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.

From the Field-- 

"SOUTHERN SMOKE": THOUGHTS ON LUKE, DIXIE, HAYWARD AND THE BACKWARDS ENGINE HOUSE

                                                by H. Scott Wolfe *

         As promised in your faithful correspondent’s posting of April [27th] 2011, I recently returned to Harpers Ferry National Historic Park for my annual inspection tour.

The celebrated Dr. DeCaro's book in the
window of the Harpers Ferry bookstore
(photo by the celebrated Dr. DeCaro)

            Customarily, my first stop is the park bookstore on Shenandoah Street…where I sprint to the “John Brown shelf” to make sure that ample copies of Fire From the Midst of You are displayed for sale. (There were several.) I then, nonchalantly, amble to the checkout counter, where I discretely inform the clerks that I am personally acquainted with Dr. Louis DeCaro, Jr., celebrated author of that aforementioned volume. And then, finally, I retreat to a distant corner of the shop, where I eagerly absorb their admiring glances. This exercise never fails to elevate my self-esteem.

The view from the balcony, with the "Secret Six 

Tavern" menu (photo by H. Scott Wolfe)

            My next stop was the “Secret Six Tavern” on High Street…for having, earlier in the day, marched many miles on the Antietam battlefield, my stomach was growling louder than the report of a Sharps rifle on the plains of eastern Kansas. The weather being quite fine, we were escorted to their outdoor seating…a wooden balcony overlooking the now restored Harpers Ferry railroad station.

            After ordering a pint of dark beer, (necessary for proper brain function), I set to the momentous task of deciding between the “Union Burger” or the “Confederate Burger” as my luncheon entrée. As a native Wisconsinite with abolitionist tendencies, I felt compelled to order the former. And while awaiting its delivery from the crematorium, we amused ourselves by gazing at the flocks of Harpers Ferry vultures (this is NOT a metaphor) hovering over Maryland and Loudoun Heights…and by commiserating with the occupants of vehicles unable to find parking spaces on Potomac Street below.

            And then I noticed it…a sizable knot of people at the base of a nearby stairway…all closely examining what appeared to be a gray granite monument.

            “Do you remember that stone down there?,” I inquired of my bitter half. I heard only a subdued mumble, for she was half buried in her Grecian salad.

            “I’m going to have to check it out,” a ketchup-daubed strand of raw onion waving merrily as I spoke.

            Following our repast, we headed for the monument in question. Of course we passed the nearby “John Brown Wax Museum,” the Old Man still peering, gun in hand, through the gauzy curtains in the front window. I am convinced that this place has been in business since well before October of 1859. I once patronized it…many moons ago…and can still remember Brown’s motorized neck muscles (needing a bit of oil), as he strained to see me prior to mounting the scaffold. To this very day I still reflect upon this visit…especially when I take the car in for servicing.

            We had soon descended to Potomac Street…and there it was! Something novel since my last sojourn! It was, indeed, a brand-spanking-new memorial…placed ever so strategically between the bright red and yellow baggage car of the “Southern Smoke BBQ and Grill” and two green waste barrels. The historical ambience was most impressive. It was the monument to Private Luke Quinn…casualty of the U.S. Marine assault upon “John Brown’s Fort.” (See on this blog the posting entitled: “The Unlucky Irishman Gets a Monument.” [16 Jun. 2011)

The monument to Private Luke Quinn

(photo by H. Scott Wolfe)

            Of course, the monument to Private Quinn is nowhere near the site of his fatal wounding…that spot sits beneath thirty feet of B&O railroad fill. But I did take personal comfort in the fact that it reposes quite near its namesake…”Private Quinn’s Pub”…a local establishment dedicated to pious libation and intellectual discussion. “Cheers, Private Quinn!”

            The memorial itself is quite substantial…a 7-foot, 3,500 pound mass of polished granite…which now resides on “a spit of donated land abutting the sidewalk on Potomac Street.” Upon its face, standing at parade rest, is the image of a generic mid-19^th century U.S. Marine…and, upon the base, is inscribed a brief biographical sketch of Private Quinn…which is a full 94% correct. (His birth year of 1835 is mistakenly given as his year of immigration to the United States.)

            This monument was the brainchild of local military veterans, led by James L. “Dixie” Wiltshire…himself a U.S. Marine during the Korean conflict. (An interesting note: The foreman of the jury that convicted John Brown was a gentleman named John C. Wiltshire.) The granite was donated by a Martinsburg, West Virginia firm…and the Harpers Ferry/Bolivar area veterans raised more than $2,800 toward its creation. But despite their spirited efforts, these warriors encountered a problem…that being: Where shall we locate our igneous ode to Private Quinn?

            “I went to the Park Service first, and then I went to the Town Council, but I was turned down both places,” said “Dixie.” Harpers Ferry Mayor Jim Addy suggested that the monument be “placed on the hill where the engine house stood during the raid” (that is, the “hill” created later by the B&O railroad). This plan was squelched by Park Superintendent Rebecca Harriett, who, in classic bureaucracy-speak, declared that “the monument’s design would not fit in with the planned transformation of the site where Brown’s fort stood and its proposed cultural landscape.” She went on to say that “placing a monument on Federal park property is a very involved process,” and “would also need the permission of the Director of the National Park Service.”

            Poor Ms. Harriett. She is caught in a troublesome pickle. The truth is that the last thing the National Park Service wants at Harpers Ferry is the installation of another memory of John Brown’s raid…particularly one relating to the killing of a United States Marine. And doubly so, in this day and age, when the powers that be seek to conjure up a terrorist on every citizen’s doorstep. It’s enough to give a Park Superintendent a nightmare…a really scary one…consisting of a shimmering image, properly illuminated by a raging thunderstorm, of the monument to Hayward Shepherd.

            We all know Hayward Shepherd, the free black/Harpers Ferry baggageman, who was the tragic first casualty of Brown’s incursion. Back in the 1930s, a monument in his memory was erected on Potomac Street…a mere couple of blocks from Private Quinn. This chunk of gray granite was championed by the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Its inscription recognizes Shepherd, “an industrious and respected colored freeman,” who was “mortally wounded by John Brown’s raiders in pursuance of his duties as an employee of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company.”

The monument to Hayward Shepherd

(photo by H. Scott Wolfe)

            It is a memorial to the subservient Negro, whose idyllic life was shattered by the Civil War and the issuance of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. Its purpose: “exemplifying the character and faithfulness of thousands of negroes who, under many temptations through subsequent years of war, so conducted themselves that no stain was left upon a record which is the peculiar heritage of the American people.” A “peculiar heritage” all right….as in “peculiar institution.”

            The NAACP launched a protest and W.E.B. DuBois penned an inscription for a “counter-monument:”

Here/John Brown/Aimed at human slavery/A Blow/That woke a guilty nation./With him fought/Seven slaves and sons of slaves/And 4,000,000 freemen/Singing/”John Brown’s body lies a mouldering in the grave/But his Soul goes marching on!/In gratitude this Tablet is erected/The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People/May 21, 1932

            The Hayward Shepherd monument was briefly removed during the 1980s, “during renovations.” But as they say in the movies: “It’s ba-a-a-a-ck!”…and the controversy continues. During the Sesquicentennial of Brown’s Raid in 2009, a press release, issued by The Army of Northern Virginia--Sons of Confederate Veterans, announced that they would hold their annual meeting at “the Block House” (John Brown’s Fort). The purpose of the gathering was “to announce that October 16 will be known as HAYWARD SHEPHERD DAY, honoring the unfortunate black citizen who met his death as John Brown’s first victim 150 years ago…murdered in furtherance of John Brown’s nefarious scheme to capture the arsenal in that famous city.” A “Mr. Richard Hines, a well-known historian from Alexandria, Virginia” was to “discuss the real John Brown.” The release ended by noting that: “Many today try to whitewash Brown’s crimes and call him a martyr. Mr. Hines will discuss Brown’s true motivations…”

Wax recreation of the dying Hayward Shepherd 

at the John Brown Wax Museum 

(RoadsideAmerica.com)

            Does Park Superintendent Harriett want to replay this record by erecting a memorial to a slain Marine within the bounds of her bailiwick? I think not. It’s enough to give a bureaucrat the heebie-jeebies.

*****

            In my posting which followed last year’s visit to Harpers Ferry, I expressed the personal belief…and received some critical comments thereby…that the National Historic Park at that place seeks to minimize its interpretation of Brown’s raid in favor of a varied array of less controversial topics. In light of the positioning of the monument to Private Quinn, I hold to my original opinion.

The "backwards" John Brown's Fort

(photo by H. Scott Wolfe)

            Really…when you think about it…how is John Brown and “The Raid” represented at Harpers Ferry National Historic Park?  There is the Hayward Shepherd monument. There is the old “John Brown’s Fort” obelisk set atop the railroad embankment. And, of course, there is “The John Brown Story,” the small museum which, like most of its contemporaries, contains a handful of artifacts…along with the ubiquitous video screens and interactive toys deemed essential for the edification of our suburban youth.

            And then there is the peripatetic Engine House itself…reduced in size, having shed several museum cabinets-full of souvenir bricks…its bell residing, since 1892, in Marlborough, Massachusetts…and the entire structure, unbeknownst to most park visitors, inexplicably reconstructed BACKWARDS. After its long, historic journey…from the armory grounds…to Chicago’s Columbian Exposition…to the pasture of the Murphy Farm…to the campus of Storer College…it now unabashedly stands near the Harpers Ferry “Point,” a reversed image of its true self.  The “true John Brown’s Fort” can only be viewed by female visitors…their backs to the building…while adjusting their makeup and peering into their pocket mirrors.

            The backwards Engine House. Now this IS a metaphor…for the interpretation of John Brown at Harpers Ferry… and perhaps for the century-and-a-half of historical and biographical writing since the rope tightened around his neck at Charlestown.

            Sleep well, Superintendent Harriett…Private Quinn is beyond the boundary, awash in “Southern Smoke.”

Note: In regard to the creation of the monument to Private Luke Quinn, I have quoted several items first appearing in the Hagerstown (MD) Herald-Mail. Also, I failed to say that the “Union Burger” was quite tasty.

History Comes Alive: July 4, 2012, the bellicose Col. Wolfe

accomplishes his annual task of firing the Civil War 

cannon in Galena's Grant Park. Huzzah!

* 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.

Note This--

"We Know Better Now": Wendell Phillips Remembers John Brown in 1863

In 1859, Wendell Phillips eulogized John Brown at the time of his burial at Brown's Adirondack farm near Lake Placid, N.Y.  Four years later, when the nation was in the midst of civil war, he spoke at the Cooper Union in New York City.  In that speech he invoked Brown once again. . .

"Four years ago this month I had the honor to assist in giving the body of John Brown to the keeping of the hills he loved.  Selfishness, which calls itself Conservatism, sneered at his life as a ridiculous failure, and some men who called themselves his friends, excused his attempt on the ground that he was a lunatic.  We know better now."

Wendell Phillips, Cooper Union Speech, Dec. 22, 1863, from Pittsburgh Gazette, 25 Dec. 1863, p. 2.

In Memoriam--
Remembering Ralph Libby

We are saddened to note the death of Ralph Libby, scholar, reference librarian, husband, and father, on  June 17, 2012.  Ralph was the husband of our dear friend Jean Libby, one of our preeminent John Brown documentary scholars.  His obituary, published on Palo Alton online, is reproduced below.  On behalf of the entire John Brown community, we extend our sincerest condolences to Jean and her family at this time of bereavement.--LD  

Ralph Libby, 88, veteran of World War II and Palo Alto reference librarian for more than 35 years, died in his beloved home in Palo Alto after long illness.  Born in Los Angeles on March 7, 1924, he was the youngest of four brothers born to Albert and Anna Murphy Libby of Massachusetts. The family moved to Boston during the Depression, then returned to northern California in 1936, where Ralph was the president of the Class of 1941 at Vallejo High School. He served in the 3185th Signal Corps Battalion in the Army of the United States from 1943 to 1946; with European Theater service in Antwerp as Message Center Chief.

Ralph earned a degree in History at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1950. He was a librarian at the Washington Post in the 1950s, where the editorial cartoonist Herblock regularly consulted him for researched facts and ideas. He earned a Master's of Library Science at Indiana University in 1959, returning to California and work at Stanford University until 1965, when he became a reference librarian at the City of Palo Alto until final retirement as a part-time librarian in 2002.
Ralph mentored many present librarians with the fine points of reference service, and was eagerly sought by generations of students and teachers for his thorough answers. One of professional contributions is the original Palo Alto Newspaper Index, which is now online.

He enjoyed classical music, literature, mystery novels and films. His passionate interest from childhood was collecting stamps, giving him a firm grounding in world geography that never lagged. Ralph enjoyed cheering the UC teams, wearing his California Bears tie during Big Game week each year. There are several UCB graduates among his family who Ralph supported and advised through university, including his wife Jean, who attended and graduated with two of the couple's three children in the mid-1980s.

Jean Titus and Ralph Libby met when both were employed at the Stanford University Libraries. They married in the fall of 1961, living in Palo Alto since 1964. Ralph Libby is also survived by their son, Thomas Laurence Libby (wife Nalini) in San Francisco; daughter, Clare Loops (husband Gregory) in London; daughter, Beth Libby in Henderson, Nev.; and four grandchildren. His sister-in-law, Madge Libby, and several of his late brother Thomas James Libby's descendants live in the Napa and Sacramento area, and attended Ralph's family burial at the Sacramento Valley National Cemetery on June 21, 2012. At his request, the military honors service did not include the firing of guns.
Ralph Libby's formal associations include the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the Democratic Party, a life member of the University of California Alumni, and the South Bay Civil War Round Table.

A community memorial gathering will be held Thursday, June 28, at 2 p.m. at the Woman's Club of Palo Alto, 475 Homer Ave., Palo Alto.

Photo Pretendere:
A Note from H. Scott Wolfe, Our Man in the Field

My Dear Sir:

Thank you for alerting the public of the bogus John Brown image...said to have been taken three days prior to his execution. As I have before stated to you, I possess an extensive photo collection...including the world's largest collection of black and white images of rainbows. I also possess the attached image of John Brown, taken in his cell at the Charles Town jail on December 1, 1859...the day prior to his untimely demise. 

The Old Man
(H. Scott Wolfe Collection)

As my prior posts amply show, my historical reliability is impeccable.

From the Field,

H. Scott Wolfe, Esq.

Editor's remarks: Along with my readers, I am most grateful to H. Scott Wolfe for sharing this extremely rare image of the Old Man with his famous beard.  With any luck, this image too will end up for sale on eBay as yet another great tintype of John Brown.--LD  

Photo Contendere, Again--
Another "John Brown" Fake for Sale on eBay

Readers may recall a blog entry from Dec. 11, 2011, which featured an eBay sale of some 19th century daguerreotypes purported to be images of John Brown and his family.  Clearly the images were NOT of Brown and his family.   Now, a reader has been kind enough to notify me that yet another so-called John Brown image has surfaced for sale, once more on eBay.  The image of an old man is presented as "Rare Pre Civil War Tintype of John Brown Abolitionast" [sic].

The eBay seller also writes under the description section: "You are bidding on a RARE PRE CIVIL WAR TINTYPE OF JOHN BROWN.  This is one of a few tintypes I have had authenticated.  Like the other tintypes I got them from a lady in southern Missouri.  Money Back Guarantee!!  100%  authentic!!"

Wow.  A "lady in southern Missouri"?  "Rare pre-Civil War tintype"?  "100% Authentic"?

Even Robert E. Lee would tell you that the old man in this "pre-Civil War tintype" is not John Brown the abolitionist.  He doesn't even look like our man Brown, bearing not the slightest resemblance except for the long white beard.  Even more ludicrous is the verso label that reads: "John Brown Picture 1859 Last Picture Take[n] 3 Day[s] Before hanging  father of Civil War"!  Of course, no such photographic image was made of Brown prior to his hanging.  Unfortunately there was not even a life sketch made of Brown in jail three days prior to his execution.  The whole thing is bogus.

However, if anyone is actually stupid enough to buy this last so-called John Brown father of the Civil War tintype, here are some other pictures of "John Brown" that might also interest them for their collection!

John Brown, oil painting
in his favorite bathrobe

John Brown, sketch
made with nifty cap

John Brown, color
daguerreotype 1858

The Old Tannery Farm on Hines Hill Road, Hudson, Ohio
(Source: John Brown, Citizen of Kent)

Old Tannery Farm was once the home of John Brown

The historic site on Hines Hill Road was once the home of the controversial abolitionist, John Brown, and the location of his tannery business.  The home, built in 1824, was originally a 28 square foot base with four rooms downstairs and four rooms up. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and thought by some to have been a stop on the Underground Railroad.

Original bricks from Brown's tannery
(Photo by L. DeCaro, Jr., 2009)

Through the years the present house has accommodated three major additions.  "John Brown would not recognize, nor would he approve this house," the homeowner said.  The homeowner has blended the old with the new combining family heirlooms with newer purchases.  Visitors to the home pass through a foyer with an archive of John Brown information and comments from the numerous visitors, which the owner graciously accommodates. The foyer wallpaper, designed by Candace Sveda Interiors, features images from an 1875 Hudson atlas. The foyer was originally a porch and later enclosed.

Vestiges of Brown's tannery now
line the property (L. DeCaro, Jr. photo)

The warm, inviting contemporary living room at the back of the home offers a tranquil view of the gardens and outbuildings. A door, placed between two bay windows, leads to a large raised patio constructed with the stones that came from the foundation of Brown's old tannery.  The original tannery, destroyed in 1872, is now the site of the picnic house, which was built with salvaged wood.

Excerpted from Dorothy Markulis, "Hudson Home and Garden Tour: Old Tannery Farm was once the home of John Brown."  Hudson HubTimes.com (10 Jun. 2012)

Note This--
"The First Effectual Blow": Douglass on Brown


"[John Brown] believes the Declaration of Independence to be true, and the Bible to be a guide to human conduct, and acting upon the doctrines of both, he threw himself against the serried ranks of American oppression, and translated into heroic deeds the love of liberty and hatred of tyrants with which he was inspired from both these forces acting upon his philanthropic and heroic soul.  This age is too gross and sensual to appreciate his deeds, and so calls him mad; but the future will write his epitaph upon the hearts of a people freed from slavery because he struck the first effectual blow.”

Source: “Undisguised, Outspoken Abolitionism,” New York Herald (21 Nov. 1859), p. 2, relayed from “The Reign of Terror in the South,” Frederick Douglass’ Paper (11 Nov. 1859).

Note This:
Heroes Come in Wholes


"[I]f John Brown's case teaches us one lesson, it's that heroes come in wholes. Success makes some of the difference; moral luck plays a role. But we can control quite a lot of the character that takes a lifetime to build. Had John Brown's life been less than exemplary, we'd be queasier about admiring his willingness to leave it."


Susan Neiman, "What Makes a Moral Hero?"  ABC Religion and Ethics (6 June 2012)

iNotes:
Information Communication from Jean Libby

Podcast on African American History

Lesley Gist has pioneered communication of African American histories, and herstories, using webcast interview and slide shows on twice-weekly webcasts under the general title Antique Radio Show.  Recently the programs are collected in a library on iTunes:
 http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/gist-freedom-preserving-american/id491950048

Lesley is a descendant of William Still and has extensively researched the Underground Railroad associations of her family using this classic as a matrix.  She travels the Eastern Corridor to interview and participate in African American events.  These podcasts are noncommercial and may be downloaded from iTunes without fees.  I recommend the one on Black Civil War Physicians and Nurses for immediate enlightenment and enjoyment.

"WebTalk Radio" Presents Underground Railroad Interviews

Tom Calarco, author of People of the Underground Railroad, a Biographical Dictionary (Greenwood Press 2009), is doing webcast interviews focusing on the  Underground Railroad:

Allies for Freedom editor Jean Libby is featured recently talking about John Brown with Mick Konowal, who is now the owner of the 1853 Sharps rifle belonging to Dauphin Thompson.  It was in the family of the U.S. Marine officer who captured it, Major William Worthington, for 153 years.  They had not discovered the secret inscription "ANNIE" under the sling barrel.  Konowal, a senior attorney at Microsoft Corporation in Washington State and serious history enthusiast (complete with Museum Specialist credentials) found it there, along with Dauphin Thompson's name and that of his sister Bell, the wife of Watson Brown.  Our interview is posted, as well as that of John Brown scholars Norman Dann and Bryan and Shannon Prince of the Buxton (Canada) Historical Society.  http://webtalkradio.net/shows/from-slavery-to-freedom/

Pictures and the story of the African welcome for Dauphin Thompson's rifle from an event at the Sunnyvale Public Library in California on March 7, 2012 are posted at: http://www.alliesforfreedom.org/Santa_Clara_County_Civil_War.html

Jean Libby www.alliesforfreedom.org

New and Notable:

"Confederate Truths": New Website Exposes the Realities of the Confederacy and Neo-Confederate Movement

The Confederate Truths web site, in association with the Winter Institute, is an Internet extension of the book, The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: "The Great Truth" about The "Lost Cause," edited by James W. Loewen and Edward H. Sebesta, and published by the University Press of Mississippi. On this web site you can learn the truth about the Confederacy and Neo-Confederacy.

Undoubtedly, this is going to prove an extremely valuable resource in debunking the racist mythology surrounding the Confederacy as a noble and heroic movement.  The site is loaded with information.  One example is provided on the "Reconstruction and Fusion" link, where Gen. Robert E. Lee's real colors show in an episode where he tells a Col. Carter that in order to save money, he should get ride of the ninety black laborers on his farm, including women and children, because the government would take care of them.  “I have always observed that wherever you find the negro," Lee declared, "everything is going down around him, and wherever you find the white man, you see everything around him improving.”

As noted, Confederate Truths is a companion to the Loewen and Sebesta book, The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader.   We are pleased to learn about this resource and look forward to using it, and recommending it to the readers of this blog.

Confederate Truths: Documents of the Confederate & Neo-Confederate Tradition from 1787 to the Present http://www.confederatepastpresent.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=53

Harriet Tubman URR Conference, June 1-2

The Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad Conference is ready to go with great

speakers and workshops.  The conference is June 1-2 at Chesapeake College -

Cambridge Branch in Cambridge Maryland.  Program begins with a light lunch

on Friday, June 1st at 12 noon, Celebration dinner Friday evening and Workshops all day Saturday, June 2nd.  Tours are available Thursday, May

31st and Friday AM, June 1st.  For schedule/speakers/tour and other details

check our website:  www.tubmanugrr.net.  Details are under the menus at the top of the page.  If you have questions, contact Ellen Mousin at

410-228-1064 or email: jaronson@bluecrab.org.

Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad Conference Info.:

Phone:   410-228-1064

Mobile:  410-463-0694

Email:    jaronson@bluecrab.org

Website:  www.tubmanugrr.net

Getting Bob’s Goat--

Professor Greene Hates John Brown—But Why?

These days, it is always a point of annoyance when ill read, ignorant idiots with no sense of history take to bashing John Brown on the Internet.  Typically this type functions from family and community prejudices, mixed with a smattering of skewed facts and information amounting to cultural hearsay.  They are easily dismissed and more easily ignored.  If one takes time to swat every one of these flies, it only takes up valuable time better spent on research.  But it is quite another thing when knowledgeable, well respected, and learned scholars engage in anti-Brown vitriol.  When scholars, especially historians, make it their ambition to attack John Brown, their credentials and professional authority tend to add weight to their caustic remarks, even if they are as malignant and unworthy as those coming from Internet trolls.

Introducing Dr. Bob

Recently, the latter case has become evident in the person of Professor John Robert Greene, who apparently prefers being called “Bob.”  Bob Greene’s published vita is impressive: he is the Paul J. Schupf Professor of History and Humanities and Professor of History and Government, and Director of the Social Sciences Program at Cazenovia College “a small, independent, coeducational college offering baccalaureate programs in the liberal arts and professional studies” in Cazenovia, New York.  He is also the college archivist.  Bob Greene has a Ph.D. from Syracuse University and is a veteran professor, having taught at Cazenovia College for over thirty years.  By all accounts, he specializes in U.S. political history and is an authority on the U.S. Presidency, and seems to be an expert on Republican presidents.  He is the winner of numerous awards and undoubtedly deserves such recognition, given such a long and distinguished career, which includes having been a “talking head” on various television programs and documentaries.  He’s even a Knight of Columbus.

Dr. Bob: That "F"'n John Brown 

But Bob has a problem, and it’s called John Brown.  Based on what I have heard, Bob hates John Brown, and it really gets his goat when anyone says anything nice about him.  In fact, Bob is one of these academics who will use literally any moment of opportunity to attack the Abolitionist.  By his own admission, he gives John Brown the "F" grade every chance he gets.

Clearly, Dr. Bob knows little in reality about John Brown, except for what he’s read from all the wrong sources

In 2007, I was honored to be selected as the presenter of John Brown’s induction into the National Abolition Hall of Fame (NAHOF), and was happy to stand in support and defense of his place in that wonderful establishment honoring the freedom loving men and women who fought against chattel slavery in the United States.  However, I understand from NAHOF’s founder and director, Dot Willsey, who informed me by correspondence, “Dr. Greene gave NAHOF ‘an F’ for inducting Brown in 2007.”  I recall hearing about this failing grade from Dr. Bob, but disregarded it at the time.  I have come to learn that the “F” given by Dr. Bob apparently was given as part of his role as a panelist on “The Ivory Tower,” an educational television show broadcast on WCNY in Syracuse, N.Y., a PBS affiliate station. According to Willsey, “individual NAHOF board members responded to Greene in 2007,” but he did not have the courtesy to reply.  His snubbing of responses from NAHOF members seems to suggest Dr. Bob is stubbornly ensconced in his opinion of Old Brown, and may not want his opinions to be troubled by the facts of history.   Not a particularly flattering profile, given the man’s credentials.

More recently, Dr. Bob let another one blow, once again on “The Ivory Tower” program, broadcast on April 20, 2012, which you may observe below.  I have provided a link to the WCNY website and this episode here, but readers should note that none of the program discussion pertains to John Brown—only the half-minute toward the end of the program when Dr. Bob gets to hand out his “grade," which you can see below.   

Of course, Dr. Bob has given out another “F,” this one provoked by the Gerrit Smith Estate National Historic Landmark organization sending out E-mailed information regarding the John Brown Day 2012,  which was held in Lake Placid, N.Y.   What really got Bob’s goat is that the E-mail referred to the John Brown Farm (where the Abolitionist and most of his Harper's Ferry raiders are interred) as “a sacred shrine, a place of conscience.”  Then, drawing from his vast knowledge of antebellum history and Brown biography, Dr. Bob says of Brown—“. . .who, on his own, carved up six kids, and threw their bodies in the Pottawatomie Creek.”    Then he concludes, “If we’re going to have a sacred shrine for this terrorist, maybe we ought to have sacred shrines for other terrorists as well.”

First, I've got to say that the video scared me--scared me for Dr. Bob.  He really needs to relax and (like we tell our six-year-old) take a woosa.  Breathe, Dr. Bob.  You’ll have plenty of opportunity to bash John Brown.  For you it’s a lifetime endeavor.

Second, Dr. Bob’s remark, that John Brown, “on his own, carved up six kids,” almost made me split a gut.  I actually had to laugh because this is exactly the kind of thing that happens when anti-Brown rhetoric is spewed by academics--only they usually do it with academic flourish and rigmarole, typically in serious discussions about terrorism and political violence, and so forth.  In essence, Dr. Bob did the same thing by presenting a distorted caricature of Brown’s role as a so-called "terrorist."  But he did so like an angry schoolboy, with skewed facts and all.

Of course, we are accustomed to the manner in which people often make a beeline to the Pottawatomie killings of May 1856

Of course, we are accustomed to the manner in which people often make a beeline to the Pottawatomie killings of May 1856.  Almost everyone who knows John Brown’s name knows about the Pottawatomie killings—as if the only thing that he did was kill five people in Kansas and then mess up at Harper’s Ferry.  This tendency is not only typical of popular presentations, but tends to characterize the one-sided commentary of journalists, writers, and historians who present the incident as a terrorist episode.  The unfortunate “John Brown’s Holy War” video of PBS fame does this, and despite claims to the contrary, Tony Horwitz’s recent portrayal of the episode hardly improves on the subject, especially since he chooses to overlook what other historians have written about the Pottawatomie killings in favor of a less sympathetic interpretation of the incident.   What we do know about the Pottawatomie killings is that the five men killed were acting as agents of invading proslavery terrorists and intended to bring down a violent assault upon the Brown family.  We know that Brown and other free state people became aware of their plot, that Brown made careful investigation  (even surveillance) of the suspects, and confirmed their plot.  Finally, we know that there was no recourse to protection from local or federal law enforcement in May 1856; the territory was in a state of war and what authorities were in the territory tended to support the invading proslavery interests.  Brown and others knew this and made a crisis decision to knock out these conspirators before they made good their intentions.  No other proslavery men were killed other than the ones proven as conspirators. 

Clearly, Dr. Bob knows little in reality about John Brown, except for what he’s read from all the wrong sources.  In all fairness, he seems to have wanted to say that John Brown and his men, acting independently, killed five men—not six, and not “kids,” as all five of the men that were killed were adults, two of them being young adults.  Dr. Bob is wrong, too, that the bodies of these men were thrown in the Pottawatomie Creek.  No bodies were thrown into the creek.

Lastly, it’s significant that Dr. Bob is so smug and dismissive of Brown, calling him a “terrorist.”  This is the part where Bob is less laughable and more disgusting, because his prejudice shows as contempt, even hatred.  He shows himself mean-spirited and harsh, and he hands out a failing “grade” like some bloated, self-important Pharisee.  Here is a man with no evident knowledge or research on John Brown under his belt, no specialization in the subject, except perhaps in some aspects of Lincoln studies.

He shows himself mean-spirited and harsh, and he hands out a failing “grade” like some bloated, self-important Pharisee

But Dr. Bob’s vita probably serves us here.  This is a man who has spent most of his professional career studying right-wing Presidential administrations, including that of the regretful presidency of George W. Bush.  His head is full of Nixon, Ford, and Bush, and perhaps this life-long inclination has dulled his senses toward the history of actual leaders of human rights and liberation movements.  Of course, just because a man studies racially prejudiced and mediocre historical figures does not mean he thinks like them.  But it is a point that must be considered, that Dr. Bob’s contempt for John Brown is not simply the result of a simplistic prejudice.  He is too smart and talented to hate the Old Man because he watched one bad television documentary.  It is more likely that what’s got Dr. Bob’s goat is a deep seated political prejudice--or at least an instinct toward contempt of things that run against the grain of the political landscape that he adores. 

Dr. Bob has a comfortable place for himself at a fine school, and I wish him the best throughout the duration of his long service.  However, I take comfort in the fact that Dr. Bob has a finite number of “F”s to hand out before he too becomes part of history--another folder in the school archives.  Before he is finally filed away himself, I hope that Dr. Bob will awaken to the realities of history as well as the movement of historical currents away from old, white supremacist interpretation of John Brown and toward an understanding of the past where we actually regret oppression and value the men and women who fought against prejudice and racism.  The future is represented in NAHOF’s understanding of the past, not in George W. Bush’s reading of the present.  If Dr. Bob fails to apprehend this fact, it will be his legacy that is ultimately graded "F."

No, Dr. Bob: John Brown’s Farm is a shrine to freedom and a place of conscience. But one has to have a real historical conscience and a love for freedom to realize it. 

Cranky Yankees?--

Connecticut Republicans Debate John Brown

Ricky Campbell, a journalist for the Register Citizen, a publication in Torrington, Connecticut, has recently reported that the Republicans in Connecticut are divided over history--that is, over John Brown.  Apparently, in 1860 a resolution was passed by Republicans in that state that, according to Campbell, "indirectly condemns Torrington’s own John Brown."1

At present, Connecticut Republicans are divided over a recently developed resolution, evidently prepared by Republican admirers of Brown, to rescind the “unqualified censure and condemnation” of Brown made in 1860.  According to Campbell, the pro-Brown element and others in the state who value Brown's legacy consider the 1860 resolution, "an unqualified censure and condemnation of Brown," to be a "bruise on the party."  However, the corrective 2012 resolution has not made it out of committee, a point of frustration for Connecticut's pro-Brown Republican element.

While there is typically a measure of prejudice against Brown in cases like this one, it is not clear that opposition to the remedial resolution is primarily anti-Brown.   In fact, it may be more so a reflection of the anti-historical spirit of our contemporary culture, especially popular conservative culture in the United States.  Republicans currently are overwhelmed with apprehension about the possible (if not likely) reelection of Barack Obama, and Republican resistance to this resolution seems to reflect present-day concerns as far outweighing any historical theme in their minds.  For instance, Doug Glazier, a Republican from Windsor Locks, told the Register Citizen that he thought the pro-Brown resolution was a hoax.  “I thought someone was playing a joke on us. It’s hard to believe that anyone has the time for something that happened 150 years ago, that the position of the Republican Party is being compromised through the old resolution. It’s unbelievable. It’s actually ridiculous.”

Of course, it is impossible to separate history--historical memory and interpretation--from politics. It is not simply what we say about the past that reflects our political perspective.  It is also what we think is important in history that matters.   It may seem to Mr. Glazier that pro-Brown Republicans are pushing a "hoax" upon the party at a time when they have bigger fish to fry.  But the fact that Glazier thinks Brown's legacy is too ridiculous to ponder says something about his political and social values at present.  It suggests that Glazier is indifferent to matters of justice in history, which implies that he has similar feelings about justice at present.  After all, even in Lincoln's time, the Republican party had a majority of moderates and compromisers who would have kept black people in slavery as long as the South promised not to expand slavery into new territories.  It was only a minority of Republicans--known as Radical or Black Republicans--that held the same values as John Brown.  The Radical Republicans enjoyed power during the Reconstruction, but fell prey to the lack of historical memory and inclination to moderate politics that came to prevail in the Grand Old Party before the turn of the last century.

At present, it is one of those John Brown Republicans that is a guiding spirit of the pro-Brown resolution in Connecticut.  Doug Hageman, a state committee member and an advocate for Brown's legacy, is strong on removing the 1860 resolution, and considers the rejection of the new remedial resolution as "a slap in the face for the town of Torrington.”  Hageman wants Connecticut Republican delegates to "bring it in and fix this. We’ve got to get rid of this thing,” he told the Register Citizen.  Unfortunately, Hageman, who professes to be a "big fan" of the Old Man, isn’t a member of the resolution committee. Most of the members of the committee seem to think that nobody would have known or cared about the 1860 resolution if it was never brought up in the first place.

That this debate is taking place in Connecticut is no coincidence, just as it is more than interesting, given that state's ironic anti-slavery history--ironic because the state that produced important abolitionists like the embattled Prudence Crandall and the influential Harriet Beecher Stowe (not to mention Owen Brown and his more famous son, John) has a bloody association with racist oppression.  In 2002, some brave and noble journalists published an extended study of Connecticut's ugly, racist underside in the Hartford Courant's Sunday magazine, entitled "Complicity."  In the introduction, they write:

Connecticut is one of the richest states in the richest country, but much of that wealth is stained with the blood of slaves. That may shock many in Connecticut, who know their state was a force in the abolition of slavery, and that it sent thousands of its young men to die in the war to free the enslaved and end an inhuman, ungodly institution. But the fact is that politically and socially and economically, Connecticut was as much a slave state as Virginia or Mississippi. It even had that most iconic of slave institutions: the plantation. The big difference is that we hid most of our involvement because, well, we could. In large part, the slavery that Connecticut benefited from happened somewhere else.2

The writers go on to say that Connecticut grew extremely prosperous in the 18th century by growing and shipping foods purchased by Westindian slave holders for their human chattel.  Then, Connecticut's rivers and streams became the life veins of 19th century textile mills, many of which depended upon the most famous product of southern slave labor, cotton.  To make matters worse, right up to the early 20th century, Connecticut towns became the nation's center for ivory production--processing tons and tons elephant tusks, themselves obtained through the forced labor and killing of a myriad Africans. So much for the South and its evils.  As Beecher Stowe put it, this was slavery northern style, with "all of the benefits and none of the screams."3

In light of this terrible history, it is unfortunate that Campbell, the Register Citizen journalist, refers to Brown's Harper's Ferry raid as having been "vicious."  To the contrary, Brown's seizure and control of Harper's Ferry and key slave holders was anything but vicious.  His former captives later testified that he was exceedingly careful of their safety and comfort; even one of his admiring raiders believed that Brown should have been less concerned for his hostages and more deliberate in getting the job done in Harper's Ferry.  Perhaps were Brown a Republican, he might have been more vicious, but he disliked most Republicans as much as most of them disliked him.

As the Register Citizen points out, in 1860 the Republicans of Connecticut seem to have been desperate to distance themselves from Brown. Of course, this was the posture of the entire Republican party.  Newspapers of the day, like the New York Herald,  are quite clear that Republicans were the first to disown Brown, calling him a madman.4 The minority Republican authors of the 1860 Congressional Report on the Harper's Ferry raid could not write fast enough in condemnation of the Old Man, protesting only the proslavery leaders' tendency to link Brown to other northern antislavery people.5  But it was tall, gaunt Abe Lincoln who made the official Republican view of Brown clear in his famous Cooper Union speech, when he characterized Brown as delusional and fanatical. "An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people," Lincoln declared, "till he fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them."6  In light of this standard Republican posture, it is no wonder that Connecticut Republicans in 1860 made an effort to disown one of the sons of their own state.

Today, even though people like Doug Glazier “can’t imagine spending time on something that happened in 1860,” 

some Connecticut Republicans on the Central Committee want the State to renounce its 1860 statement.  “Those who were practicing the institution of slavery were anti-Constitutionalist,” declares Michael Garrett, who ran as the Republican candidate of the Bridgeport mayor’s office in 2007. “That, I think, was John Brown’s point as well," says Garret.  "It was a great evil and he wanted to make it right.”

Garrett believes that the stumbling block for the new resolution is not only Republican concerns for the election cycle, but also because of Brown's illegal assault on Harper's Ferry.  

“We don’t condone violence; that’s not the focus,” Mayor Ryan Bingham of Torrington responds.  Torrington is the place of John Brown's birth, although the Brown family's house burned down nearly a century ago and all that remains is a marker on the site.  Yet, Bingham concludes, “the belief in something and applying it to something you think is worth fighting for on the community front can be applied today. He (Brown) believed in something, fought for it and achieved his ultimate goal.”

Sources 

         1 Unless otherwise noted, the source for information in this article is Ricky Campbell, "John Brown resolution divides state Republicans."  The Register Citizen [Torrington, Conn.], 17 May 2012. 

         2 "Complicity: How Connecticut Chained Itself to Slavery," Northeast: The Sunday Magazine of the Hartford Courant (29 Sept. 2002), 3-4.  See "COMPLICITY: The State That Slavery Built: An Introduction."  Hartfordcourant.com (29 Sept. 2002).

         3  Ibid., 4.

      4  “Mad Brown’s Insurrection,” New York Herald (20 Oct. 1859), 6.  The Herald was a Democratic and proslavery newspaper and its editor, James Gordon Bennett, was starkly racist.  Democrats were keen on the fact that Republicans were falling over themselves to call Brown insane in order to distinguish themselves from him.  Bennett's paper notes that it was the Republican "organs," or publications, of that initiated the language of Brown's "insane" effort at Harper's Ferry.  Southerners and proslavery people generally did not think Brown insane at the time.

         5 See Sen. Jacob Collamer, "Views of the Minority," in U.S. Congress Senate Select Commission on the Harper's Ferry Invasion (Washington, D.C., June 15, 1860), 21; also see my book, John Brown--The Cost of Freedom (New York: International Publishers, 2007), 77-79.  

          6 "Cooper Union Address, New York, New York, February 27, 1860," Constitution Society website.