was Brown’s second cousin. He produced a copy of the genealogy to prove it.

Today’s festival highlight will be a parade at noon that will wind through Third Avenue and North George Street in Ranson then south to Washington Street in Charles Town to Lawrence Street.

The festival will continue at Wright Denny Alternative School in the 300 block of South Lawrence Street.

On Sunday, a re-enactment of the meeting between Frederick Douglass and John Brown, featuring actor Fred Morsell, will be shown at 3 p.m. at the Betty Roper Auditorium at the corner of South Charles and West Congress streets.

Source: Richard F. Belisle, The Herald-Mail [Hagerstown, Md.], August 15, 2009

Notes on John Brown's Names of War

Students of John Brown's public career as a freedom fighter are well aware that he employed the use of pseudonyms in both the Kansas and Harper's Ferry episodes. Indeed, Brown's use of the nom de guerre is legendary. Yet biographers and students of Brown's life seem never to have bothered to inquire into the origin of these names, the assumption being that they were all simply "made up" names with no significance otherwise. To the contrary, because John Brown chose them, they reflect some aspect of his life, and may even unlock aspects of character that are meaningful to the biographer.

This is certainly the case of the his rarely used pseudonym, "James Smith," which appears in two of Brown's letters written on June 3, 1857. Brown was known to have said in his family that he liked having a common name and would even have preferred the more common name of "Smith." Perhaps this is why he used the pseudonym "James Smith" in writing to his Kansas associates, Augustus Wattles and William Addison Phillips, the chronicler of the Kansas struggles and the author of an important reminiscence of John Brown. In my study of Brown's letters, I have not found his usage of "James Smith" repeated thereafter, probably because he decided upon an even better nom de guerre, Nelson Hawkins.

Before proceeding, it should be noted that Brown was not the only one who employed the use of pseudonyms on the Kansas scene. In fact, his "James Smith" letter to Phillips is actually addressed to William "Adison," Brown's misspelling of the writer's middle name. Evidently both men felt it necessary to employ false names to evade the watchful eyes of pro-slavery interests in Kansas. In one of Brown's memorandum books (held in the Boston Public Library collection), he notes also having written to "W.B. Edmonds" on August 4, 1857, and just above it wrote three initials, "EBW." As it turns out, "W.B. Edmonds" was the pseudonym for E. B. Whitman, the general agent of the National Kansas Committee. So Brown hardly invented the idea of using pseudonyms in Kansas.

I have mentioned that Brown did not apparently continue to use the "James Smith" pseudonym, although most students of his story will recognized that he later appropriated the "Smith" name for the Harper's Ferry venture. I will return to that name below. In 1857, however, Brown found a new name that he used frequently in communicating with family and associates, the legendary pseudonym, "Nelson Hawkins."

While I have generally found that most of my "discoveries" have already been noted by the late great Boyd B. Stutler, I'm humbly sure that the source of Brown's "Nelson Hawkins" pseudonym seems even to have evaded Stutler (and every other scholar). I was fortunate enough to come upon a lead when examining a letter from John Brown Jr. written to his sister, Ruth Brown Thompson on February 23, 1851, now held in the Gilder Lehrman Collection, currently residing at the New York Historical Society. In that interesting letter, John Junior describes a warm evening at home with family and friends, including one Nelson Hawkins, who happened to be playing chess with his brother Jason Brown. It seems, Junior explains in the letter, that Nelson Hawkins was hanging around the Brown household because he liked Jason's sister-in-law. This passing reference to Jason's chess mate opened up a world of interest to me. Who was this Nelson Hawkins since Junior obviously was not referring to his own father? Happily, Nelson appeared in the 1850 census for Summit County, Ohio. From the census we surmise that he would have been in his late 20s at the time that Brown began to use his name in Kansas, and that he was a carpenter by profession. Since John Brown had moved his family back to Akron, Ohio in 1851 (where they remained for four years before returning to the Adirondacks), we can assume that he was well acquainted with the real Nelson Hawkins. (It would be interesting to learn if Nelson eventually married Jason's sister-in-law, but I never checked.) As I've pointed out in my book, John Brown--The Cost of Freedom, Brown's appropriation of Nelson Hawkins' name is strongly suggestive of Brown's sense of humor. Most of the letters in which Brown signed off as "Nelson Hawkins" actually are written to his family. While Franklin B. Sanborn received at least one "Nelson Hawkins" letter from Brown, he would not have known the significance of the name. But wife Mary Brown, namesake John Jr., and others in the family probably were amused. (Nelson Hawkins is listed in the cut-out of the census below, on the third line, from the 1850 Census, Portage, District 14o, Summit County, Ohio, Oct. 15, 1850, p. 433.)

Perhaps more interesting is another discovery of mine, also featured in John Brown--The Cost of Freedom) concerning Brown's most famous nom de guerre, "Isaac Smith," the name that he carried with him to Harper's Ferry in 1859. Like "Nelson Hawkins," it is more likely that this "Smith" name was appropriated from an actual person and was not simply a variation of his beloved "common name" theme.

Reading through microfilm of the Springfield [Mass.] Republican some years back, I began to see that a frequent advertiser in that paper was an umbrella manufacturer named Isaac Smith. Considering that Brown lived in Springfield from 1846-49, it is unlikely that Brown would have missed the advertisements of "Isaac Smith & Co." Even after his residence in Springfield ended (April 1849), Brown later visited Springfield when raising funds for his anti-slavery efforts in the later 1850s. Furthermore, the Smith company had its corporate office in New York City and a branch office in Boston, so it is also possible that Brown either became aware of the name or was reminded of it during subsequent trips east, especially his notable visits to Boston. All in all, there is a reasonably good basis for concluding that John Brown's Harper's Ferry pseudonym, "Isaac Smith & Sons" was an appropriation of "Isaac Smith & Co." of New York and Boston. With the possible exception of the real Isaac Smith, who would have suspected that the controversial abolitionist had hijacked the name of an umbrella manufacturer in his great anti-slavery plan? Certainly none of the John Brown scholars has made this connection thus far, and it seems the most reasonable one in my own estimation.

Although I have likely established the sources for Brown's pseudonyms "Nelson Hawkins" and "Isaac Smith," his third notable nom de guerre remains a mystery: "Shubel Morgan." "Shubel" is a Hebrew word, a biblical name which means "captive of God." (This is a proper name that is rendered in the Hebrew both as Shubael or Shebuel. See 1 Chronicles 25: 4, 20.) The name has great resonance when one considers that this was the name that Brown chose to employ when he and his men forcefully brought eleven people out of southern slavery and escorted them safely to Canadian freedom in early 1859.

Yet even this does not necessarily explain the source of the name. As we have already seen in two other cases, it is possible that "Shubel Morgan" was the name of someone that Brown had actually known or heard of in his life and travels. To be sure, no evidence has come to light showing that Brown knew or interacted with anyone named Shubel Morgan. Still, it is possible that the name, in whole or part, was appropriated by Brown and not simply contrived because of its biblical reference to captivity.

Consider the possibility that "Shubel Morgan" is actually a combination of two names. While this is sheer speculation, it is interesting to consider that Brown's famous pseudonym is a combination name based upon two religious leaders in North America, Morgan Edwards (b. 1722) and Shubal Stearns (b. 1706). Morgan Edwards emigrated from Wales to North America and founded the first Baptist college in the colonies, a school that later became Brown University in Rhode Island. (He and John Brown shared the same birthday of May 9.) Shubal Stearns was from a Boston Congregationalist home and became an advocate of the Great Awakening's separatist revivalism. Departing from the paedo-baptism of the Congregational church, Shubal Stearns himself became a renowned Baptist preacher of the "born again" message. While these men are obscure and forgotten in our time, it is possible that Brown had heard of them. Was his pseudonym, "Shubel Morgan" another example of John Brown's tendency to appropriate real names, or was it simply a clever concoction based upon his frequent Bible reading? We will never know, but perhaps John Brown students and scholars will continue to find the theme of his pseudonyms to be a point of interest in reflecting further on his life, personality, and traits as a religiously-motivated radical.--LD

JOHN BROWN for KIDS
John Brown: His Fight for Freedom to be released in time for the Harper's Ferry Raid Sesquicentennial

I am currently enjoying two newly released books on the Old Man, Robert E. McGlone's John Brown's War Against Slavery [review forthcoming] and the delightful and brilliant John Brown: His Fight for Freedom by John Hendrix. Hendrix's John Brown is a beautiful, yea, masterful illustrative work for young people. As I have no technical or professional knowledge of the illustrator's craft, I will leave it to readers of greater understanding to detail the beauties of this work. Suffice it to say that the book is wonderful--beautiful images, colors, and wonderfully imaginative use of typography. John Hendrix, although still a relatively young man, is a seasoned illustrator with an impressive curriculum vita and portfolio, and you are encouraged to visit his professional website, which includes an array of information, a sketchbook, and a gallery (you can purchase prints, including prints of John Brown).

What makes John Brown: His Fight for Freedom even more interesting is that the illustrator is also the author of the book, and a truly excellent writer in his own right. Of course I must acknowledge a measure of bias here: I met John and Andrea Hendrix about a decade ago when they moved to the east coast so that John could pursue his studies at The School of Visual Arts in Manhattan. Having studied at Lawrence, Kansas, John was already endowed with a real interest in Brown and had done some illustration work on a Kansas project related to the subject. Delighted as I was to have the Hendrixes attend the church where I was serving as pastor (in nearby Jersey City), I was even more pleased to learn that I found someone else who was actually interested in talking about the Old Man. It quickly became evident to me that John is not only a super-talented guy at his craft (I was also tickled to learn that he worked in his sketchbook during church service, which means that a few of his sketches were sort of illustrated notes on my sermons), but that he has the mind of a scholar. While I am honored that my books have, along with other texts, served to inspire and instruct John in his own reflections on Brown, his work as writer equally impresses me for its clarity and faithfulness to the record.

He has not only written an honest, studied account of John Brown, prepared for a young audience and thus crafted as succinct and simple (in the best sense of the word), but has captured critically important themes of the story. One of my favorites is a line from a page picturing John Brown perplexed as the raid at Harper's Ferry turned for the worst: "The unfolding events shook John to the core," our John writes. "He became a hesitant leader." This is a critical moment in the story, best chronicled by Osborn Anderson, the surviving raider who left us the only written account by a participant in the raid. John also provides a thoughtful author's note, a short bibliography of selected sources, and an index. However impressive for its art, this is not simply a book of grand illustrations that will excite the imagination of young people and interest adults as well. It is also a reflective, researched, and arguably relevant interpretation of Brown in its own right.

I believe that, broadly speaking, should young people have the opportunity to read John Brown: His Fight for Freedom, this book may prove to be a significant factor in creating a generational turning-point in the way that Brown is understood in this nation. Hendrix not only knows art and illustration; he also understands Brown as a cultural and religious figure, and he seems far more mature, liberal, and reflective in handling Brown than do many academics still caught up in the same old pants-piddling commentaries about the Old Man as a fanatic, madman, and terrorist.

I thought I would also include a brief entry that John Hendrix made about the book this past spring on Drawger:

"This is the first book I wrote and illustrated, and it represents over 6 years of work, struggle, heartache and caffeine. Seeing it exist as a real book for the first time is so thrilling and humbling. Truly, I have no idea how this book got made. A book, for children, about a religiously motivated abolitionist who was hanged for treason is the definition of a hard sell.

The book was picked up in 2003 the first time at another publisher and we worked on it for a year and a half before they dropped it due to the controversial nature of the content. But, it came to life again at the amazing Abrams Books for Young Readers in 2006, thanks to editor Howard Reeves.

Writing any book for children is not an easy undertaking, but a non-fiction book adds an entirely new level of scholarship and responsibility to the historical record. I found that I really enjoyed learning everything I could about a subject. Lets just say, next time you see me at an opening, don't bring up John Brown- because I have hours of material.

Most people ask me why I chose to write a book, for children, about John Brown.

In my opinion, he is a true civil-rights hero. And, generally, most people think he was a lunatic. We have this popular image of him as an insane loony who killed people with some flawed notion of his own importance who was punishing innocent civilians because of his religious beliefs. When you really read what he believed and why he was brought to his actions- you see just how unique he was in his own era. A true visionary, and he has been minimized because I think most people are uncomfortable with people who are strongly motivated by religious ideas. So, I feel as though he deserves a more accurate account of his life.

The challenges in telling this story are easy to pick out. Though I really think there is value in talking to children about the nature of human conflict and the nature of evil, showing the events of his life (visually!) to an audience of young people was tough. You don't want to sugar coat his action and create some inadvertent propaganda. But you also need to be sensitive and protect young people from things that would negatively affect their minds. Generally I think that kids are pretty robust thinkers and can handle cognitive dissonance, as long as we present it in a manner that is clear.

I've been invited to present my work at the 150th anniversary of the Harper's Ferry Raid at the John Brown Conference this year... and yes, I will be wearing my full John Brown costume.

It is not officially released till September, but just track me down in person.... I'll be carrying a copy with me at all times for the next three months. Now, its time to start the next book. A John Brown sequel!"

========================

John Brown: His Fight For Freedom: An Exhibit (University City, Mo.)

Source: Paul Friswold. "Hendrix on Brown." Riverfront Times (St. Louis, Mo), Aug. 4, 2009

You may have seen John Hendrix's illustrations in Entertainment Weekly, the New York Times or Hemispheres, the in-flight magazine for United Airlines. Hendrix combines his significant skill at crafting a strong drawing with a designer's eye for composition to create visually arresting images that are heavy with significance. He's also a big fan of Civil War history, a fact that informs his forthcoming children's book, John Brown: His Fight For Freedom. The famous abolitionist may seem an odd choice for a young reader, what with the murders and the attack on the Harpers Ferry Armory and all, but Hendrix handles the matter truthfully and with respect for his readers' intelligence. Hendrix also highlights the idealism of a man out of step with his own time, who believed slavery was an abomination in God's eyes, and who was recognized by Thoreau and Emerson as a visionary civil-rights advocate. In honor of John Brown, Hendrix has commandeered the gallery and the front window at Subterranean Books (6275 Delmar Boulevard, University City; 314-862-6100 or www.subbooks.com) with original illustrations and developmental drawings that show the process of making the book itself. His front window display, a massive open Bible with a chain and padlock atop it and a Bowie knife slicing said chain asunder, is classic Hendrix magic. Nothing could more perfectly represent the two sides of Brown's public character. Hendrix's work is on display daily through Sunday, September 27. On Thursday, September 10, Hendrix celebrates the official release of the book with a reception and signing.

Date/Time:Daily from Mon., August 10 until Sun., September 27

Price: free

VENUE

Subterranean Books

6275 Delmar Blvd.

University City, MO

314-862-6100

http://www.subbooks.com/

Abolitionist John Brown's Pikes Were Made to Order in Canton, Connecticut

by Rinker Buck, The Hartford Courant (August 2, 2009)

CANTON — Residents of this town can be forgiven if they've never heard of a particularly grisly and medieval-looking weapon produced here that changed American history. But that situation that could change as conferences and memorial events this year observe the 150th anniversary of John Brown's raid in Harper's Ferry, Va., in October 1859.

In the late winter of 1857, Brown, an abolitionist whose family originally settled in Canton, stopped in the Collinsville section while on a fundraising tour of the Northeast. Brown and his supporters had just spent two years fighting a series of pitched battles in "Bleeding Kansas," against pro-slavery forces. While relaxing and telling stories one morning at the Collinsville pharmacy, Brown met Charles Blair, manager of the Collins Co., later known as the Collins Axe Co., which by the end of the century would become one of the world's largest edge tool and farm implement manufacturers.

Brown pulled from his boot a fearsome-looking 8-inch dirk, or pike, which he said he had seized from pro-slavery fighter H.C. Pate at the Battle of Black Jack in Kansas. Fixed to the end of a 6-foot pole, Brown said, the pikes would make an excellent defensive weapon for free-soil settlers in Kansas. Blair agreed to have the Collins Co. make 1,000 pikes, affixed to cured wooden handles, for $1 apiece.

Brown promptly disappeared after paying Blair for about half of the order, and then suddenly reappeared in the summer of 1859 with enough cash to pay for the rest of his pikes. By then, Brown and about 20 radical abolitionists were finishing plans for a raid on the federal arsenal in Harper's Ferry, which they hoped would incite a slave insurrection in the South. The pikes would be used to arm slaves on Virginia plantations, though Brown was evasive when Blair asked why he needed them.

By that time, the Collins Co. was busy, and arranged to have the second half of the order completed by another ironworks, C. Hart & Son of the Unionville section of Farmington. In the late summer of 1859, the completed order of pikes was shipped in unmarked crates, ending up at the farm in Sharpsburg, Md., that Brown and his co-conspirators were using as a staging ground for their raid.

Except for one pike that Brown carried on the Oct. 16 raid itself, none of the Collinsville weapons ever made it into the hands of slaves. After Brown's raid was quickly thwarted by federal forces, about half of the pikes were found in a large farm wagon that Brown's party had sneaked into Harper's Ferry. The other half were found at the Sharpsburg farmhouse.

Brown, who was severely injured when the arsenal was retaken by federal forces, was tried for treason and then hanged in Charles Town, Va. — now West Virginia — in December 1859.

But the Connecticut pikes and their intended use in arming slaves became a potent symbol for outraged Southerners during the inflammatory period leading up to the Civil War, from the raid to the attack on Fort Sumter 18 months later.

Pikes As Propaganda

Dr. Lawrence S. Carlton has studied the fate of the unused pikes. The retired doctor and medical school professor has acted as the unofficial historian of the Canton Historical Museum, which is on the former grounds of the Collins Axe Co.

About a dozen of the pikes, Carlton said, were secured as souvenirs shortly after the raid and somehow found their way to Edmund Ruffin, a Virginia pro-slavery leader who sent them to Southern governors and political leaders with a label that read, "Sample of the favors designed for us by our Northern brethren."

At least one Northern abolitionist, Wendell Philips, acquired a pike and carried it on stage during anti-slavery lectures just before the Civil War, when Brown was being posthumously lionized in the North as a martyr for the anti-slavery cause.

"It's ironic that both sides used the John Brown pikes for propaganda purposes in the hysterical period leading up to the war," Carlton said.

Collinsville and Unionville have also conducted a lively, but mostly friendly, competition over the years about who can claim rights to making the pikes for the famous raid.

Interest in the pikes, and John Brown's raid, seems to be growing as the October anniversary approaches. An evening procession from the Sharpsburg farm to Harper's Ferry will be staged on Oct. 16, and as recently as two years ago, a Dallas auction gallery sold a pike for $13,000.

"$13,000 for a John Brown pike doesn't sound like much to me," said Blair Tarr, the museum curator at the Kansas Historical Society, which bought one of its two original pikes in 1881 for $15, from a Charles Town man. "Anything related to John Brown is very coveted today. He was a very important figure in American history." Copyright © 2009, The Hartford Courant

Erin Cunningham. "Public Tours Farmhouse Made Famous by John Brown."
The Herald-Mail on-line [Hagerstown, Md.], July 12, 2009

SHARPSBURG — Some historians say the Civil War began in the small Sharpsburg farmhouse where abolitionist John Brown planned his historic raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859, said Sprigg Lynn, who owns the property with his father.

On Saturday and Sunday, the public was invited to tour the Kennedy Farmhouse on Chestnut Grove Road during an open house to commemorate the 150th anniversary of John Brown’s stay at the home where he began planning and staging the failed raid. Dennis Frye, chief historian for Harpers Ferry National Historical Park and head of the committee overseeing the John Brown commemoration in four states, said about 300 people attended the event Saturday and another 200 were expected Sunday. In addition to tours, led by the property owner, South “Captain” Lynn of Montgomery County, Md., visitors also were able to participate in children’s activities, listen to music and have refreshments.

On June 30, 1859, Brown spent the night in Hagerstown, at the former hotel that is now the site of the University System of Maryland at Hagerstown, Frye said. Then, in the first week of July, Brown rented the Kennedy Farmhouse, where he stayed until Oct. 16, 1859, before the famous raid. “Here (at the Kennedy Farmhouse), Brown hid his army, secured his weapons and made his plans to attack Harpers Ferry,” Frye said.

A little more than one year after the raid, the American Civil War began.

On Saturday officials unveiled a new marker, making the Kennedy Farmhouse an official stop on the Maryland Civil War Trail. The federal government also has declared it a National Historic Landmark.

If you are interested in a tour of the Kennedy Farmhouse, go to www.johnbrown.org or call 202-537-8900 and ask for “Captain.”

For additional information about activities commemorating the 150th anniversary of John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry, go to www.johnbrownraid.org.

Brown Biographer David Reynolds Interviewed in Esquire; Some After Thoughts

David Reynolds is a fine scholar and his 2005 biography of Brown has probably done more to bring the subject to the front burner of historical recognition than any other work in the last quarter of a century. I have my differences with his work on certain points, but his book is a milestone effort, and Reynolds himself has caught a lot of heat because his reading of Brown is far more generous than is admitted by his apparent willingness to class Brown as a "terrorist."

This is apparent in a June 16th interview in Esquire magazine by John H. Richardson. My own comments follow the text of the interview, which is reproduced entirely as follows:

The recent assassination of Dr. George Tiller by a "pro-life" activist got me thinking about John Brown, the abolitionist whose bloody raid on Harper's Ferry is widely credited for sparking the Civil War. Since anti-abortionists often compare abortion to slavery, I searched around to refresh my dim memory and was surprised to find a CUNY Graduate Center professor named David S. Reynolds — a National Book Award finalist for Walt Whitman's America: A Cultural Biography — calling Brown "a deeply religious, flawed, yet ultimately noble reformer."

Noble? He hacked people to death with swords.

I called Reynolds for clarification.

"John Brown, in a sense, took the law into his own hands to start a war of terror that would dislodge slavery," he admitted. "But to me, slavery is qualitatively different from abortion."

Some of Reynolds's reasons, and I quote:

1. This was an absolutely vital national issue. As the Civil War proved, tens of thousands of Americans were willing to take up arms — 620,000 Americans died, more than all other wars. Abortion doesn't seem to be that nationally divisive.

2. Abortion was an issue in the nineteenth century, when abortion techniques were much worse than now, and Native Americans were horribly killed by thousands. But John Brown only took up arms against slavery. And even pacifist types like Henry David Thoreau supported him.

3. Brown looked forward to being hanged because he wanted to die for the millions of black people who were enslaved at that time. When he was in prison, he wasn't thinking of himself — all of his letters were filled with comments about the poor slaves.

4. There was a certain democracy to his vision. Even though he was devoutly Christian, and in some ways extremely conservative, some of his followers were atheists, deists, skeptics. It wasn't just the Christian right versus Leftism — he had a deeply American and democratic form of terrorism, if you want to call it that.

Of course, you could say much of the above about Osama Bin Laden, and people have — like the distinguished Princeton historian Sean Wilentz, who once wondered what would have happened to America if John Brown had access to airplanes? Reynolds's answer, when I pit the same choice to him, was either a classic academic hedge or painfully honest humility. Take your pick:

"Everything is, to some degree, subjective — I think Nazism, slavery, what Pol Pot did, what Mussolini did — I mean, slavery was the murder and rape and torture of adult people as well of children. To me, personally, from my subjective standpoint, that's qualitatively different than killing a fetus. But I know that for other people, that's not true."

And Bin Laden also believes he is fighting a justified war against an imperial power that kills adult and children.

"Bin Laden wants to ban Christianity, atheism, and Judaism and create a Muslim theocracy," Reynolds continued. "That seems to me so incredibly radically different than what John Brown believed in, which is a nation in which people of all races and creeds and both genders are given the exact same social rights. So from my perspective, people like Paul Hill and George Tiller seem too narrow."

I'm giving Reynolds a hard time, but his argument is one that most Americans consciously or unconsciously accept. In fact, every time you sing "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," which is a slightly altered version of "John Brown's Body," you are praising an act of domestic terrorism:

He captured Harper's Ferry with his nineteen men so true
He frightened old Virginia till she trembled
through and through
They hung him for a traitor, themselves the traitor crew
His soul is marching on..."

And therein lies the problem. His soul is marching on. And marching and marching and marching. "Was it worth it?" I asked Reynolds, hoping that two congenitally waffling Whitman lovers like ourselves could find a way out of this endless nightmare. "Was ending slavery was worth 620,000 lives?"

"Yeah, I think it was," he told me. "It's a horrible thing to say."

Even though the first person Brown killed at Harper's Ferry was a free black man?

"Yes," he said. "It's a tragedy."

-------------

First, I would point out interviewer Richardson's sense of horror over the few people killed by John Brown's actions, as well as the loss of over one-half million Civil War soldiers (most of whom were white) is not counter-balanced by an apparent sense of horror over the realities of slavery. Reynolds appreciates the extent of wickedness that slavery represents in our history, but Richardson seems indifferent, which is why he has the audacity to ask: "Was ending slavery worth 620,000 lives?" Give or take a number of thousands of black soldiers and war victims, what Richardson actually seems to be asking is: "Was ending the enslavement of black people worth a half-million white people's lives?" This should tell the reader something immediately about the perspective of the interviewer vis-a-vis John Brown.

Of course I do not agree that Brown was a "terrorist," not in Richardson's hostile sense of the word, or in Reynolds' much friendlier use of the term. Brown is a counter-terrorist by all standards and anyone who denies this simply has not read his story correctly. By 1858 he was a law-breaker and a wanted man to be sure; but considering that the U.S.A. in the mid-19th century was a flagrantly racist, white supremacist, and unjust and violent nation in its treatment of blacks and Indians, I find it hard to be so scandalized by Brown's brand of "criminality." Those who condemn Brown by holding "law" over his head as if it were the ultimate standard of righteousness are off-balance and typically insensitive to the realities of this nation's history. In 1859, the law of the land declared that black people had no rights that whites were bound to respect; the law declared that black people were slave masters' property any where in the nation; and the law mandated that anti-slavery whites had to assist slave hunters in arresting black people in the North so that they could be forcibly "returned" to the South in chains. If you hold that kind of law over John Brown's head, you're no better than slave master and a tyrant yourself.

As to abortion, I really do believe that if John Brown were transported into the era of Roe v. Wade he would be absolutely "mortified" (to use one of his favorite terms) by the contemporary secular notion of democracy that reigns supreme, as well as the vast numbers of abortions that have taken place in the name of "choice." My liberal and leftist friends who admire John Brown likely would prefer not to talk about these matters because it makes them feel uncomfortable to think that their hero was a conservative Christian as well as a radical abolitionist and militant egalitarian. Indeed, David Reynolds was understating things when he told Richardson that Brown "was devoutly Christian, and in some ways extremely conservative." John Brown was an evangelical, a Westminster Confession Calvinist, and a believer in the Bible as the inspired word of God. His views on contemporary issues like choice and gay rights would most certainly be no different from the typical contemporary evangelical viewpoint today. To be sure, Brown was not as culturally narrow-minded or racist as most evangelicals then and now, but his "progressive" orientation stopped at race and class issues.

But would John Brown shoot an abortion professional or blow up an abortion service site? Although many people, liberals and conservatives alike, assume that he would do so, I disagree. Based on what I have observed of Brown's life and beliefs, I do not think he would take any violent action against abortion professionals or abortion service sites unless (1) the anti-abortion side had exhausted every legal and democratic measure in the effort to abolish abortion and (2) pro-abortion people were forcing their practice upon anti-abortion people. In the absence of both dilemmas, Brown would probably advocate using every possible democratic measure, as well as educational, religious, and social means of discouraging women from resorting to abortion. This is not mere speculation. A careful reading of Brown's life shows that he fairly well followed the same standards in opposing slavery and its advocates.

Reynolds points out that abortion is not as divisive an issue today as slavery was in 1859. That's true in many respects. Many conservatives, including evangelical Christians who denounce abortion, have apparently come to a grudging acceptance of the status quo. Beyond voting for the ostensible "anti-abortion" Republican candidate, evangelicals characteristically have not taken on the anti-abortion struggle with the same determination that their forebears did in fighting slavery. This is largely because abortion is more complex and difficult to address as a social and cultural issue. Even women with anti-abortion convictions have had abortions and the church must minister to these women with a greater degree of sympathy and compassion. And this is the point: if abortion and slavery are parallel wrongs, then who is the actual counterpart to the slave master--the abortion professional or the woman who chooses to have an abortion? Either way, critics of Brown should remember that he never killed a slave master (except in a pitched gun battle) in Kansas or Harper's Ferry. Brown did not advocate the murder of slave masters as a measure of ending slavery per se; why do people think that he would necessarily gun down an abortion professional?

Finally, assuming that Brown opposed abortion on the basis of personal religion and spirituality, he might simply throw up his hands and conclude that a nation that promotes abortion in the name of democracy deserves whatever moral and social degeneration that befalls it. He once repeated the words of Euripedes in silencing a smart-mouthed Virginian, saying: "'Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad,' and you are mad." It might be that having made careful examination of his beloved America in the 21st century, John Brown might simply leave it at that.

John Brown and Ely Moore: A Kansas Debate Explained

by Grady Atwater. The Osawatomie Grapic [Osawatomie, Kan.] on-line, July 8, 2009

John Brown was a dedicated foe of slavery and regarded anyone who sided with or was neutral on the slavery issue with suspicion. Ely Moore Jr. was neutral in the fight over slavery and enforced federal government Indian policy in the area, which made him an ally of a proslavery federal government in Brown’s eyes and, therefore, an enemy.

Moore and Brown had an antagonistic relationship, and Moore’s account of Brown’s conduct in Kansas Territory reveals the disdain the men had for each other. Moore reported in Collections of the Kansas State Historical Society, 1911-1912 that “in the late summer or early fall of 1855, an evil bird swooped down upon us, arrogantly invading our territory. True, the bird assumed the form of a man, but carried a heart of stone that could not be mellowed save by the flow of human blood. The noxious visant, though by some crowned as a saint and a martyr, was but a dangerous paranoiac at large — John Brown.”

Moore’s opposition to Brown’s abolitionist crusade in Kansas Territory was compounded by Brown’s refusal to allow him and a companion to enter his camp Dec. 24-25, 1855. Brown’s reaction angered Moore, for Moore had rescued him in November 1855 from a near-drowning and freezing death in Rabbit Creek. However, Brown was an abolitionist guerilla fighter, and the last thing he wanted was to have a federal government agent in his camp who could report to authorities how many men he had and his whereabouts.

Moore firmly stated his opinion of Brown, saying “the adoration which many entertain for John Brown and his acts here and elsewhere is incomprehensible. Even the State Historical Society insults the heirs of many good and brave Kansans by placing on the walls of the honorable secretaries’ office the portrait of John Brown, surrounded by the portraits of those gallant men who placed Kansas on her sturdy feet, even giving up their gifted lives in so doing.”

Brown is a deeply controversial character in American and world history. His actions in Kansas Territory and his raid in Harpers Ferry, Va., helped to spark the Civil War. The reality that his actions in and around Osawatomie were a part of changing U.S. history made Osawatomie history of national and international importance.

However, there is another aspect of Brown’s abolitionist crusade that makes him and Osawatomie historically important. He has become a philosophical example when people nationally and internationally discuss the issue of ideologically-based violence. Historians and others analyze Brown’s actions in Kansas, studying his motives and the ramifications of his abolitionist crusade.

Brown inspires debate about actions that began when he battled proslavery forces during the Bleeding Kansas period and his raid at Harpers Ferry. The debate continues in the present and shows no sign of fading. Brown’s actions in and around Osawatomie are a part of that discussion, and the controversy over Brown puts Osawatomie on the historical map, which brings visitors to the community from all over the nation and the world.

------------------

— Grady Atwater is site administrator at the John Brown State Historic Site in Osawatomie, Kansas. His knowledgeable and thoughtful articles on John Brown are always appreciated by the readers of this blog.--LD

Distorting John Brown: Another Case of Journalistic Irresponsibility

Few would deny that in the popular mind of our nation, the abolitionist John Brown may be one of the most hated figures in U.S. history. Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't observed the kind of sloppiness or slander typical of writings on Brown put forth about other perceived "traitors" and enemies of the state. From Benedict Arnold forward, no one elicits such contempt and condescending attitudes from the masses, generally speaking, as does John Brown. To be sure, one could make a list of the kinds of people who decidedly disregard or even hate Brown out of loyalty to their particular ideology--some conservative, some liberal, some religious, some secular, etc. These kinds of people find fault with Brown as they perceive him through the grid of their particular ideological beliefs. Yet the bigger problem is not those with "specialty" reasons for despising John Brown. I do not expect the high priests and worshipers at the shrine of Abraham Lincoln to acknowledge Brown's leadership and heroism since they are religiously devoted to elevating Lincoln as a liberator and saint, thus requiring the near total diminishment of Brown. Similarly, one would hardly be surprised at southerners--still pitifully clinging to the "Old South" romance (or those dreaming of a new "Christian" South seceding from the union!)--hating Brown. It would seem that nothing short of divine intervention could lift the veil from such clouded eyes of prejudice.

Yet it is not these "specialty" critics that do the most damage to Brown's popular legacy. Rather it is the widespread misinformation and misrepresentation that prevails due to years of stubborn misportrayal by film makers, novelists, journalists, and (nowadays) bloggers that sustains a prevailing cloud of ignorance and bias against him in popular culture. Much of the Brown "dislike" in this country was born from the misinformation rendered from a high school history text book or similarly miseducated history teacher (where I grew up, high school history teachers were just sports coaches disguised as teachers anyway). This kind of miseducation continues through negative images and portrayals in movies and magazine articles. If you monitored the internet as I do regarding John Brown, you would be amazed at how many ill-informed references and remarks are made about him across this country every week. Most of this nonsense is not worth responding to because it is merely the flotsam and jetsam of the very cultural ignorance of which I write.

Not so rarely, however, journalists publish features that are more likely to contribute to the ongoing anti-Brown ignorance and misinformation that plagues this culture.

For example, recently I have responded to a number of articles by Jim and Lisa Gilbert, two otherwise capable journalists writing for a newspaper in Chatham, Ontario (Canada), who have been doing articles about John Brown's interaction with blacks in Canada in 1858. The Gilberts are seemingly determined to portray Brown with the "wild eyes" (sometimes they are "flashing") of a religious fanatic. Of course they also portray Brown's strategy in the South as doomed and insurrectionary. Neither journalist has adequately studied Brown's history, yet the norms of journalism permit Brown to be castigated, misportrayed, and diminished without warrant. Were Robert E. Lee or Andrew Jackson treated with the same hostile misinformation, all of the academic world would rise up in rebuke. But it's okay if your facts about Brown are wrong; it's perfectly acceptable to batter and abuse his reputation without checking the evidence of history. This double standard exists because it has become culturally acceptable.

I have taken you on this long-winded introduction only because Michael Cervin, a journalist and author, has recently published an article about Brown in an on-line magazine entitled Vision [San Diego, Calif.]. His article, "A Long Night’s Journey into Day," is yet another example of how popular readers are misinformed by irresponsible journalism. Cervin's article is fraught with detail errors. For instance, he has Brown's entire 21-man army of raiders marching to Harper's Ferry to attack the armory, when in fact a portion of the men remained behind; he describes Brown as "a tall, lanky man of six feet," when Brown was actually little more than 5' 9" and has been described as "sinewy" and slender, not "lanky" (is Cervin confusing Brown with Lincoln?); Cervin says that Brown's raid was "ill-timed and poorly planned," and in this he is (at best) only half-right. The timing of the raid was not according to Brown's intention. According to his son Owen Brown, the raid had to be expedited because Brown had reason to believe that authorities were going to be alerted. More importantly, the raid was actually quite well-planned. Consider that Brown had been studying the armory structure in the U.S. for about a decade. There were only two federal armories in the country, one in Springfield, Mass., where he had lived in the 1840s, and the other was in Harper's Ferry, Va. (I believe it was during his residence in Springfield that he first got the idea of attacking Harper's Ferry.) Brown knew that neither armory was protected by military guard and that the civilian guard at Harper's Ferry was ill-prepared. It is also a fiction of both journalists and academics that Brown did no advance work in contacting the enslaved community, and that the enslaved population showed little or no interest in his endeavors. There is more than sufficient evidence to the contrary. In short, Brown's raid was well-planned. It failed, by Brown's own admission, because he failed to follow through with his own plans. Overly ponderous and distracted by debates and parley with captive slavemasters, Brown's delay of but a few hours proved lethal. Yet he could shut the mouth of Virginia's Governor Wise by reminding him that despite the alleged foolhardy nature of his assault, he actually held Harper's Ferry successfully for more than one day!

Following conventional narratives, Cervin writes that Brown "was a failure at most everything he put his hand to and he’d accumulated debts he could never pay." To be sure, Brown did have preponderant business failings. But he was also one of the most notable authorities of fine sheep and wool in his era and his expertise was so well recognized in the antebellum era that he could write certificates of quality for livestock and was called upon by farmers in the northeast for his expertise and opinion. He may have failed as an entrepreneur, but readers should recall that he did not do so in a vacuum. Many of his contemporaries failed in business too.

Furthermore, Brown lived a time when there was no national bank or federal currency, no limited liability corporations, business insurances, etc. that are commonly used by entrepreneurs today. Finally, despite the failure of his wool commission operation in Springfield, Mass., which he operated in partnership with the wealthy Simon Perkins Jr. of Akron, Ohio, a closer examination of the firm's failure must take into consideration the opposition of manufacturing interests and their powerful abilities in the market, as well as the failure on the part of the wool growers to unify and collaborate effectively. All of this is a matter of record, although few have studied these things. All they care about is declaring Brown a business failure, and that ipso facto his failure drove him into the desperate quest for "success" as a liberator. This thesis is nonsense and easily set aside.

Cervin further misses the date of Brown's vow to oppose slavery by a decade, setting it in 1847, instead of 1837, after the shooting of abolitionist Lovejoy in Alton, Illinois. Far worse, he totally misrepresents Brown's intention for the 1859 raid as to "agitate the white slave-owning population, and give the courage for slaves to rise up, kill their masters in their beds and join Brown on a crusade to stomp out slavery." What is Cervin's source for this claim? It sounds like he used the same source that most northern journalists used in 1859--the slavemasters of Virginia! The fact is that John Brown NEVER planned for a general insurrection and the LAST thing that he wanted was a widespread bloodletting of slave masters. Killing slave masters in their beds may have been the Nat Turner strategy (and I'm not saying Nat Turner was not justified from his standpoint in doing so), but it definitely was not what Brown intended. His campaign was by all accounts a minimalist effort with respect to violence. He wanted to operate primarily clandestinely and lead off enslaved people, fighting only when necessary, and always using the recourse to retreat and hide in small cadres within the mountain system that stretched deep into the South. Cervin's understanding of the raid is seriously flawed and demonstrates that he is not working with facts but rather with imagination and misinformation himself.

Further, Cervin writes that "Brown was a man blunted by contradictions." I have studied Brown for years and have written two books on his life and I am not yet done studying his life. Yet I have never seen the "contradictions" or "complexity" that are often attributed to him. Brown was not conflicted or troubled by contradictions. He contradicted the cultural and social norms of his time; he contradicted the religious hypocrisy of the white church; he contradicted the perceived "right" of the wealthy and powerful to dominate the weak and helpless; he contradicted the "liberals" of his day by exposing them as "talk only" hypocrites. Yet he was firm and undivided in his efforts. Even in earlier days, when he hoped to become a financially successful businessman, it is clear that his Puritan heart and mind were determined to use that wealth to fund anti-slavery efforts. When his business life waned and he reached middle age, the extremities of the nation's condition as well as the dire problems faced by his family in Kansas pulled him into the heart of the militant struggle. There are no contradictions in the man. He is simple to understand if one correctly reads his letters and the witness of his record.

In all fairness to Cervin, he is not hostile toward Brown, and seems to forgive and even credit him for his devotion to fighting slavery at the end of the article:

His actions caused others to reevaluate theirs. According to Virginia law, Brown was guilty of treason. But moral law may have reached a different conclusion. . . . . At the very least, John Brown stood and fought for something he fully believed in to help those who could not help themselves. The very least we can do, as mindful citizens of planet Earth, is to stand up and be counted. Right or wrong, Brown put his life on the line. . . . Talk may be cheap, but inaction can be fatal.

This is a generous conclusion, given the preceding errors in detail and presentation. Yet Cervin's work as a journalist is wanting in this case, and it is this lack of care in factgs that has often hurt Brown in popular culture. When we start getting our facts straight about the man who lived, we may also start to understand the importance of his presence on the landscape of the antebellum era, as well as the dimensions of meaning and importance that he represents beyond the hackneyed notion of a wild-eyed, conflicted, and ill-prepared fanatic.

Louis DeCaro Jr.

Michael Cervin's article may be found at http://www.visionmagazine.com/archives/0907/Culture.html

John Brown Recognized in Springfield, Massachusetts
Sy Becker (WWLP.com, Springfield, Mass.), July 1, 2009

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (WWLP) - A major figure in the anti-slavery movement before the Civil War has a Springfield connection.

John Brown will became a permanent fixture in the Civil War era exhibit at Springfield's new history museum.

Museum director Guy McLain told 22News that Brown lived in Springfield during the 1840s and left a lasting legacy with the African-American church community.

"St. John's Congregational Church was named after John Brown, and the connection goes back to John Brown in the 1840s and 50s," said McLain.

Dora Robinson of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Communit Center told 22News, "Our children, the citizens of Springfield, members of the St. John's Congregational Church really know about his work as an abolitionist, the time he spent in Springfield."

The exhibit is made possible by a Hampden Bank gift.

John Brown memorial to reopen to public in Akron, Ohio
Katie Byard. Akron [Ohio] Beacon Journal on-line (July 1, 2009)

A monument honoring a man hailed as a hero by some and branded as a terrorist by others is tucked inside the Akron Zoo. This holiday weekend the public will have a rare chance to view the modest sandstone pillar commemorating famed abolitionist John Brown, who lived in Akron.
The free, guided tours are part of a series of events commemorating the 150th anniversary of Brown's failed raid on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Va., in 1859.

The monument, which will turn 100 next year, is in a rugged, wooded area of the zoo previously not open to the public. City officials and others long have talked about moving the memorial to a more visible, accessible location, but the monument has stayed put. While the memorial is virtually hidden, ''we get a steady stream of inquiries about it,'' said David Lieberth, the city's deputy mayor and a local history buff. ''He was Akron's best-known citizen internationally before LeBron James.''

In preparation for the memorial tours, zoo and city workers have installed a gravel access road and have cleared brush. Brown put Harpers Ferry on the map when he and his followers raided the arsenal Oct. 16, 1859 — in hopes of seizing weapons and leading slaves in a rebellion. At least four civilians, including the town mayor, were among the fatalities Brown was executed by hanging less than two months later, on Dec. 2. Church bells tolled in Akron and Hudson, where Brown grew up, at his death. The raid and Brown's execution helped to spark the Civil War, some historians say.

''Without him challenging the institution of slavery,'' Lieberth said, ''things may not have materialized as quickly as they did after his death. ''What is still troubling about him is that he did murder people in his cause,'' said Lieberth, who will talk about Brown during the tours. ''He saw himself as a warrior.''

In 1910, the German-American Alliance erected the pillar on land that would become Perkins Woods Park. The area is not far from Brown's former home, on Diagonal Road, where he lived during the 1840s and 1850s and raised sheep for Col. Simon Perkins, of Akron's founding family.
The memorial's centerpiece is a sandstone column salvaged from the Summit County Courthouse that was razed in 1905. Long gone is the bronze eagle that perched on the sphere that sits atop the pillar. Why were German immigrants moved to memorialize a former resident of Akron? ''The Germans take interest in everything in their adopted country,'' an alliance official said in a 1910 Beacon Journal article about the Aug. 21 dedication. ''Nothing had been done to preserve the memory of John Brown.'' the official said, ''and we, the Germans, felt it was our duty to take some step . . . .''

In 1938, a group called the Negro 25 Year Club added a 30-foot-diameter stone bench — surrounding the pillar — and a marker that includes an image of Brown. The marker declares, ''He died to set his brother free. His soul goes marching on.'' Vandals carved named names in the pillar long ago — before the zoo extended its fence several years ago to include the memorial. ''That secured it from any further vandalism,'' Lieberth said. Trouble is, he said, ''it has been closed from public view.'' Lieberth said moving the monument would cost about $100,000. That's not a large sum, he acknowledged, but moving it is one thing and finding the right home is another, he said.

A committee of city officials and community members recommended the monument be moved to city-owned land on the corner at Cedar and Maple streets and Rhodes Avenue. Committee members envisioned an organization partnering with the city and erecting a nearby building on the land, part of which could be used as a visitor information center. More recently, Lieberth, said, officials with the Summit County Historical Society have talked about relocating the memorial to property adjacent to the John Brown home. The historical society maintains the home. If the memorial were outside the Brown home, society Executive Director Paula Moran said, visitors could view it without paying admission — as they would have to at the zoo. The home could serve it as a visitor center.

Regardless of one how feels about Brown, Moran said, ''let's acknowledge Akron's historic role and connection to the abolition of slavery.''

Katie Byard can be reached at 330-996-3781 or mail to: kbyard@thebeaconjournal.com