Emancipation Proclamation Sesquicentennial—

Lincoln’s New Rules of War and John Brown

Today marks 150 years to the day that Abraham Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation.  The sesquicentennial of the Proclamation is noted in today’s New York Times, in an Op-Ed piece by John Fabian Witt, who reminds us that the Proclamation took effect on January 1, 1863, although it was issued on this day in 1862.  More importantly, Witt, a professor at Yale Law School, and an author of Lincoln’s Code: The Laws of War in American History, puts the Proclamation in historical perspective.  He notes that the rebel government of Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy “condemned it as barbaric and inhumane,” and vindictively swore to treat captured black soldiers and their officers as criminals, not as prisoners of war.  In response, the Union promised to retaliate in turn.

Witt says that as a result of the retaliatory threat of the rebels, the Union was forced “to restate its position on the laws of war,” in December 1862—a few weeks before the Proclamation went into effect—Lincoln’s General-in-Chief, Henry Halleck, commissioned an extended statement of the Union’s views of the laws of warfare (drafted by a Columbia University professor named Francis Lieber).   Along with prohibiting torture, assassination, and abuse of prisoners of war, the new Union code “distinguished between soldiers and civilians” and “disclaimed cruelty, revenge attacks and senseless suffering.”  But the most notable aspect of the new code, he says, was that the federal government now “defended the freeing of enemy slaves and the arming of black soldiers as a humanitarian imperative, not as an invitation to atrocity.” 

This is important because it was typically assumed that any effort to liberate the enslaved and arm them for warfare was the declaration of servile war and insurrection—in other words, that it called for the slaughter of the slave master class, families and all, along with the larger white society that had promoted and protected slavery.  The white South was well aware of the bloody revolutionary overthrow of white supremacy that had taken place in Haiti in the 1790s, not to mention Nat Turner’s unsuccessful but bloody attack in southern Virginia in 1831 that left bloody trail and a pile of beheaded children—the ill-fated heirs of their slave holding parents.  I made this observation in a post (July 22, 2010) about the pro-slavery artist, Albert Volck, a political cartoonist in Baltimore.  Volk’s portrayal of Lincoln signing the Emancipation Proclamation was downright diabolical—loaded with innuendos of bloody servile war, including portraits of John Brown and the Haitian revolution (including a white baby impaled on a pike).

Of course, Witt’s Op-Ed is intended to commemorate the Emancipation Proclamation anniversary with an eye toward how it led to the Union’s war code, which “became the blueprint for a new generation of treaties, up to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.”  The downside of the Union’s 1862 war codes, Witt says, was that it inadvertently made “terrible violence” acceptable. The Union code of 1862, triggered by the Emancipation Proclamation, did not “relieve war of its terrors,” he concludes, but rather stands “as a living reminder. . .of how thoroughly the United States’ most significant moment still shapes our moral universe.” 

His point is well taken.  There is something ultimately hopeless in the idea of engaging a “humane” war.  Wars necessitate bloodshed, violence and death, and even the seemingly most justifiable wars, guided by codes and practices deemed humane, result in “terrible violence.” However, not a single tyrant throughout human history has been vanquished by non-violence.  The famously passive Christian martyrs of Rome may have “won” ultimate “victory” without the sword, but it even took Constantine’s violent contests and final victory at Milvian Bridge to secure the peaceful Christian triumph over the empire. Like the proverbial “apple a day,” habits of peacemaking and dialogue can go a long way toward healthful peace.  Without the preferential option for peace, life would be far worse. But in matters of disease and severe affliction, “an apple a day” cannot do the terrible work of a surgeon, who must harm some part of the body in order to save the whole. 

Here and there one may hear regrets expressed about the tragedy of bloodletting that resulted when Lincoln held firmly to the Union, insisting that the seceding slave states could not be permitted to rebel.  With the sesquicentennial of the Civil War upon us, someone has lamented over those who “whistle” Civil War sentimentality while “washing their hands in the blood” of its tragic history.  In other words, some of the Civil War enthusiasm in this country seems indifferent to the expansive violence and bloodshed it required, something not existentially appreciated by the stereotypical Civil War history enthusiast.  In many cases, such military history enthusiasm tends to pull our attention away from the dire suffering and death that beset the nation, as well as the political realities of the war. 

On the other hand, there is a subtle conservative revision in all this sesquicentennial lamentation, particularly when the suggestion is made that more might have been done to avoid the war, and that the problem of slavery might have been dealt with by more rigorous pursuit of compromise by leaders in the North and South.  Of course, this is a counter-factual, revisionist, and simplistic antidote—as if something more might have been done to avoid war; as if the North could have compromised even more than it had already done in order to placate the pro-slavery ambitions of the Southern states. What policy would have avoided the war, when many pro-slavery state leaders were determined to secede if a Democrat did not win the 1860 election?  Or what could Lincoln have done beyond the compromise he offered—which left the slave states alone, as long as they did not extend slavery? What else could the United States have offered to the South, since Lincoln was evidently prepared to offer up three million black people as a sacrifice for the preservation of the Union?  However terrible, those who lament the Civil War’s mind-boggling loss of 600,000 lives and cry out against the war in historical terms, reflect a default racist perspective.  Any compromise to avoid war necessarily would have entailed the continuation of chattel slavery for many years; anyone who opts for the continued enslavement of millions of black people in order to save a half-million white soldiers cannot be considered just, no matter how terrible the loss. 

John Brown’s failed attempt to rescue the enslaved people of the South through a means of stealth and defensive fighting was greeted by pro-slavery leaders—like Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation—as an outright act of insurrectionary violence against pro-slavery society.  While Brown consistently and repeatedly stated that he never intended an insurrection—that is a literal war on slaveholders—it was assumed and insisted upon by his Southern prosecutors that his intent was malign and vicious.  For instance, the Governor of South Carolina at the time of the Harper’s Ferry raid declared that Brown and his men had invaded Virginia “to instigate our slaves to insurrection, and furnished them with arms to murder us on Southern soil.”*  In convicting Brown and his men on the count of “insurrection,” the State of Virginia was effectively categorizing his intentions as the same as Nat Turner, even though Brown was almost obsessed with the idea of avoiding servile warfare and retaliatory violence.

Witt’s discussion of the Union’s rules of war thus invoke discussion of John Brown’s real intentions, exemplified by his Provisional Constitution, as well as his manner of conduct in the raid.   Brown had intended to do what Lincoln finally came to do, which was put arms into the hands of black people, including formerly enslaved men.  When Brown did so, the North called it insurrection and the South screamed bloody murder.  When Lincoln came to the same realization of using black soldiers, it was now, as Witt points out, “a humanitarian imperative,” not “an invitation to atrocity.”  In fact, what Lincoln hoped to accomplish by using black soldiers is what John Brown intended all along.  Brown was expressly concerned that no prisoners of war be tortured or killed, that no rape or abuse of prisoners would take place in his army, and that freedmen and freedwomen would not commit retaliatory or vendetta murder once they were armed.  The Old Man would not avenge the murder of his own son in Kansas, and he intended his movement in the South to follow the same premise of liberation of the oppressed without descending into the bloodiest depths of servile war.  

Witt concludes that despite the scandal and fear created in the South by Lincoln’s emancipation agenda, its “moral triumph” succeeded insofar as the “feared terrors of a mass slave insurrection never came to pass.”  Instead, black soldiers proved to be “like roving institutions of freedom, abolishing slavery wherever they went.”  Might this also have proven true had Brown’s “Provisional Government of the People of the United States” become a reality in the South? 

           * “Important from South Carolina,” New York Herald, December 2, 1859, p. 4.

"Hell on Wheels":
Preacher Cole and John Brown

Last fall (Dec. 9, 2011), I pointed out the John Brown type character, "Preacher Cole" (played by Tom Noonan) in AMC's post-Civil War western series, "Hell on Wheels."  The AMC blog describes Preacher Cole as follows:

Noonan's "Preacher Cole" is a
negative John Brown type

Reformed from a life of violence and alcohol, Reverend Cole has turned his life to God. After riding with John Brown in Kansas and serving as a minister for the Union Army in the Civil War, Cole is sick of the slaughter; he genuinely wants to help the whites and Indians avoid another war. He takes up a holy mission of conversion and peace to prevent the annihilation of the native race. When his cries for peace fall on deaf ears, ignored even by his daughter Ruth, he abandons his family and turns back to personal demons of drinking and death.

Preacher Cole's character is fictional as almost all the characters in the series are thematic inventions by Joe and Tony Gayton, the producers of "Hell on Wheels." But while Preacher Cole's character is fictional, he is inspired by the Gaytons' perception of John Brown the abolitionist.  Early in season 1, we saw that Cole was a free state fighter in Kansas, and was one of the sword-wielding followers of Brown at Pottawatomie.  To no surprise, at the end of season 1, the Gaytons have their "John Brown" figure decapitating a soldier with his Pottawatomie sword.  In season 2, Cole had fallen into an alcoholic pit, only to be revived by an inspired vision of arming Native Americans against the intrusive railroad and the onslaught of the paleface.

In tonight's episode, Preacher Cole's effort rises and falls after he declares, "I was fool to believe that love would win over hate."  His attempt to have his "manifesto" published in the New York Tribune comes to naught and his "adopted" Native American son kills him rather than see Cole massacre the rest of his captives.  The episode is titled, "Purged Away with Blood."

Clearly, the Gaytons squeezed every last drop of blood out of their ghoulish perception of John Brown.  From beginning to end, their interpretation of Brown vis-a-vis Preacher Cole was that he was a deluded religious fanatic and violent killer.  In tonight's episode, Preacher Cole kills a railroad employee by running him through with a sword from behind.  Before he is finally stopped, he even makes another reference to John Brown to underscore that all this mad violence is rooted in Preacher  Cole's association with Brown.

"Hell on Wheels" has proven entertaining, though not always well written.  Admittedly, it does address a fascinating period in U.S. history, and it is not a neo-Confederate romance.  In fact, in this evening's episode, it is not only their imagined "legacy" of John Brown that is "purged away with blood," but also a Confederate doctor who had been part of a band of violent rebels.  The Gaytons seem to be suggesting that the nation had to be purged of both pro-slavery fanatics and anti-slavery radicals before "progress" could come.  It is probably not an accident that this episode's title is much like the famous Stephen Oates' bio of John Brown, To Purge this Land with Blood--a pretty awful title, I should add.

If this series continues another season, I'm relieved that Preacher Cole, the John Brown representation, has been eliminated. It is unfortunate that the Gaytons' premise about the abolitionist is entirely wrong: in turning back to his demons in this episode, Preacher Cole was really returning to his John Brown days, when he used violence, not love.  This is a far cry from John Brown the man who lived.  Brown was not compelled or motivated by a passion for bloodletting and violence.  Nor was he delusional and pathological in his reasoning.  Nor did he breed it in the men who followed him.  

John Brown's Rap (it's going down) - MC LaLa

From the Field--

“The Advent of a Hero”
DEDICATING JOHN BROWN’S TANNERY

by H. Scott Wolfe

For the sake of experimentation, I once purchased an immense butterfly net – with which I sought to capture a random sample of one hundred innocent, unsuspecting citizens. This sampling was totally unbiased – consisting of male and female; hyperactive and sedentary; corpulent and cadaverous; of all political persuasions…in fact, all races, creeds and prior conditions of servitude.

Once successfully netted, I would not allow these victims to regain their freedom until they answered the following query: “Who was John Brown, and what is his enduring contribution to American history?”

I recollect being sadly disappointed with the results. Most knew nothing of the Old Man. Only a smattering said that he may have had something to do with slavery. Another small segment proclaimed that he had something to do with a song…whose lyrics concerned either a mouldering body or a soul that kept marching. The Anglophiles assured me that he was the personal servant and court favorite of Queen Victoria (for which they received both their freedom and a valuable consolation prize). 

Well, the butterfly net is gone – smashed beyond recognition in pursuit of a cecropia moth (who wouldn’t have known much about John Brown anyway). But the overall results linger. I continue to experience great difficulty in locating people who can provide me with a succinct exposition of the Old Man and his historical import.

Which makes it all the more amazing to me that on the first Saturday in August, in the year 1935, over five hundred members (I said MEMBERS) of the “John Brown Memorial Association” converged upon a wooded grove and picnic ground in New Richmond, Crawford County, Pennsylvania to dedicate the surviving ruins of John Brown’s tannery. Today, I could carefully bait a trap with six cases of Hershey’s M&Ms and a pair of winning lottery tickets…and still not capture five hundred people who are even aware of John Brown – let alone his Pennsylvania tannery. Back in those palmy days of ‘35, his memory still both mouldered AND marched.

******

These pilgrims came to dedicate “a bronze tablet and a plaque, memorializing the famous abolitionist of pre-Civil War days, who once lived on the farm there and built the tannery, the walls of which are still standing.” The bronze plaque, bearing an image of the Old Man, had been mounted upon a substantial boulder on the southwest side of the property…its inscription reading:

JOHN BROWN

OF

OSSAWATOMIE

AND

HARPERS FERRY

1800  1859

And the bronze tablet, mounted on the cut stone of the ruin itself, reads:

THIS IS THE

FOUNDATION WALL

OF A TANNERY

BUILT AND

OPERATED BY

JOHN BROWN

1826 TO 1835

To the northeast was placed “a cannon mounted on a boulder, with a pyramid of cannon balls on either side, which were presented to the Association by the United States War Department.” (Quite a bit of irony here…as certain uniformed representatives of that same War Department had long ago killed and captured the Old Man and his men at Harpers Ferry.)

The Memorial Association had invested $2000 toward beautification of the site – including the tuckpointing of the tannery wall; construction (by the Depression-era WPA) of a stone wall and gate along the adjacent road; the grading of the lawn; and the planting of numerous shade trees. The Association’s President, Mrs. Bess Heath Olmstead of Washington, D.C., presided at the dedicatory ceremonies.

Following an ample noon dinner served by the New Richmond Ladies’ Aid Society, the program commenced. There was music – a brisk performance by the Corry Drum and Bugle Corps – appropriate songs by the Seminary Quartette of Nashville, Tennessee – and a duet’s rendition of “Indian Love Call,” an American “household staple” first performed on Broadway in 1924. Following these artful performances, a collection was taken – amounting to the princely sum of $19.35.

The Honorable Thomas J. Prather, the Master of Ceremonies, then introduced the Speaker of the Day, John Elmer Reed, President of the Erie County (PA) Historical Association. That distinguished gentleman spoke “on the characteristics of John Brown” and declared that “the farm at New Richmond is a constant reminder and inspiration to what John Brown lived and worked for.” He noted that “it has been shown many times that Nature works many centuries preparing for the advent of a hero, and it is believed this is the case with John Brown.” The Old Man “was a great man because he was possessed of a great idea.” Reed spoke for over an hour, but “everyone seemed deeply interested to the end, because it contained much about John Brown which was new to the audience.”

Following the brief appearance of the aging warrior Logan L. Dyke of Union City, “a Civil War veteran who was in the regiment that met the enemy on the ground where John Brown gave up his life at Harpers Ferry,” Mr. Prather noted that “John Brown had lived in five states, and that five states have erected monuments in his memory – Pennsylvania being the fifth. The other states are Ohio, New York, Connecticut and Kansas.”**

The John Brown Association also took pains to express “its gratefulness to Joseph Desmond, Frank A. Loveland and Guy D. Heath of Corry, and Frank Allsben of New York City, who purchased the tannery site 10 years ago for $200 and presented it with the deed.” And following the placement of a floral wreath beneath the bronze image of John Brown, the crowd dispersed…having spent an enjoyable and eventful day.

******

My day had been not quite so enjoyable. Despite the calendar showing late April, it had been a questionable trip across western New York and northern Pennsylvania. The higher elevations were beset with blowing snow…the lower, foggy and rain drenched. But as we sped down Route 77 in the direction of Meadville, the sun broke through and every pine bough and blade of grass seemed dripping with diamonds.

The junction sign was inconspicuous…hidden in shade…and rapidly oxidizing. “John Brown Road,” it declared. Turning left, we found ourselves on an unpaved lane…ending amidst a pond-pocked, mixed hardwood/coniferous woods…on the hill above, a farmhouse bravely venting columns of sweet-scented wood smoke. 

Our first symbol of historical importance was a blue and yellow-painted historical marker (which had first been placed on Route 77 in the fall of 1946). In dappled light I read:

JOHN BROWN’S TANNERY

On the side road, a short

distance south, are the 

remains of the tannery and

home built by the noted

abolitionist of Harper’s 

Ferry fame. Here, he lived

and worked from 1825 to

1835, employing as many as

15 men in producing leather.

Nearby, on a primitive kiosk of decaying wood, was a telephone number – and an offer of tours and a John Brown “museum.” I set the bitter half to calling, but…instead of being an exciting link to antebellum history, it was a mundane 21st century answering machine. “Alas!,” I blurted.

But my disappointment was short-lived as, to my right, stood the grove and ruins that had drawn that huge concourse back in ’35. It was difficult to imaginatively recreate the strains of “Indian Love Call” filtering through the pine needles. In fact, all was bucolic stillness…an occasional cricket chirping among the stones…a pair of agitated blue birds…the lowing of cattle in a nearby fenced pasture…the gurgle of running water on the adjacent hillside.  It seemed that the ceremonies were no longer under the charge of Mrs. Bess Heath Olmstead of Washington, D.C….they were supervised by Mother Nature herself.

I had the usual dry notes and statistics with me…The structure was 55 feet in length, 22 feet in width, and 9 feet in height…The foundations extend 5 feet below ground level…A fire destroyed the building in 1907…Prior to that time the structure had served as a tannery, cheese factory, jelly factory, grist mill and a residence…Frank Penfield Brown, of Erie, had designed the portrait plaque…Professor Russell D. McCommons, of the Art Department at Edinboro State Teachers’ College, prepared the model…It had been cast by the Bronze Metal Company…Ad infinitum.

But, immersed in the springtime sunlight, I thought little of statistical data. The physical environment…the sights, sounds, smells…had taken possession of me. I heard the grinding bark…the jingling traces of horses…the shouts of children. I saw John Brown, the successful entrepreneur, postmaster, pillar of the church. I also saw John Brown, agonized husband and parent, as he solemnly buried wife and son on the distant ridge.

The place had cast its magic upon me. Within the hour we were in bustling, hustling Meadville. At least our vehicle was there. My spirit was still in New Richmond, Crawford County, Pennsylvania.

******  

Author’s note: Besides my own questionable recollections, the sources consulted for this heroic essay were: 1) back issues of the Titusville (PA) Herald from August, 1935; and 2) The National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form for the “John Brown Tannery Site.”


* H. Scott Wolfe is the Historical Librarian of the Galena, Illinois, Public Library District and now a regular correspondent and contributor to this blog. He has devoted many years of grassroots research on John Brown, the Harper's Ferry raiders, and related themes.

**Prather failed to note that John Brown also lived in Springfield, Massachusetts, from 1846-1849.  There is no monument there in his honor, but he is remembered at the Connecticut Valley Historical Society and museum. [--Ed.]  

Also see: "A Visit to John Brown's Pennsylvania Home," 31 May 2006

News and Views--


Grave Marker of John Brown's Son is Recovered

Owen Brown's grave stone:
recovered and secure

To my knowledge, the first journalist to break the news of the recovery of Owen Brown's grave marker was Karin Bugge of the Altadena Patch.  Her report, dated August 24, notes that Paul Ayers of the organization, Save Altadena Trails, has acknowledged the simple gravestone has been found after having disappeared in 2004.  Owen Brown, one of the surviving Harper's Ferry raiders and third son of John Brown (born 1824) died in 1889, and his burial site on "Little Round Top" overlooks the city of Altadena, California.  According to Bugge's report, the disappearance of the grave stone was part of a controversy between the present owner of the land where Brown's body is interred and trail advocacy groups.  This conflict was well known, even to us on the east coast, who were dismayed to hear reports about the inaccessibility of the site due to the disagreeable position of the land owner--although it has never been made clear whether this man's scruples are antagonistic to Brown, or simply hostile toward people walking on his property.  Not having much information, we have assumed that this man removed the stone, and it was feared that it had been destroyed.  Whether or not this is what happened, we are happy to learn that the grave stone was found by a local man and his son and is secure.  According to Bugge, the Save Altadena’s Trails group intends "to 'take all necessary legal and logistical steps necessary to restore the grave stone to its rightful place.'"

Source: Karin Bugge, "Owen Brown's Grave Marker Has Been Found,"Altadena Patch (24 Aug.2012)
=============

The Quindaro Remembrance

The Statue at Quindaro:
"Erected to the Memory of John
Brown By A Grateful People"

KANSAS CITY, KANSAS--According to a number of reports, the Old Quindaro Museum and Information Center, Inc., in Kansas City was scheduled to host a John Brown Statue 101 year anniversary and recognition event this past Saturday, August 25.  According to Bettse Folsom of the Greater Kansas City Examiner, the museum's coordinator, Jesse Hope, spoke of the Old Quindaro Museum as offering information about families like his own--many of them being descendants of formerly enslaved blacks who still reside around the Quindaro community.  Folsom reports that Hope "wrote a book entitled Quindaro," and the museum is recognized by the National Park Service "Underground Railroad Freedom Act" of March 16, 2012.

The recognition event reportedly was to feature musical artists well-known in the Blues circuit, and a "Gospel Hour" held "in remembrance of our ancestors who found freedom [and to] witness it through song and praise." Hope said their ancestors thanked God as they looked back over the Missouri River at the land of their enslavement.  The Old Quindaro Museum has a website at http://www.oldquindaro.org/.

Source: Bettse Folsom, "John Brown's Statue 101 Year Anniversary," Examiner.com [Clarity Digital Group], 24 August, 2012.

===========

Elijah Lovejoy and John Brown

Historian and author Brian Dunphy recently published an article in Alton (Illinois) Telegraph about the historical link between antislavery editor Elijah Lovejoy and John Brown.  Dunphy is the author of Abolitionism and the Civil War in Southwestern Illinois. It is most interesting that Dunphy's article recounts the Lovejoy-Brown link in an online publication based in the very town where Lovejoy was killed while defending his printing press in 1837.  Lovejoy, a "New School" Presbyterian minister, devoted his life to writing against slavery, and was persecuted for his radical stance.  After a number of his printing presses were thrown into the water by racist mobs, Lovejoy took his final stand in a warehouse.  Much to the dismay of William Lloyd Garrison and other non-violent abolitionists, however, Lovejoy had armed himself and actually died in the exchange of gun fire against the mob.  Students of Brown's life are quite familiar with the impact that Lovejoy's death had upon the strongly independent Ohio abolitionist, and while Garrison and others expressed dismay and disappointment in Lovejoy, Brown saw him as a virtuous figure and martyr for the antislavery cause.  A prayer meeting convened in Brown's town of Hudson, Ohio, became the famous occasion of the abolitionist's public oath to fight slavery--a promise he fulfilled in ever increasing measures over the next twenty-two years.  Dunphy does a nice job of recapping Brown's life, tracing Brown's development in Springfield, Massachusetts and finally as a Kansas guerilla.  He recounts Brown's role in the Pottawatomie killings without indulging in the usual claptrap about "terrorism."  While Dunphy conveys the questionable but popular notion that Brown intended to take the weapons from the Harper's Ferry armory, nevertheless he provides a neat, concise and thoughtful sketch of Brown's life flowing out of the Lovejoy moment.

Brown as Union Man--
Black Painter David Bustill
Bowser's 1865 Portrait
(Bridgman Art Library,
Philadelphia History Museum)

"Brown was hanged on December 2, 1859," Dunphy concludes, pointing out that African American churches throughout the North designated it as "Martyr's Day," holding memorial services on behalf of Brown and his captured raiders.  In fact, "Martyr's Day" was a prominent day of remembrance in the black community well into the early 20th century.  Fortunately, the development of black history and the growth of black scholarship has allowed the African American community more substantial celebration of black history, and a rich history of black heroes and martyrs in their own right.  That Brown is more marginal to black consciousness and liberation activity 150 years later is not a mark of digression, but rather of progress.  Yet we should not fail to remember that in 1859, Brown stood shoulder to shoulder with black people as a liberation figure in the community--and he would in a sense link seminal black freedom fighters like Nat Turner with later activists in the post-Reconstruction era, when African Americans found themselves betrayed and once more locked in mortal struggle against white supremacy.  Brown was a conscious figure on the horizon of memory for blacks fleeing west from klan terrorism and other white supremacist assaults after the fall of Reconstruction. Despite the diminishment of John Brown in the popular memory of African Americans, he is not forgotten nor unappreciated in the annals of the struggle for justice against white supremacy.  Indeed, for the most part, it is still the appreciative consensus of the black community that offsets the prejudiced and unsympathetic voice that often characterizes the popular view among whites, who see him as a terrorist and trouble maker. 

Dunphy nicely concludes that the "victory of the North in the Civil War accomplished what John Brown couldn’t — the destruction of slavery. His soul indeed marched on with the victorious Union troops!"  This is probably no more true than of the noble African American men in blue who fought for the freedom of their own people, while so many whites were only fighting for the Union.  In a real sense, these were the Old Man's soldiers--the armed black warriors who proved him right in the final reel.  John Brown knew black men would fight valiantly for freedom if given the opportunity.  As history would have it, his tactical failure at Harper's Ferry did not prevent the grand vision from coming to reality.  When journalist William Phillips told him that blacks were too benign and inoffensive to fight for their freedom, the Old Man curtly marked his error.  "You have not studied them right,"Brown said, "and you have not studied them long enough. Human nature is the same everywhere."  John Brown was heavily influenced by the abolitionists, just as he was inspired by Lovejoy.  But unlike many of the white abolitionists, Brown had "studied" black people as people.  In contrast to southern propaganda, he knew that they were neither willing servants nor contented wards of their oppressors.  Yet in contrast to the prejudiced assumptions of the northern white man, he knew that black people--if given the opportunity and arms--would fight valiantly.  

He did not live to see it, but he was right.

See: John J. Dunphy, "Lovejoy’s murder led to John Brown’s war against slavery," The Telegraph [Alton, Ill.], 24 Aug. 2012.

From the web--
The John Brown Tannery Site in Northwestern Pennsylvania

17620 John Brown Rd., Guys Mills, Pa., 16327-1452; Phone: 814-967-2099; e-mail

John Brown Tannery Site is a historic archaeological sitelocated at Richmond Township, Crawford County, Pennsylvania. The tannery was built in 1825, by famed abolitionist John Brown(1800–1859). The site includes the ruins of the tannery; a one-story, rectangular structure measuring 55 feet by 22 feet. A fire destroyed the building in 1907. It is open to the public as the John Brown Farm, Tannery & Museum.

It was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1978.

John Brown Tannery Site
U.S. National Register of Historic Places
Location:	500 feet south of the junction of Pennsylvania Route 77 and John Brown Road [17620 John Brown Rd.], Richmond Township, Pennsylvania
Coordinates:	41°43′8.5″N 79°57′3″WCoordinates: 41°43′8.5″N 79°57′3″W
Area:	0.5 acres (0.20 ha)
Built:	1825
Built by:	Brown, John
Governing body:	Local
NRHP Reference#:	78002383[1]
Added to NRHP:	December 14, 1978

Source: Wikpedia: "John Brown Tannery Site"

"In Pre-Civil War Crawford County, Pennsylvania, the farm of the great abolitionist John Brown played a strategic role in the Underground Railroad. Disbursing "depots" in the area, John Brown aided in the passing of an estimated 2,500 slaves. In the town of New Richmond, his farm and tannery was a major stop on the Railroad, marking its place in history from 1825 to 1835. The farm, now a museum, proves to be an educational, exhilarating experience as you learn more about this great man of history and his many heroic efforts. Tour the remnants of the tannery and take a walking path to the cemetery. (Wear comfortable walking shoes.) Plan a visit during the first weekend in May, and you can share in the "Spirit of Freedom" picnic, a community celebration in honor of John Brown's birthday (May 9). There is also a gift shop allowing visitors to take a piece of that experience with them to cherish for a lifetime. Open from April 15 to October 15, and in the winter by appointment only."  Source: "John Brown Farm and Tannery Museum," Visitpa.com

Osawatomie Notebook--
John Brown, "Presentism," and the Notion of "Terrorism"

Grady Atwater

John Brown is either labeled a terrorist or a freedom fighter, and Brown’s choice to utilize violence to work to abolish slavery in the United States is central to the debate over whether he was a terrorist or a freedom fighter. It is important to note that the word "terrorist" is mainly a modern term that is commonly used today to describe a private citizen who utilizes violence to combat a real or perceived evil in society. John Brown was not viewed necessarily as a terrorist by his contemporaries, but slave holders and proslavery advocates primarily viewed John Brown as a violent bandit; peaceful abolitionists viewed Brown as a morally incorrect extremist, and Brown’s supporters viewed him as a freedom fighter.

“Presentism” is a term that means applying the standards of the present to the people and situations of the past, and to label John Brown a terrorist is to use a mainly modern term to describe John Brown’s 19th century abolitionist crusade. Certainly, John Brown’s militant abolitionist crusade was condemned by slaveholders and proslavery advocates, but Brown was viewed as more of a violent bandit than a terrorist by his contemporary detractors.

Peaceful abolitionists worked to end slavery via political means, and when John Brown engaged in violence against slaveholders and their supporters, he brought unwanted negative press and the militant wrath of proslavery militia down on them in Kansas Territory. Peaceful abolitionists constantly tried to convince Brown to cease his violence against slaveholders and their supporters. Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, Va., was the final death knoll for the peaceful abolitionist’s efforts to abolish slavery, and thus peaceful abolitionists viewed Brown as a morally incorrect extremist when he utilized violence as part of his abolitionist crusade.

The author Grady Atwater, is
a life time scholar & lecturer
on the John Brown theme

John Brown’s admirers viewed his militant abolitionist crusade as a morally justifiable action because he was committing violence against slaveholders and proslavery advocates, who in the moral view of Brown’s admirers, were so obstinately morally corrupt that violence against them was morally justifiable. Brown’s admirers believed that the only way to convince slaveholders and their supporters to give up their slaves and the idea that slavery was a morally viable concept was via intimidation and violence. Therefore, when John Brown engaged in violence against slaveholders and their supporters, Brown’s admirers viewed him as a freedom fighter.

John Brown was not a terrorist by the standards of his day. To label John Brown a terrorist is to view a 19th century militant abolitionist by 21st century standards. Whether or not John Brown’s use of violence during his abolitionist crusade was morally correct was and is a fair debate, but to label John Brown a terrorist is a presentist error that fails to address the reality that John Brown’s world and the present world are different, and it is invalid to label Brown a terrorist.

— Grady Atwater is the John Brown State Historic Site Administrator in Osawatomie, Kansas.  This article was originally published in The Osawatomie Graphic, 8 Aug. 2012, under the title, "Brown--Terrorist or Freedom Fighter?"   It is used by kind permission of the author.--Ed.

Forthcoming--

The Tubman-Brown Story in
3D Animation Film

Erden Zikibay

Congratulations to Erden Zikibay, a brilliant animation and graphics professional, who has recently completed his Masters of Fine Arts thesis, and is finishing his 3D animation film, "Wishful: The Story of Harriet Tubman and John Brown."  On his website, Zikibay.com, he describes his film:

"Based on the story of American militant abolitionist John Brown and his pre-Civil War attempt to start a slave liberation movement in the Southern United States, this film deals with the controversial themes of American history: race, religion, and revolution.  When is resistance to an oppressive rule justified? Can religion inspire both liberation and tyranny? Does the right to resist differ from one group to another?  And what meaning does the connection and mutual work of three friends, Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, and John Brown, have in the larger context of American and world history?"

We are looking forward to the completion of this film project and certainly appreciate Erden's efforts to use this medium to bring such a central story in U.S. history alive for contemporary viewers.

YouTube--

"The Old Man"

Kevin Fountain

History Note--

They Sang "John Brown"

"Late in the afternoon our scouts were driven in and sharp picket-firing was heard, at the same time a cloud of dust was seen coming down the road.  The colored troops immediately took arms and sang 'John Brown' for ten minutes in expectation of an attack. . . ."

Report of Col. Alonzo G. Draper, 36th U.S. Colored Troops, Point Lookout, Maryland, June 22, 1864

 "There are a number of good Colored families on the ground; most of whom I visited. I can think of no place where I think I would sooner go; all things considered than to live with those poor despised Africans to try, & encourage them; & show them a little so far as I am capable how to manage." 

John Brown, to his father, Owen Brown, January 10, 1849

Family Photo--

Mary Buster, Adair Family Descendant

Mary Buster, direct descendant of Florella Adair (half sister of John Brown) at the John Brown Photo Chronology exhibition opening July 27 at the Watkins Museum in Lawrence, Kansas. Photo by Judy Sweets, one of the authors of the exhibition catalog. 

Mary will be reenacting her ancestor at the Freedom Festival in Osawatomie on September 15th at 11:00 a.m.

--Jean Libby

Mary Buster with Brown portrait (Photo by Judy Sweets)

Osawatomie Notebook--
Atwater: John Brown was Sane and Just in an Age of Flagrant Racism

John Brown was, and is often accused of being “crazy,” and was declared to be insane primarily because he believed in the equality of African-Americans and European-Americans, and was willing to fight and die for the abolition of slavery during a historical era when African-Americans were regarded as subhuman by most European-Americans. . . .  The reality is that John Brown was a sane man who held a genuine belief that all people were equal in the eyes of God, and that African-Americans were entitled to social, legal and economic equality in the United States. Brown was a pioneer in the civil rights movement who was willing to act on his abolitionist beliefs, despite the disapproval of the majority of Americans during his lifetime.

Grady Atwater is the John Brown State Historic Site Administrator at Osawatomie, Kansas

Excerpted from Grady Atwater, “Shocking behavior was normal for Brown,” Osawatomie Graphic, 1 Aug. 2012.  Click here to read the entire article.

Historical Note-

Brown’s Flaws, and the Flaws of His Critics Too

Our friend, Grady Atwater, the administrator of the John Brown historic site in Osawatomie, Kansas, has written an interesting piece in the Osawatomie Graphic (July 18), providing a sympathetic but frank discussion about John Brown’s most famous character flaw, his domineering personality. 

I.  No Angel Wings

Atwater makes good use of a letter written by Brown’s Kansas associate, George B. Gill, to another Brown associate (and later biographer), Richard J. Hinton.  Gill’s letter, written on July 7, 1893 (held by the Kansas State Historical Society) provides a retrospective and criticism of Brown.  Pointing out that “a man is never a hero to his valet,” Gill wrote that “a person with good motives can be an imperfect person.”  Referring to Brown, he added that despite his ability to do great good, such a man might also “be personally absolutely offensive.”   Atwater continues:

Gill stated that John Brown was domineering and wrote, “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. . . .  He was intolerant in little things and 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 the cook and would not make coffee for them.”

Atwater likewise points out Gill’s observation that Brown could offend his most loyal followers, such as Aaron Stevens (who ultimately shared a jail cell with Brown at Charlestown, Va., and followed his leader to the gallows) sometimes raised “merry hell when the old man would get too dictatorial.”

Atwater concludes that “Brown was a human being and had faults and weaknesses like any other person,” and that he admitted that he had these domineering inclinations all of his life, and “worked to control that aspect of his personality all of his life.”  

II.  True Enough

Atwater is correct.  Brown’s sibling once referred to this attitude in him as “a king against whom there is no rising up,” and his life story includes episodes, great and small, of clashes with family members and associates.  He could be extremely hardheaded and despite his willingness to ask for advice, often decided to follow his own mind.  Atwater recognizes that “Brown’s detractors have sometimes utilized this as a means to discredit the sincerity of Brown’s abolitionist beliefs,” while pro-Brown writers have “glossed over this aspect of his personality or mollified it as part of his dedication to the abolitionist cause.”   Atwater concludes that despite the fact that John Brown’s personality could irritate some people, “his fealty to his abolitionist beliefs was genuine, and he was willing to fight and die for the abolitionist cause.”

It is important to recognize this trait in John Brown, for it is an essential element of his biography and, as Atwater recognizes, to overlook it is to misrepresent the man as he really was in his humanity.  It may also mean failing to recognize how this trait gave shape to various aspects of Brown’s life and work, sometimes for better and also for the worst.  Certainly, Brown’s critical delay at Harper’s Ferry was due in large part to this tendency to disregard what others said.  It is also true that he clashed with other leaders and colleagues at times.  The same George Gill elsewhere recalls how Brown insisted on being the cook for the whole company of his men and fugitives from slavery that he assisted in late 1858-early 1859 in going from Missouri to Canada.  Brown clashed repeatedly with Jane Harper, one of the liberated people, over food preparation and would not tolerate Harper’s insistence that she could cook better.  Apparently their feud, though somewhat comical, was real enough to display Brown’s imperious attitude in even small things.  In short, Brown was something of a control freak.  Many years ago, I asked the late Edwin Cotter Jr., longtime researcher on Brown and caretaker of the John Brown Farm in Lake Placid, N.Y., if he would want to meet the Old Man.  He surprised me when he said that he wouldn’t necessarily want to do so since Brown was so hard to get along with.   I don’t agree with that assessment, but I can understand Cotter’s point, even though I think it was a bit one-sided.

George B. Gill: His 1893 Description of
John Brown is Not Entirely Trustworthy
(Kansas State Historical Society #53529)

III.  Consider the Source

Notwithstanding the fact of Brown’s domineering ways, this is hardly sufficient in addressing the Gill reminiscence.  Nor should we let the description of Brown’s imperious, hardheaded manner stand by itself as the last word on his personal profile.

It is important to consider George Gill’s 1893 letter in which he made this blunt description of Brown.  The year in which it was written is important because it was written well over thirty years after Gill’s involvement with Brown in Kansas.  Recall that Gill was one of Brown’s Kansas freedom fighters and followed him as far as the Chatham convention in Ontario in May 1858.  But after Brown’s plans for the raid went awry due the betrayal of Hugh Forbes, Brown’s mercenary military advisor (and another hardheaded individual), his men were dispersed until the Virginia plan could be reactivated.  After this hiatus, however, some of Brown’s men, including Gill, did not rejoin him and were not participants in the Harper’s Ferry raid.

This hardly discredits Gill’s reminiscence overall, which is valuable to Brown’s biography.  Yet the fact that Gill’s remarks, as presented by Grady Atwater, were written in 1893 is important because apparently by this time the former had become somewhat jaded and resentful toward Brown as a result of his own personal evolution.  

IV.  Changes

It is obvious enough that often people change over time in general.  Over two or three decades, people may change politically, religiously, or in some other way.  Furthermore, there was a significant shift in the political sentiments of the United States from the Civil War era to the later part of the 19^th century.  Reconstruction fell prey to this shift, particularly as white society reassessed its priorities and decided that enough energy had been spent on black freedom.  As the old anti-slavery radicals and so-called “Black Republicans” began to disappear from the scene, others moved to the right.  Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, began as a utopian leftist and antislavery man in the antebellum era but after the Civil War his views shifted to accommodation to the changing priorities of white society.  Even the sentiments of John Brown’s surviving son, Salmon, became tainted with racist remarks in the early 20^th century.  It was in the later 19^th century that a number of Brown’s former allies in the free state movement also published screeds and attacks, denigrating his name and reputation.  It would be a mistake to read Gill’s 1893 remarks outside of this context.

V.  Gill's Agenda

While Gill did not later reassess his basic belief that John Brown was an antislavery hero, his sentiments were tainted with personal prejudice. As a matter of fact, Hinton, to whom Gill wrote his 1893 letter, recognized Gill’s prejudice.  Hinton even made editorial comments on this letter, pointing out that although Gill was honest, his view of John Brown was temperamental like him.  Hinton further pointed out that Gill was a Mason and did not believe in divine revelation.  In fact, he was agnostic and rationalistic (my source for this document is Katherine Mayo’s transcription in the George B. Gill folder, Box 8, John Brown – Oswald G. Villard Papers, Columbia University Rare Book and Manuscript Collection).  Actually, it seems that Gill had grown old and crotchety by 1893, and his ego and prejudice tended to color the way he portrayed Brown.  This is particularly true as it pertained to Brown’s religious views, which Gill came to despise.

For instance in the same 1893 letter, Gill castigates Brown’s “God idea,” by which he meant his belief in the God of the Bible, and the biblical idea that divine providence may raise up people for a special purpose.  In another section that Atwater does not quote, Gill recounts an episode when a pro-slavery thug (and probably a murderer) was captured by some of Brown’s men, apparently in Brown’s absence.  The thug was handed over to free state leader James Montgomery.  “Montgomery gave him a trial and he was released by general consent as not meriting punishment,” Gill recalled.  “When we returned Brown was furious because the man had not been shot.  His Calvinism and general organism would have treated Servetus as Calvin did.”

This is an interesting statement first because Gill, looking back nearly forty years, remembered Brown’s disgust when a man that he believed was guilty, was set free.  Since we do not have the full information on this case (Gill wasn’t even sure of the man’s name), we should not conclude that Brown was simply bloodthirsty.  Gill does not say that the man was not guilty, but that Montgomery’s drum court did not find him meriting punishment.  Brown evidently believed otherwise.  Since the drum trial took place in his absence, it may be that Brown had evidence that Montgomery did not know.  Regardless, this episode is harked by Gill quite conveniently to portray John Brown, as he put it, essentially as having been “vindictive in his nature.”

But notice that Gill’s own religious bias is working strongly in this old reminiscence.  He deliberately connects Brown’s desire to see the prisoner executed with his religion.  Gill quite pointedly associates a “vindictive nature” with Calvinism, and then compares this episode with the historical Reformation episode when the heretical physician Michael Servetus was burned to death in Geneva, Switzerland, which at the time was under the religious auspices of John Calvin.

VI.  Necessary Detour: Calvin and Servetus

For those unfamiliar with this latter episode, Servetus the heretic unfortunately lived before the time of “separation of church and state.”  In European societies, government and state religion were inseparable, a reality that often led to war, persecution, and executions.  Servetus was equally odious to Roman Catholics and Protestants because he did not believe in Trinitarian Christianity (historic catholicity).  In fact, Servetus was first sentenced to death for heresy by the Roman Catholic Church, but managed to escape.  While endeavoring to escape to Eastern Europe, he passed through Switzerland, where his identity became known in the Protestant city of Geneva.  Some historians have pointed out that Servetus was reckless in letting his identity be known within Geneva, and perhaps there was a measure of defiance in his failure to move through Geneva incognito.  He and Calvin had previous correspondence, so Servetus knew that making an audacious public appearance could jeopardize his life as much in a Protestant city as in a Roman Catholic city.   When Servetus was apprehended, he was a prisoner of the Genevan authorities, not John Calvin.  The charge against him was not heresy but treason, since Geneva was a Protestant city-state by constitution.  We should be reminded that freedom of religion and “separation of church and state” did not exist in either Protestant or Roman Catholic states.  Although Calvin finally approved of Servetus’ execution, the Reformer tried to win over the heretic, and failing to do so, sought to see his capital punishment commuted.  Calvin has often been blamed for Servetus’ death, but the heretic’s death was not in his hands since he was an enemy of the state.

I have gone on this detour of history to point out that many people, even to this day, tend to blame Calvin for Servetus’ death, as if Servetus was Calvin’s victim.  If Calvin finally approved of Servetus’ execution, he did not initially press for it, nor was it in his hands to kill or save him.  In fact, Servetus fell prey to a real political crisis: the most fervent “Calvinists” in Geneva actually wanted to spare Servetus as a way of sticking it to the Roman Catholic Church, since Servetus would have been killed by the Roman church had he not escaped.  Other Protestants in Geneva felt that to spare Servetus was to allow heresy to go unpunished, and would prove deleterious to the reputation of the Reformation in Switzerland.  By all accounts, what to do with Servetus was no easy issue, and it is absolutely unfair to pin his death on Calvin alone.

VII.  Not at Face Value

Furthermore, “Calvinism” in the context of John Brown is typically represented as a distorted, angry, and dysfunctional religion based upon a cruel and angry God.  Most of Brown’s biographers have failed to correctly describe Calvinism, especially in describing Brown’s expression of it.  Even celebrated biographies by writers like Oates fail to correctly explain Brown’s Calvinistic evangelicalism by describing it in skewed, distorted ways. This is exactly how George Gill treats Brown in his 1893 letter to Hinton.  He accuses Brown of having a “vindictive nature” and then makes the flawed and forced comparison with Calvin and Servetus, when it is neither historically nor theologically sound. 

George Gill’s description of Brown thus cannot be taken at face value.  Our friend Grady Atwater does a good job of pointing out that Brown is distinguished for his loyalty to the struggle for justice, whatever else were his personal flaws.  I agree, except that he does not critically evaluate Gill’s remarks.  (Atwater is not alone in this oversight, since Stauffer and Trodd did the same thing with this document.)  In short, Gill was in Kansas with Brown in the 1850s and his 1893 statement is important, but it must be received critically and carefully.  Gill despised Brown’s evangelical Christian faith, belittled his belief in the Bible, and disdained his Calvinistic heritage in particular.  Gill was also an ardent Mason and Brown left the Masonic Lodge in the 1830s and was always highly critical of the worthy brotherhood and made no secret of his contempt of the Lodge.  So it is understandable why an older, jaded, and resentful Gill would provide a tainted portrayal of Brown in 1893.

VIII.  Gill: An Earlier Reminiscence

If anyone doubts this criticism, then consider that earlier reminiscences of Brown by Gill also exist.  In the Villard Collection at Columbia University, for instance, there is a transcript of Gill’s description of Brown made somewhat earlier, around the 1870s.  In this earlier statement, Gill described Brown accordingly: “Tenacious of his own opinions and purposes, yet liberal and tolerant towards the opinions of others, justice was the cornerstone of all his thoughts and theories, kindness was the prevailing characteristic of the man.”  Gill even recalled that once while camping at Little Sugar, in Linn County, Kansas, Brown shared the little food that he had with a hungry dog that was hanging around the camp because, with Brown, “all living things had a right to comfort and humane treatment."  Writing earlier, Gill pointed out that Brown rejected the Masonic order because he believed brotherhood embraced the whole human race, "both bond and free."  Finally, Gill concluded:  “No man was ever more averse to giving pain then he was, yet [if] it was necessary in the interests of justice to do so, could cut a man's head off, without disturbing in the least his own nervous equilibrium.” ("Testimony of Geo. B. Gill; What was his general appearance and what [sic] his characteristics," in George B. Gill folder, Box 8, Villard Papers)

"Justice was the cornerstone of all his thoughts and theories, kindness was the prevailing characteristic of the man.”

These words are distinctly different from Gill’s later resentful and biased reminiscence of 1893.  In the 1870s, Gill made a fair evaluation of Brown’s ability to strike the guilty without flinching, and even pointed out that despite his personal gentility, the abolitionist could strike down another man in the interests of justice.  This is certainly what happened in the Pottawatomie killings of 1856, when Brown led his men to kill five pro-slavery conspirators intent upon doing harm to his family and other free state people.  Yet Gill’s earlier—and more honest—treatment of Brown bears none of his 1893 anti-Christian and pro-Masonic bias, nor was it framed in the cultural reversals that characterized white society in the late 19^th century when other of Brown’s associates betrayed his memory.

Conclusion

George Gill’s reminiscences of Brown are very important and should be used wholistically as a valuable historical resource.  But taken as a whole, they reveal that George Gill himself, not John Brown, had the more vindictive character; his 1893 reminiscence alone cannot be trusted.