Читать книгу John Brown, Soldier of Fortune: A Critique - Hill Peebles Wilson - Страница 5

Table of Contents

THE SUBJECT MATTER

Truth, crushed to earth shall rise again; —Bryant

The object of the writer, in publishing this book, is to correct a perversion of truth, whereby John Brown has acquired fame, as an altruist and a martyr, which should not be attributed to him.

The book is a review of the historical data that have been collected and published by his principal biographers: Mr. James Redpath, Mr. Frank B. Sanborn and Mr. Oswald Garrison Villard. It is also a criticism of these writers, who have sought to suppress, and have suppressed, important truths relating to the subject of which they wrote, and who have misinformed and misled the public concerning the true character of this figure in our national history; and have established in its stead a fictitious character, which is wholly illogical and inconsistent with the facts and circumstances of Brown's life.

Mr. Redpath, his first and most lurid biographer, was a newspaper correspondent of the type now generally called "yellow." He was a "Disunionist," and seems to have been a malcontent, who went to Kansas Territory to oppose the policy which the Free-State men had adopted for a safe and sane solution of the Free-State problem; and who sought to thwart their efforts to create a free state by peaceable means. He said:[1]

I believed that a civil war between the North and South would ultimate in insurrection and that the Kansas troubles would probably create a military conflict of the sections. Hence, I left the South, and went to Kansas; and endeavored personally, and by my pen, to precipitate a revolution.

After Brown's spectacular fiasco in Virginia, and tragical death, his cultured partisans, in most conspicuous eloquence proclaimed him to have been a philanthropist—an altruistic hero; and placed a martyr's crown upon his brow. Mr. Redpath's purpose, in putting forth his work, was to make Brown over to fit the part; to make his life appear to conform with the extravagant attributes of his improvised estate. In pursuance thereof he sought to conceal the facts concerning the actions and purposes of his life, rather than to develop them; and to blind the trails leading to the facts with masses of sentimental rubbish; and to divert public attention away from them. Upon the publication of his book, The Public Life of Captain John Brown, Mr. Charles Eliot Norton, in a review of the work, expressed his disapproval of it in vigorous language. He said:[2]

It would be well had this book never been written. Mr. Redpath has understood neither the opportunities opened to him, nor the responsibilities laid upon him, in being permitted to write the "authorized" life of John Brown. His book, in whatever light it is viewed—whether as the biography of a remarkable man, as an historic narrative of a series of important events, or simply as a mere piece of literary job-work—is equally unsatisfactory. …

There never was more need for a good life of any man than there was for one of John Brown. … Those who thought best of him, and those who thought the worst, were alike desirous to know more of him than the newspapers had furnished, and to become acquainted with the course of his life, and the training which had prepared him for Kansas and brought him to Harper's Ferry. Whatever view be taken of his character, he was a man so remarkable as to be well worthy of study. …

In seasons of excitement, and amid the struggles of political contention, the men who use the most extravagant and the most violent words have, for a time, the advantage; but, in the long run, they damage whatever cause they may adopt; and the truth, which their declamations have obscured or their falsehoods have violated, finally asserts itself. … Extravagance in condemnation has been answered by extravagance in praise of his life and deeds.

Twenty-five years later, when Mr. Sanborn published his book, Life and Letters of John Brown, Liberator of Kansas, and Martyr of Virginia, Mr. John F. Morse, Jr., voiced the disappointment felt by discriminating persons, in an article published in February, 1886.[3] He said:

So grand a subject cannot fail to inspire a writer able to do justice to the theme; and when such an one draws Brown, he will produce one of the most attractive books in the language. But meantime the ill-starred "martyr" suffers a prolongation of martyrdom, standing like another St. Sebastian to be riddled with the odious arrows of fulsome panegyrists. With other unfortunate men of like stamp, he has attracted a horde of writers, who, with rills of versicles and oceans of prose, have overwhelmed his simple noble memory beneath torrents of wild extravagant admiration, foolish thoughts expressed in appropriately silly language, absurd adulation inducing only protest and a dangerous contradictory emotion. Amid this throng of ill advised worshippers, Mr. Sanborn, by virtue of his lately published biographical volume, has assumed the most prominent place.

Referring to the opinions expressed by these writers, Mr. Villard, in the preface to his book, John Brown, A Biography Fifty Years After, says: "Since 1886 there have appeared five other lives of Brown,[4] the most important being that of Richard J. Hinton, who, in his preface gloried in holding a brief for Brown and his men." Concerning his book he says:

The present volume is inspired by no such purpose, but is due to a belief that fifty years after the Harper's Ferry tragedy, the time is ripe for a study of John Brown, free from bias, from the errors of taste and fact of the mere panegyrist, and from the blind prejudice of those who can see in John Brown nothing but a criminal. The pages that follow were written to detract from or champion no man or set of men, but to put forth the essential truths of history as far as ascertainable, and to judge Brown, his followers and associates, in the light thereof. How successful this attempt has been is for the reader to judge. That this volume in no wise approaches the attractiveness which Mr. Morse looked for, the author fully understands. On the other hand no stone has been left unturned to make accurate the smallest detail; the original documents, contemporary letters and living witnesses, have been examined in every quarter of the United States. Materials never before utilized have been drawn upon, and others discovered whose existence has heretofore been unknown. …

Under this broad pledge of personal fidelity to the subject, this historian introduced his volume, and has asked the public to give him its full confidence and to accept his work as a faithful and complete record of the ascertainable truths of history relating to the subject. For the ardor which he has exhibited, and for the great labor which he has expended in his compilation, and for much material of minor importance, which he has uncovered, the student of history will not fail to acknowledge to Mr. Villard the sense of his obligation. In these respects, and in the scholarly features characteristic of the writings, it is an interesting and dramatic contribution to this literature. But, he will not be stampeded by protestations of zeal, and by professions of integrity, to accept it as a presentation of the ascertainable truth. The work is more conspicuous for the absence from its pages of important historical truths, and for the contradiction of others which have been authenticated, than it is for the great volume of trivial facts which it presents. A line of derelictions conspicuously prevailing throughout the pages of the book, amply justify the charge that it was not written, primarily, for an historical purpose—"to put forth the truths of history as far as ascertainable, and to judge Brown and his followers in the light thereof." The true purpose seems to be ulterior to that which is effusively proclaimed in the prefatory declarations. He has written into the history of our country a concept of the character of John Brown which is incongruous with the actions and circumstances of Brown's life. He has created a semi-supernatural person—"a complex character"—embodying the virtues of the "Hebrew prophets" and "Cromwellian Roundheads" with the depraved instincts and practices of thieves and murderers. He presents a man who, for righteous purposes, "violated the statute and moral laws"; whose conduct was vile, but whose aims were pure; whose actions were brutal and criminal, but whose motives were unselfish.

If this author had redeemed the pledge which he solemnly gave to the public, to put forth the truths of history as far as ascertainable, and, judging Brown and his followers in the light of them, had justified his "terrible violation of the statute and moral laws," the nature of this criticism would be different; it would be directed against his discrimination or, perhaps, against his intelligence. But that is not the case. The author referred to has sifted the truths of this history, and from the fragments has framed an hypothetical case; and has judged Brown and his followers in the light of that creation. "How may the killings on the Pottawatomie, this terrible violation of the statute and the moral law be justified? This is the question that has confronted every student of John Brown's life since it was definitely established that Brown was, if not actually a principal in the crime, an accessory and an instigator,"[5] is not the language of an impartial historian; but it is consistently the language of an advocate who writes for a specious, for an ulterior purpose. Why should an historian seek to justify a crime? Why should this author, if he intended to write impartially, seek for evidence to justify this horror? It was the desire to justify the crime that impelled the author to seek for pretexts for justification of it among the surviving criminals, and to garble the historical facts concerning it.

The crime was the theft of a large number of horses; to accomplish it, and to safeguard the loot, it was necessary to kill the owners thereof. It was a premeditation. The plans for it were laid several weeks before it was executed, and during a time of profound peace. The principals were John Brown; his unmarried sons; Henry Thompson, his son-in-law; Theodore Weiner, and four confederates: Jacob Benjamin, B. L. Cochrane, John E. Cook and Charles Lenhart, whose names are herein associated with this crime for the first time in history. These confederates received from Brown's party the horses which belonged to the men whom they murdered, and ran them out of the country; leaving with Brown a number of horses, "fast running horses," which they had stolen in the northern part of the Territory. That is the crime which this author seeks to justify; he has concealed these truths, and has suppressed the evidence concerning them. Pretending to put forth the "exact facts as to the happenings on the Pottawatomie," he has suppressed the evidence concerning the most important of the happenings, and has added no material fact concerning them which James Townsley had not, years before, put forth in his confession.

The public should know that as early as April 16, 1856, John Brown and his unmarried sons planned to abandon Kansas and the Free-State Cause and had disbanded the Free-State company to which they belonged, the "Liberty Guards," of which John Brown was captain; also, that the "Pottawatomie Rifles" had been organized in its stead, with John Brown, Jr., as captain; and that neither John Brown nor his unmarried sons belonged to it. They were "a little company" by themselves.[6] The public should also know that prior to that date, as early as April 7th, Brown and the members of his little company had decided to abandon their claims and leave the country; and further, that they desired a recrudescence of pro-slavery atrocities. Concerning Brown's character and his life in Kansas, as well as his relation to territorial affairs, and a correct understanding of the Pottawatomie affair, no more important letter was written by him than his letter of April 7th disclosing these facts, a letter which Mr. Villard, in furtherance of his purpose, has seen fit to sift from history and suppress. The public has a right to know what Henry Thompson meant when he wrote in May that "upon Brown's plans would depend his own 'until School is out.'" This biographer, who said that he had left no stone unturned to make accurate the smallest detail,[7] interviewed Henry Thompson, and could have obtained from him a statement concerning the plans to which he intended to subordinate his conduct, which involved matters of so much importance as leaving the country. Salmon Brown and Henry Thompson could have told this historian why the "Liberty Guards" were disbanded and the "Pottawatomie Rifles" organized; and when, and for what purpose the "little company of six," which intended to leave the neighborhood, was formed; and he could have included the information in his statement of the "exact facts." Mr. Villard says it was organized May 23d; but that is not an "exact" statement; it is a contradiction of a statement which John Brown made over his signature concerning it.[8] These men could have told Mr. Villard specifically why they abandoned their claims, whither they intended to go, and what they intended to do. And further, they could have told him where they were, and what they were doing, during the fifty days their "whereabouts" are by this biographer reported as being "unknown," and their actions unaccounted for.[9] These matters are not trifling details in this history. In view of the author's fine panegyrics concerning Brown's devotion to the Free-State cause, his intention to abandon it, and quit the Territory as early as March, 1856, is of more striking consequence than his coming into it; and the disbanding of the "Liberty Guards" in March, 1856, was an act of greater significance than was the organization of the company in December, 1855.

Mr. Villard's treatment of the Pottawatomie incident, "without a clear appreciation of which a true understanding of Brown, the man, cannot be reached,"[10] must stand as an indictment, either of his discrimination or of the integrity of his purpose, concerning it. Not being a dull man, he could not have been imposed upon by the participants in this riot of robbery and blood whom he interviewed, and whose evasions he has certified to the world as the exact facts. It was not the happenings on the night of May 24, 1856, that determine "the degree of criminality, if any," [mark the language, if any] "that should attach to Brown, for his part in the proceedings,"[11] for they were but the execution of the plans which had theretofore been laid for the adventure. Whatever the circumstances of the author's dereliction may have been, the fact remains, that the truths concerning this historical episode have been sifted, and such documents and concurrent evidence as tend to establish the fact that the motive for these murders was robbery, have been consistently suppressed from his exposition of it.

Brown made no attempt to justify his conduct in the affair. He would have acknowledged his responsibility and would have pleaded justification for his acts, if there had been even a shadow of a pretext for any justification; for he was shifty and crafty as well as vain; and was sensitive concerning his reputation.[12] Not having the murdered men's horses in his possession, he denied his complicity with the murders, denied that he was concerned in the crime. If he had "killed his men" (and stolen their horses) "in the conscientious belief that he was a faithful servant of Kansas and of the Lord," as this author asserts, he would not have denied his relationship with the Lord in the matter, and offended Deity by persistently denying his participation in it with Him; neither would he have abandoned Kansas and the Free-State cause within the ensuing sixty days. Cowardly midnight robbery is impossible of justification upon any ordinary circumstantial hypothesis; and is preëminently so when the crime is aggravated by brutal assassinations, such as were incidental to this wholesale theft of horses.

The derelictions concerning the history of the Pottawatomie are characteristic of Mr. Villard's treatment of the more vital episode of Brown's career: his attempt to incite a revolution in the Southern States and to establish over them the authority of a "provisional government." This Brown planned to precipitate and accomplish by an insurrection of the slaves, and a resulting indiscriminate assassination of the slave-holding population: such as the people of that generation, North and South, believed to be impending, if not imminent. This central truth Mr. Villard denies, and seeks to substitute for Brown's intentions, the invention that his movement was merely a transitory raid, the forerunner of a series of similar raids to be undertaken by "small bands hidden in the mountain fastnesses." This conception is gratituitous and illogical; a contradiction of history and inconsistent with the bold, intrepid, daring, courageous characteristics which he has, except in this sole instance, consistently ascribed to Brown's character.

Brown's purposes, at Harper's Ferry, are logically foreshadowed by every act of his life, beginning with March, 1857; and are written in letters of living light in the "Constitution and Ordinances for the People of the United States," and in "General Order, No. 1," dated:

"HEADQUARTERS WAR DEPARTMENT, PROVISIONAL ARMY.

"Harper's Ferry, October 10, 1859."

As in the Pottawatomie incident, and consistent with a purpose to pervert this history, and fasten an imposition upon the public, these two "public documents," uttered, ex cathedra, by John Brown, find no place in Mr. Villard's book; they are not put forth as essential truths of history. The general order providing for the formation of the Provisional Army is not even remotely referred to; while the Constitution and Ordinances are treated contemptuously, and passed over slightingly with a few commonplace and irrelevant criticisms; and dismissed from consideration with manifest impatience and irritation as being so inconsistent—not with Brown's purposes, but with the author's theory of them—as to "forbid discussion."[13]

As a study of John Brown, Mr. Villard's book is misleading, and, in places, worthless. It is a jargon of facts and fancies; a juggling with the truths of history; a recital of the long list of Brown's minor peculations, and the bloody deeds which accent his career, interlarded with half-hearted denunciations of his moral obliquity and conspicuously fulsome panegyrics upon his character, and extravagantly illogical attributes concerning the nobility of his aims. The book seems to have been put forth not with reference to the truth, but to ennoble an ignoble character; to shroud the character in a mantle of mystery; to create in the twentieth century, a "complex" character: a mystic with a propensity to do wrong; wherein there is a compromise of virtue with vice. To the accomplishment of this end, this author has not only bent his energies in subordinating the truth, but, as a furtherance of his purpose, he has deemed it necessary to pass beyond the boundaries of historical research, and seek to strengthen his cause by inviting discredit upon the opinions of any who may venture to dissent from his inventions.

It may not be held to be a suspicious circumstance, but it certainly is not good form for an historian to presuppose that his statements of fact will be disbelieved, and that the logic of his conclusions concerning them will be challenged by any one. Nor should he seek to discredit hypothetical opinions by the cheap, or vulgar, assertion that such opinions have their origin in prejudice—"blind prejudice"; for jurors, and even judges, sometimes disagree; and it is possible for persons, who are conscientious, to receive divergent impressions in relation to the same subject. He would have preserved a better decorum if he had relied upon candor, and the supreme truthfulness of his narrative, and the clearness of his reasoning, whereby to supplant disbelief with faith, and to dispel prejudice by enlightening it.

The tree is better known by its fruits, than by any tag which the owner may attach to the trunk. An historian who conscientiously writes the truths of history, is not solicitous concerning the criticisms of any who may read his lines.