Chapter V: Robbery and Murder on the Pottawatomie (2)

Mr. Sanborn published both letters; made no comment upon the letter of April 7th, and, concerning the letter of June 26th said:[146]

This is all that Brown says in his letter about the events
of that night in May when the Doyles were executed.
Doubtless his text the next morning was from the Book of
Judges: "Then Gideon took ten men of his servants, and did
as the Lord had said unto him; and so it was that he did it
by night. And when the men of the city arose early in the
morning, behold the altar of Baal was cast down. And they
said one to another, Who hath done this thing? And when
they inquired and asked, they said, Gideon, the son of
Joash, hath done this thing."

By this expedient he placed the responsibility for the murders and the robbery upon the broad shoulders of the Almighty, and presented the incident to the public as an interesting exhibit in theological, metaphysical, and psychological phenomena. He called the murders executions and said that the victims "were first tried and found guilty; given time to pray; and were then executed."

Following the example of James Redpath, Mr. Villard suppressed the letter of April 7th; and in view of his disregard for the statements which Brown made in the letter of June 26th, he might as well have suppressed that letter also. In it Brown reveals the fact that the band that executed the Pottawatomie horror was already organized when the alarm bells rang out from Lawrence. He says that he and his sons "were a little company by ourselves. On our way to Lawrence we learned that it had been already destroyed, and we camped with John's company over night. Next day our little company left and we stopped and searched three men." This language certifies that Brown's party moved independently of the Pottawatomie Rifles, and that the camping "over night" with "John's company" was but an incident of their march; it certifies also that they were highwaymen--robbers.

When men who have banded together during a time of peace, subsequently commit acts of robbery, persons naturally suppose that they united for the purpose of committing such acts, and that the motives prompting them were selfish. So in this case. If Mr. Villard had admitted that Brown organized his little company as early as April, 1856, persons would think that the men composing the company united to do the things which they afterward did do; and that the motives prompting Brown and his sons to hold up and search men, on the 23d, and to steal these horses, were selfish. Therefore, he decided to rewrite this bit of history, and change the time of the organization of Brown's company, and make it appear that it was formed on May 23d, under the popular excitement and indignation existing on that day, that had been aroused by the Lawrence outrage; and that the criminal acts included the murders only, and that they were committed the next day, before the excitement had cooled; thus making it possible for him to assume that the motives prompting these murders were unselfish. Contradicting what Brown said in his letter of June 26th, relating to the time when his band was organized, Mr. Villard makes the following remarkable statement:[147]

About noon, May 23, John Brown selected for his party Henry
Thompson, Theodore Weiner, and four sons, Owen, Frederick,
Salmon and Oliver.

The author herein could not otherwise than have known that this statement was a contradiction of the truth, a falsification of the record, and a perversion of history. It is a clear contradiction of a vital point in the authenticated record concerning the history of the organization of this historic company. It is a direct assault upon an established historical fact.

Following this statement the author proceeds to repeat the fictions, theretofore put forth, concerning the grinding of the sabres for the party, and of the publicity given to the preparations for leaving the camp, and of the departure of the expedition "with the shouts of their comrades ringing in their ears." And, in support of this perversion of history he publishes an illogical, and scurrilous statement prepared for the purpose by Salmon Brown.[148]

Secrecy was characteristic of all Brown's planning. To the Gileadites he had written: "Let no man appear upon the ground unequipped or with his weapons exposed to view. Your plans must be known only to yourself." Brown's expedition herein had for its object the accomplishment of an atrocity, conspicuous for its cowardice and selfish brutality; a crime that involved the honor, as well as the lives, of every person who was connected with it. The grinding of sabres usually signifies an intention to cut somebody to death. The men of this party intended to murder their victims quietly with swords; and had planned, long before the date of this supposed occasion, how to conceal their connection with the cutting, and therefore did not thus advertise their undertaking. There was no "enthusiasm" in the camp of the Pottawatomie Rifles two days later, when a messenger "came tearing into it,--his horse panting and lathered with foam,--and without dismounting yelled out: 'Five men have been killed on Pottawatomie Creek, butchered and most brutally mangled, and old John Brown has done it.'"[149] No "cheering," such as "you never heard," greeted this announcement. There was excitement, but not the "wild excitement" and enthusiasm of victory. There were no cheers for John Brown and his "avengers." There was, however, the deeper excitement of indignation and resentment against the tribe of Browns. Instead of adopting resolutions and presenting them to Captain John Brown, Jr., congratulating him upon the prompt and splendid achievements of his father's expedition, a drum-head court martial was convened in the camp of the Pottawatomie Rifles, which stripped him of his command and dismissed him in disgrace from the company; First Lieutenant H. H. Williams being elected captain to succeed him. Jason Brown said:

This information caused great excitement and fear among the
men of our company and a feeling arose against John and
myself that led the men all to desert us.[150]

If Jason Brown, "whose hatred of blood-letting had deprived him of his fathers confidence," when violent deeds were under way,[151] "had devoted" himself to sharpening the cutlasses in John's camp May 23d, as stated by Mr. Villard,[152] he would have known that "blood-letting" was to ensue; and the news that blood had been shed, would not have come to him as a shock--"'the worst shock' that ever came to him in his life."[153] Nor would he have "tremblingly" _demanded_ of his father on the night of the 25th: "Did you have anything to do with the killing of those men on the Pottawatomie?" For he would not only have known that there were to be killings, and who were to be killed, but he would have been a party to them, and to the robbery. He would have known all about what was to happen. But to his eternal credit let it be said that his father and brothers had not taken him into their confidence in this matter. Townsley, in his confession, said nothing about the calling for volunteers, and the grinding of sabres, although it is probable that his connection with Brown's scheme began on May 23d, as he stated.

There were suspicious circumstances which tended to incriminate the Brown party; but the facts that the horses which were stolen had been run out of the country, while the Browns remained in the neighborhood, and did not have the murdered men's horses in their possession, were potent in allaying these suspicions, and gave them an opportunity to deny their guilt. But if the sensational scenes of calling for volunteers for a hostile purpose, and the sharpening of their sabres had actually occurred, they would have had no possible defense. This evidence would have connected them directly with the crime, and it would have been published immediately upon the return of the resentful Pottawatomie Rifles to their homes at Osawatomie and on the Pottawatomie. Whereas the resolutions adopted at the mass-meeting of citizens at Osawatomie May 27th, refer to "midnight assassins unknown;" and on May 31st, Mr. James H. Carruth wrote to the Watertown (New York) _Reformer_:

... It was murder nevertheless and the Free-State men here
co-operate with the pro-slavery men in endeavoring to
arrest the murderers.

In his statement of the facts as to the happenings on the Pottawatomie, Mr. Villard makes one sole reference to the robberies that happened. It is, that when Owen Brown had been denounced by his uncle, the Rev. Mr. Adair of Osawatomie, on the 26th, as a "vile murderer," and was refused admission to his home, that "he rode away on one of the murdered men's horses." Except for this and another incidental reference to theft, the reader of _Fifty Years After_ would not be informed that any robbery had been committed; and even this statement is artfully written. It is incorrect and misleading. It conceals a thread in this history which would, if exposed, unmask the selfishness that prompted this crime: Owen Brown rode away on one of the "fast Kentucky horses" which John Brown received _in exchange_ for the "murdered men's horses."

Mr. Villard assumes that Brown's motives for committing the murders herein, and stealing these horses, were unselfish; a grace that should logically apply to the swaggering, swearing infidels whom he directed. In a summary of his conclusions he says:[154]

Fired with indignation at the wrongs he witnessed on every
hand, impelled by the Covenanter's spirit that made him so
strange a figure in the nineteenth century, and believing
fully that there should be an eye for an eye and a tooth
for a tooth, he killed his men in the conscientious belief
that he was a faithful servant of Kansas and of the Lord.
He killed not to kill, but to free; not to make wives
widows and children fatherless, but to attack on its own
ground the hideous institution of human slavery, against
which his whole life was a protest. He pictured himself a
modern crusader as much empowered to remove the unbeliever
as any armoured searcher after the Grail. It was to his
mind a righteous and necessary act; if he concealed his
part in it and always took refuge in half-truth that his
own hands were not stained, that was as near to a
compromise for the sake of policy as this rigid,
self-denying Roundhead ever came. Naturally a
tender-hearted man, he directed a particularly shocking
crime without remorse, because the men killed typified to
him the slave-drivers who counted their victims by the
hundreds. It was to him a necessary carrying into Africa of
the war in which he firmly desired himself engaged. And
always it must not be forgotten that his motives were
wholly unselfish, and that his aims were none other than
the freeing of a race. With his ardent, masterful
temperament, he needed no counsel from a Lane or a Robinson
to make him ready to strike a blow, or to tell him that the
time for it had come. The smoke of burning Lawrence was
more than sufficient.

From the point of view of ethics, John Brown's crime on the
Pottawatomie cannot be successfully palliated or excused.
It must ever remain a complete indictment of his judgment
and wisdom; a dark blot upon his memory; a proof that,
however self-controlled, he had neither true respect for
the laws nor for human life, nor a knowledge that two
wrongs never make a right. Call him a Cromwellian trooper
with the Old Testament view of the way of treating one's
enemies, as did James Freeman Clarke, if you please; it is
nevertheless true that Brown lived in the nineteenth
century and was properly called upon to conform to its
standard of morals and right living.

For John Brown no pleas can be made that will enable him to
escape coming before the bar of historical judgment. There
his wealth of self-sacrifice, and the nobility of his aims,
do not avail to prevent a complete condemnation of his
bloody crime at Pottawatomie, or a just penalty for his
taking human life without warrant or authority. If he
deserves to live in history, it is not because of his
cruel, gruesome, reprehensible acts on the Pottawatomie,
but despite them.

Conceptions of the distinguishing traits in Brown's character are widely divergent; a divergence not attributable to a "blind prejudice." Those who knew him best did not have the exalted opinions of the nobility of his aims, or of the sublimity of his humanity, that inspired his eulogists and biographers. Prominent among the dissenters was John Brown himself. As late as March 31, 1857, he did not personally understand that what he had been doing in Kansas was either sentimental, patriotic, or romantic. It had not occurred to him that he had been impelled by the covenanters spirit, or that he was a crusader, either ancient or modern. On that date, replying to a letter that he had received from his wife, in which she informed him that "his sons were now inclined to give up war and remain at North Elba," he said:[155]

I have only to say as regards the resolution of the boys to
"learn and practice war no more," that it was not at my
solicitation that they engaged in it at first; and that
while I may perhaps feel no more love of the business than
they do, still I think there may be in their day what is
more to be dreaded if such things do not now exist.

Judged in the light of what has been already shown concerning Brown's activities, this letter is fatal to any theory that he was instigated by other than sordid motives when he engaged in his course of crime. So judged it is an acknowledgment by himself that what he and his sons had been engaged in, in Kansas, was "_business_," simply business. Also, that it was disreputable; and he sought to absolve himself from any responsibility for their participation therein, by denying that it was at his solicitation "that they engaged in it at first." By the declaration that what he had been doing was repulsive to him, John Brown discredits every altruistic theory which has been put forth in extenuation of his crimes, or in justification of his actions. It is evidence that it was his hands, and not his heart, that were enlisted in his operations. A man inspired by the righteousness of a cause is not moved to make apology for having invited others to engage in it with him. If he had believed that in these murders and robberies he had been acting as a faithful servant of Kansas, and of the Lord, he would have proudly asserted his conviction, and would have defended his conduct upon the high grounds of duty, loyalty, and humanity.

Mr. Geo. B. Gill was one who knew Brown better than any of his panegyrists knew him--Mr. Sanborn not excepted. Upon him he practiced no hypocritical pretensions. He was honored by Brown with a place in his cabinet, as secretary of the treasury, under the "Provisional Government of the United States," which he organized in Canada in 1858; and was one of the generals, in embryo, who was to command the Army of the Invasion. In a letter (not heretofore published)[156] written from Milan, Kansas, July 7, 1893, to Colonel Robert J. Hinton, author of _John Brown and His Men_, Mr. Gill expressed, confidentially, his opinion of Brown's personality. He said:

MY DEAR FRIEND:

It seems that all great men have their foibles or what we
in our differences from them call their weaknesses. "A man
is never a hero to his valet" and I am about to give you an
expression of truthfulness which I have never given to any
one yet.... I admit that I am sadly deficient as a God or
hero worshipper.... And the man who may do his fellows the
most good may be far from the goody-goody, but may be
personally absolutely offensive.

My intimate acquaintance with Brown demonstrated to me that
he was very human; the angel wings were so dim and shadowy
as to be almost unseen. Very superstitious, very selfish
and very intolerant, with great self esteem.... He could
not brook a rival. At first he was very fond of
Montgomery, but when he found that Montgomery had thoughts
of his own, and could not be dictated to, why, he loved him
no longer. Montgomery, Lane and all others went down before
his imperial self. He was intolerant in little things and
in little ways, for instance, his drink was tea, others
wanted coffee. He would wrangle and compel them to drink
tea or nothing, as he was cook and would not make coffee
for them. I had it from Owen in a quiet way and from other
sources in quite a loud way that in his family his methods
were of the most arbitrary kind.... I have known Stevens to
sometimes raise merry hell when the old man would get too
dictatorial. He was iron and had neither sympathy or
feeling for the timid or weak of will. Notwithstanding
claims to the contrary, he was essentially vindictive in
his nature. Just before we left Kansas, during a trip that
Brown and myself were some days away from the rest, the
boys arrested a man. (I think by the name of Jackson.)
Montgomery gave him a trial and he was released by general
consent as not meriting punishment. When we returned Brown
was furious because the man had not been shot.... It seems
hard and cruel in me to tell you of Brown's individuality
as I have told you, yet it seemed to me that you, perhaps
the last writer on the theme, should know all, whether it
be any use to you or not....

Yours truly,
GEORGE B. GILL.

There is nothing in Mr. Gill's pen picture of John Brown that suggests to the mind a "misplaced Crusader," or a "self-denying Roundhead," a "Cromwellian trooper" or an "armored searcher for the Grail;" but there is that in it which does suggest a man of low instincts, trifling and contentious about little things; of a vindictive and quarrelsome disposition; inordinately selfish, inhuman and intolerant. It is for the reader to determine which of the two estimates of the man is entitled to credit.

In view of the facts presented herein, this much debated event in Brown's life cannot be considered, abstractedly, as a study in altruism; but as a premeditation in robbery, to which the murders were incidental.

The movement to execute the Pottawatomie robbery began when Brown and his sons left their homes on the evening of May 21st, ostensibly to engage in the defense of Lawrence. They did not belong to the Pottawatomie Rifles. That was, says John Brown, the company of which "John was Captain" and to which Jason belonged. The six were "a little company by themselves." This party did not intend to go to Lawrence. They had matters of a personal nature to attend to. After camping "with John's company over night" they left his camp and retracing their steps, proceeded to a secluded spot, about a mile from the scene of their prospective operations; where they remained thirty hours, awaiting, doubtless, the arrival of their confederates with the northern horses. The owners of the horses that were to be stolen stood in the pathway of the thieves and they thrust them aside in death. If Brown and his band "killed these men in the conscientious belief that they were faithful servants of the Lord and of Kansas," then they stole these horses in the same exalted inspiration. The theft of the horses cannot be put in harmony with any theory of either patriotism or humanity. The _murders_ have been defended, quite successfully, from a spiritual point of view; but there is nothing spiritual in horse-trading, nor is there anything in horse-stealing which appeals to the tender susceptibilities of our nature, or to the refinements of life. It is impossible, by any contortions of the imagination, to conceive of anything æsthetic, altruistic, or spiritual being connected with a horse trade wherein all the horses involved in the trade have been stolen, and the trade is being made between the thieves, even though some of the thieves be murderers. The event herein was a plain case of murder and robbery, deliberately planned and executed under most revolting circumstances. "Murder is murder" and robbery is robbery, therefore this combining incident cannot be accepted as an exhibit in metaphysics. The victims of these men were not murdered and their horses taken in behalf of Kansas and of the Lord, but for the exclusive benefit of the Browns and their associates in the crime; they were not moved to "murder these men and boys" by any "sudden overpowering impulse" excited by the spectacle of burning Lawrence; but by a brutal desire to get possession of their horses. Brown was impatient of the cruel fortune that kept him, as he tersely stated it, "like a toad under a harrow," and he determined to break asunder the chains that bound him within his environment of poverty, and to seek relief from their fetters in a life of crime; a decision due to "an outgrowth of his restlessness and the usual desire of the bankrupt for a sudden coup to restore his fortune."

If the robbery on the Pottawatomie were undertaken and executed in behalf of the Free-State cause, then all the horses which the Browns stole during the time they remained in Kansas, were stolen from motives of patriotism and humanity. The term "attacking slavery" was a joke in the vocabulary of these bandits. The theft of a horse was spoken of, wittily, as an "attack upon slavery" or as "fighting for freedom."

On page 122 Mr. Villard stoutly says: "Where John Brown was, he led." Did he lead in these midnight murders? Were his methods and conduct throughout this bloody affair those of a hero inspired by a devotion to humanity and by the nobility of his aims; or were they characteristic of the assassin and thief, who kills and robs under cover of the night and hides his identity by flight? In view of his actions as set forth herein, it is violently illogical to suppose that in planning to murder these settlers and steal their horses, Brown's motives were unselfish; and that he was moved by the higher impulses of altruism. Yet such are the assumptions of his biographers.

A public sentiment in sympathy with "the men in bondage," and excited by the fierce storm of sectional animosity prevailing during the later fifties, created, of John Brown, an altruistic hero; and his biographers have been diligent and successful in perpetuating the fiction. When these murders were committed, had the public known that they were executed in promoting the robbery of these settlers; and that Brown and his sons were a band of thieves, working jointly with another party of thieves; and that they intended to continue their thieving operations while they remained in the Territory; the metamorphosis of John Brown, the criminal into John Brown, the hero, would have been impossible. History would have dealt differently with him.