How may the killings on the Pottawatomie, this terrible violation of the statute and the moral laws, 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.
It thus appears that it was not historical facts that he sought, but evidence that would counteract the force of the historical facts already existing. It was a partisan zeal that led him to seek the testimony of partisans.
To obtain a true understanding of John Brown, the man, the student of his life must take up the threads of history that lead to the character making incident of May 24th. Mr. Villard concedes this[145] but he made no effort to gather them up. In a chapter of more than thirty pages, under the title, "The Captain of the Liberty Guards," he refers only to the organization of the company, and to Brown's two days' service with it at Lawrence—December 7th and 8th, 1855. The disorganization and abandonment of this company by Brown in the spring of 1856, is of far greater significance in this history than the organization of it. In honor, as "Captain of the Liberty Guards in the Fifth Regiment Kansas Volunteers," John Brown first received the historic title of "Captain," and in dishonor he abandoned his commission three months later.
Back of every human action there is that which incites the action, that which determines the choice or moves the will. There was that back of the actions of John Brown, and of his sons and confederates, that moved them to do what they did on the night of the 24th of May, 1856; this inciting force was motive.
John Brown had a motive for disbanding the Liberty Guards. What was it? He had a motive for quitting the Free-State army secretly. Why secretly? He had "no desire all things considered, that the slave-power should cease from its acts of aggression." Why should he not desire peace? He had a purpose in view when he organized the Pottawatomie Rifles under the command of his son, and a motive for organizing five of his sons into a separate company: "a little company by ourselves." What were the purposes? He wrote to his wife that he contemplated leaving the neighborhood, but did not tell her when he would leave, or why he expected to leave, or where he intended to go. What motive prompted him to conceal from her the facts in relation to a subject in which she was so intimately concerned? The matters referred to here are "stones" that have lain in the path of this history for more than fifty years which have not heretofore been turned over. Salmon Brown and Henry Thompson could have answered all these questions correctly if they had been asked so to do. Also, they could have cleared the atmosphere of the Pottawatomie of the mockeries relating thereto, and of its glamour, which have been foisted upon the public as history; and could have given to Mr. Villard and to the public the exact facts concerning the robberies, and brutal tragedies. It was the duty of Brown's historians to take up these matters and to make clear interpretations of them. But, because of his personal pledge of fidelity to the subject, it was especially incumbent upon the author of Fifty Years After, to make known the facts that these "stones" were in the record, and to turn them over; and with an analysis characteristic of his distinguished ability, make clear the essential truths which they covered; for without a clear appreciation of them "a true understanding of Brown, the man, cannot be reached." This he has not done; but has elected to conceal these motive interpreting incidents from further historical research. He has excluded from history the facts relating to this period of Brown's life. It may be said of this biographer, that having determined to issue a certificate of altruism for John Brown, he did not wish to take up these threads of history and follow them to their logical sequence; because they lead, unerringly, to the robberies and the murders which the Browns intended to commit; and expose, in the character of his hero, the extremity of selfishness.
None of Brown's biographers has found it convenient to explain or to comment upon his letters of April 7th and June 16th, although the first contains a personal statement that he intended to do something of a dangerous nature, and the latter a similar statement concerning dangerous things which he had done. In their treatment of the Pottawatomie incident they have written without regard to the restrictions and limitations contained in these authenticated papers relating to the subject. Mr. Redpath chose to proceed along the lines of the least resistance. He suppressed both of these letters; denied that Brown had anything to do with the incident; and upon the "authority of two witnesses" stated that "he was on Middle Creek twenty-five miles distant, at the time."
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.
CHAPTER VI
BLACK JACK
There is a tide in the affairs of men which taken at the
flood leads on to fortune.
—Julius Caesar, act iv
The tide in Free-State sentiment was soon to flow strongly in Brown's favor. He had wisely deferred the execution of his "sudden coup" on the Pottawatomie, until a time when public attention would be distracted from a close observance and inquiry into his actions. In the flames of burning Lawrence he saw the fruition of his hopes. The storm of passion awakened by the outrages there, swept by the malignant winds of revenge, spread and lighted the fires of partisan spirit and partisan hate in the hearts of the Free-State men, to the borders of the remotest prairie. They were aroused and united in their common cause, as never before, and were prepared not only to condone any outrages that might be committed upon pro-slavery men, but to approve of them. In this spirit they received the news of the "murder on the Pottawatomie" and congratulated the murderers. But when Brown won his victory over Captain Pate at Black Jack and humiliated that boasting aggravation of border ruffianism, they went wild in their enthusiasm for him and his name was upon every tongue. The criminal of the age became the hero of the hour. Had Brown sought to serve the cause of Freedom, and to engage the forces of slavery at "close quarters," he would have been carried to leadership upon the crest of the wave of Free-State enthusiasm which then swept over the Territory. But such was neither his intention nor his ambition. It was sordid gain which he sought—that, and that only. Free booty, and not Free Kansas, was the slogan in the Brown camp.
May 26th Brown received some reënforcements. August Bondi and A. O. Carpenter joined the band. Bondi was a member of the Pottawatomie Rifles; also, he was an associate with Benjamin. Carpenter, it is said, knew of a safe hiding place. The retreat to which he invited the party was in a secluded ravine, opening into Ottawa Creek bottom, in the vicinity of Palmyra, some twenty miles northward. The flight of the Browns, during the night of the 26th, from their concealment on Middle Creek, to the more secure hiding place on Ottawa Creek, is thus described by Mr. Bondi. He says:[157]
There were ten of us—Captain Brown, Owen, Frederick, Salmon and Oliver Brown; Henry Thompson, Theodore Weiner, James Townsley, Carpenter and myself.... The three youngest men, Salman Brown, Oliver and I—rode without saddles. By order of Captain Brown, Fred Brown rode first, Owen and Carpenter next; ten paces behind them, Old Brown; and the rest of us behind him two and two....
It will be observed that the little company of six which was on foot on the 24th, was now mounted; and the fact that Bondi rode without a saddle, indicates that his mount was not his own property, but that it had been furnished by the Browns. It thus appears that they had seven horses in their possession, exclusive of the fast running horse in the hands of John Brown, Jr.
Another incident therein related reflects some historical light upon the state of Brown's mind at the time. Generally, the leader of such a party rides at the head of it. On this occasion Brown assigned to himself a position of safety in the line of march not consistent with the reputation he earned later as a fighter; or with the biographical axiom: "Where John Brown was, he led." Danger was imminent on the route of this column. But Brown did not lead. His conduct can only be accounted for upon the hypothesis that a man cannot be a thief and a hero at the same time. The subject of personal safety, by flight, was uppermost in Brown's mind. His study was how to escape from the country with his booty. He was fleeing, under cover of the night, from the wrath of his fellow citizens, and from the officers of the law whom he suspected might be upon his trail. He was in the rôle of a thief, pure and simple, and he acted the part. June 1st, under very much altered circumstances, his conduct was different. Having been encouraged to fight, he had made an honorable alliance with Captain Shore, and had started from his hiding place to join him in a contemplated attack upon a party of Missourians, then in the vicinity, to effect the arrest of the Browns. This march is also described by Bondi:[158]
Still in the best of spirits, and with our appetites still better, just whetted by a scant breakfast, we followed Captain Brown,—he alone remaining serious, and riding silent at our front.
Continuing his narrative of the all-night ride, Bondi says that about 4 o'clock on the morning of May 27th, they reached the secluded spot, on Ottawa Creek, which Carpenter had indicated as a safe place for camping; in the midst of a primeval wood, perhaps half a mile deep to the edge of the creek.
Whether by premeditation or otherwise, the party lost no time from the pursuit of the purposes of their organization. During the afternoon of that day they went to the store of Mr. J. M. Bernard, at St. Bernard, or Centropolis, and helped themselves to such goods as pleased their fancy; principally blankets and clothing, and, returning next day they carried away, practically, the remainder of the stock. The value of the goods taken amounted to probably $3,000.[159]
June 19, 1856, Mr. John Miller testified concerning the robbery of Mr. Bernard's store, as follows:
I was at St. Bernard on Tuesday, May 27th, 1856. I was in the store (J. M. Bernard's) with Mr. Davis. Whilst there a party of 13 men came to the store on horseback, armed with Sharp's rifles, revolvers and bowie knives. They inquired for Mr. Bernard. I told them he had gone to Westport. One of them said to me, "You are telling a God damn lie," and drew up his gun at me. They called for such goods as they wanted and made Mr. Davis and me hand them out and said if we didn't hurry they would shoot us—they had their guns ready. After they had got the goods they wanted—principally, blankets and clothing—they packed them upon their horses and went away.... On the next evening, a party of 14 men came to the store on horseback. Thirteen of the party I recognized as the same that came to the store the day before and the other man I knew—William S. Ewitt is his name—and who I know is a Free-State man. They had a wagon along with them. They came into the store each having his gun ready. Some carried goods and some put the goods in the wagon.... They also took away with them Mr. Bernard's two large horses and three saddles and two bridles and nearly all the provisions that were there—bacon and flour and other provisions. They asked Mr. Davis for all the money he had in the store. There were but 4 dollars in the drawer which he handed to them. When they first came they looked up at the sign and said they would like to shoot at the name.[160]
An incident of vast importance to John Brown occurred in his secure retreat. What he then needed above all other earthly things, was a friend who could and would create a diversion in his behalf and present his case in a favorable light to the world. Here he met James Redpath, a correspondent for the New York Tribune, and other newspapers. Redpath had come to interview Brown, and to get a story for the press. Just how Redpath happened to know that Brown was due to arrive at that time, at that particular point on Ottawa Creek, is not publicly known; but he knew of it, and was there awaiting his arrival.[161] The location of Brown's hiding place was so well concealed that Captain Pate, in pursuit of the Browns northward, passed by without discovering it; and Redpath, notwithstanding he had explicit directions, lost his way and had difficulty in finding the place. His description of the camp is as follows:
I shall not soon forget the scene that here opened to my view. Near the edge of the creek a dozen horses were tied, all ready saddled for a ride for life, or a hunt after southern invaders. A dozen rifles and sabres were stacked against the trees. In an open space, amid the shady and lofty woods, there was a great blazing fire with a pot on it; a woman, bareheaded, with an honest, sun-burnt face, was picking blackberries from the bushes; three or four armed men were lying on red and blue blankets on the grass; and two fine looking youths were standing, leaning on their arms, on guard near by. One of them was the youngest son of Old Brown, and the other was "Charley," the brave Hungarian, who was subsequently murdered at Osawatomie. Old Brown himself stood near the fire, with his shirt sleeves rolled up, and a large piece of pork in his hand. He was cooking a pig. He was poorly clad, and his toes protruded from his boots. The old man received me with great cordiality, and the little band gathered about me. But it was for a moment only, for the Captain ordered them to renew their work. He respectfully but firmly forbade conversation on the Pottawatomie affair, and said, that, if I desired any information from the company in relation to their conduct or intention, he, as their captain, would answer for them whatever it was proper to communicate.[162]
Redpath remained for an hour in Brown's camp, an hour of importance to Brown, the most fortunate hour of his life. Redpath not only pledged to him his professional support, but assured him that the Free-State men would defend him, and promised to have the formidable "Stubbs" Rifle Company, armed with Sharp's rifles, march immediately to his relief. At the close of the interview he returned to Lawrence and began his vivid exploitation of Brown in the Territorial and Northern press. He succeeded in stemming the current of condemnation of the Pottawatomie murders which came sweeping up from Osawatomie, and turned the tide of Free-State opinion to Brown's advantage. He was thereafter Brown's foremost representative, and became his first and most lurid biographer.
While the incidents herein related were occurring in Brown's camp, the murderers of the pro-slavery men were being diligently sought for by voluntary pro-slavery partisans, as well as by the Territorial authorities. The flight of the Browns caused the finger of suspicion to point to them as the guilty persons; and when Captain Pate at the head of a party of Missourians came into the Osawatomie district, and found out what had happened there, he proceeded to carry off or burn all the available property of the Browns and their allies—Weiner and Bondi. He then followed the trail of the Browns and arrived in the vicinity of their camp on Ottawa Creek, May 31st. Brown, in the meantime, encouraged by the arrangements he had made with Redpath, and the prospect of substantial assistance, abandoned the idea of further flight and determined to fight, and if possible, capture his pursuers. With Pate's company of twenty-five men, there were as many horses, and probably a dozen mules, besides arms, provisions, and other plunder; all of which looked good to the plunder band.
The Free-State men in that neighborhood had organized a military company, the "Prairie City Rifles." It was under the command of Captain S. T. Shore, and numbered eighteen men. Shore agreed to "mobilize" his company, and unite his force with Brown's party of ten, and to attack Pate, by surprise, in his camp. An attack of this character upon undisciplined men, was practically certain of success. The command was given to Brown, and at daylight on the morning of June 2d, the combined forces opened fire upon the front and right flank of the astonished "invaders." The attack was creditable, especially to Brown, who planned it, and who preserved his poise, and displayed all the skill and courage necessary in such an engagement. He was fighting for his existence, and for spoils, and won the battle without loss of life on either side. After an hour or two of desultory firing, Pate surrendered unconditionally. The total casualties were four men wounded, two in Pate's command, and one each in Brown's and Shore's companies. Brown took possession of all Pate's horses and other property, and held his men as prisoners until June 5th, when Colonel E. V. Sumner, First United States Cavalry, arrived upon the scene and separated the belligerents. He restored to Pate his horses, and such other property belonging to him as he could find, and ordered all of the "companies" to disband and return to their homes.
In view of the losses sustained by the parties engaged in the battle, it seems as though the fighting was conducted along conservative lines. Brown's account of it to his wife reads as follows:
Near Brown's Station K. T. June 1856.
Dear Wife and Children, Everyone:
... The cowardly mean conduct of Osawatomie and vicinity did not save them; for the ruffians came on them, made numerous prisoners, fired their buildings, and robbed them. After this a picked party of the Bogus men went to Brown's Station, burned John's and Jason's houses, and their contents to ashes; in which burning we have all suffered more or less. Orson and boy have been prisoners, but were soon set at liberty. They are well, and have not been seriously injured. Owen and I have just come here for the first time, to look at the ruins. All looks desolate and forsaken—the grass and weeds fast covering up the signs that these places were lately the abodes of quiet families. After burning the houses, this selfsame party of picked men, some forty in number, set out as they supposed, and as was the fact, on the track of my little company, boasting, with awful profanity, that they would have our scalps. They however, passed the place where we were hid, and robbed a little town some four or five miles beyond our camp in the timber. I had omitted to say that some murders had been committed at the time Lawrence was sacked.
On learning that this party was in pursuit of us, my little company, now increased to ten in all, started after them in company of a Captain Shore, with eighteen men, he included (June 1). We were all mounted as we traveled. We did not meet them on that day, but took five prisoners, four of whom were their scouts, and well armed. We were out all night, but could find nothing of them until about six o'clock next morning, when we prepared to attack them at once, on foot, leaving Frederick and one of Captain Shore's men to guard the horses. As I was much older than Captain Shore, the principal direction of the fight devolved on me. We got to within about a mile of their camp before being discovered by their scouts, and then moved at a brisk pace, Captain Shore and men forming our left, and my company the right. When within about sixty rods of the enemy, Captain Shore's men halted by mistake in a very exposed situation and continued to fire, both his men and the enemy being armed with Sharpe's rifles. My company had no long shooters. We (my company) did not fire a gun until we gained the rear of a bank about fifteen or twenty rods to the right of the enemy, where we commenced, and soon compelled them to hide in a ravine. Captain Shore after getting one man wounded and exhausted his ammunition, came with part of his men to the right of my position, much discouraged. The balance of his men, including the one wounded, had left the ground. Five of Captain Shore's men came boldly down and joined my company, and all but one man, wounded, helped to maintain the fight until it was over. I was obliged to give my consent that he should go after more help, when all his men left but eight, four of whom I persuaded to remain in a secure position, and there busied one of them in shooting the horses and mules of the enemy, which served for a show of fight. After the firing had continued for some two or three hours, Captain Pate with twenty-three men, two badly wounded, laid down their arms to nine men, myself included,—four to Captain Shore's men and four to my own. One of my men (Henry Thompson) was badly wounded, and after continuing his fire for an hour longer was obliged to quit the ground. Three others of my company (but not of my family) had gone off. Salmon was dreadfully wounded by accident, soon after the fight; but both he and Henry are fast recovering....[163]
I ought to have said that Captain Shore and his men stood their ground nobly in their unfortunate but mistaken position during the early part of the fight. I ought to say further that a Captain Abbott, being some miles distant with a company, came onward promptly to sustain us, but could not reach us till the fight was over. After the fight numerous Free-State men who could not be got out before were on hand, and some of them I am ashamed to add, were very busy not only with the plunder of our enemies, but with our private effects, leaving us, while guarding our prisoners and providing in regard to them, much poorer than before the battle....
Your affectionate husband and father,
John Brown.
"Articles of Surrender" signed by Captains Brown, Shore, and Pate, and his lieutenant, W. B. Brockett, provided for an exchange of prisoners, stipulating that Brown's sons—John and Jason—then prisoners, were to be exchanged for Pate and Brockett respectively. It also provided that the side arms of each person exchanged were to be returned, also the horses, "so far as practicable."
An important incident at Black Jack was the failure of the deputy United States marshal, Wm. J. Preston, to arrest the Browns. He had warrants for their arrest for the murders on the Pottawatomie, and came with Sumner to accomplish it. The Colonel notified Brown that they would be served in his presence, but when ordered by Sumner to proceed, the marshal said: "I do not recognize any one for whom I have warrants," to which the Colonel replied: "Then what are you here for?"[164] A man of Brown's years and experience and courage is a dangerous animal when thus situated. That a tragedy was impending is more than probable. At any rate, Preston quailed under the hostile look which Brown fixed upon him. What would have happened if the marshal had attempted to make the arrests, none can say, but Preston decided not to mix up in a tragedy.
Another incident in the affair of historical importance was the presence of John E. Cook, as a guest in Brown's camp. None of Brown's biographers has referred to this incident, but the fact appears in Cook's confession heretofore quoted from. It will be difficult for anyone to account for Cook's presence there, at that psychological moment, upon any hypothesis other than that he was there by virtue of an invitation from Brown, or other notice or understanding with him. It follows, presumptively, that this was not the first time they had met, and that they were mutually interested in the problem which Brown had under consideration: how to get away, safely, with the horses and mules which he had taken from Pate. The final clause of the last sentence in the "Articles of Surrender," foreshadows the possibility, or probability, that some of the horses might be missing later on, and gives credit to the suspicion, or assumption, that Cook had come to the camp to run the stock off north and turn it into money, as had been done with the Pottawatomie horses. That the horses and mules herein were not run off immediately, and disposed of, was doubtless due to the negotiations that were pending for the liberation of Brown's sons. He probably thought that a theft of the horses would be construed as a violation of the terms of the surrender, and might prevent the exchange of prisoners that he hoped to effect. But whatever his hopes and his plans may have been, they were all dissipated and broken up by a fly that unexpectedly dropped into the ointment of his calculations: the arrival upon the scene of Sumner, with his cavalry. He spoiled everything. First he made Brown give back to Pate's men all the property he had taken from them, or as much of it as was visible, and then peremptorily ordered all the combatants to disband and return to their homes.
Sumner's orders bore lightly upon Captain Shore. It was a simple proposition for his men to "disband and return to their regular vocations." The presence of Pate and his band in the neighborhood was a menace to their peace and security; they had left their work, in response to a call from their captain, to unite in an effort to drive out the intruders; also they had behaved creditably, and were ready to return to their homes and to the congratulations which they were sure to receive from their Free-State neighbors on account of their victory. But with the Browns it was different. They were engaged in a different kind of business: the horse and general robbery business. They too had won a victory—a far greater victory than Shore's men. It was their personal fight which they had won. With Shore's assistance they had beaten and captured the posse that had come to arrest them for murder and robbery. They had fought for their lives—also for Pate's horses and mules. But they had no homes to which to go. They belonged to a different class of citizens—the undesirable class. They were outlaws against whom their neighbors and relatives had closed their doors. Mr. Villard states[165] that on the evening of May 26th, John Brown, Jr., and Jason Brown were refused admittance into the house of their uncle, the Rev. Mr. Adair, near Osawatomie. He said to them, "Can't keep you here. Our lives are threatened. Every moment we expect to have our house burned over our heads." However, after assuring Mrs. Adair that they "did not have anything to do with the murders on the Pottawatomie" they were permitted to come in. But later that night, when Owen Brown sought admittance to his uncle's home, Mr. Adair refused even to parley with him, saying: "Get away, get away as quickly as you can! You endanger our lives. You are a vile murderer, a marked man!"
Bondi states that within an hour after Sumner ordered the companies to disband. Camp Brown had ceased to exist. The wounded Salmon (Thompson) was taken to Carpenter's cabin, nearby, and nursed by Bondi; the others, with Weiner, camped in a thicket about half a mile from the abandoned camp.[166] June 10th settlement was made with Weiner, and he left the country. It is probable that, at this date, the horses which were taken on the Pottawatomie had been sold; and that final settlement was then made between the Browns and Weiner, and their unknown confederates. Mr. Villard states that "on Thursday June 10, at a council held that day, it was agreed to separate. Weiner had business in Louisiana. Henry Thompson [Salmon Brown] was also taken to Carpenter's cabin, and Bondi accompanied Weiner as far as Leavenworth."
This was the end of the first John Brown organization. The period of its active operations covered eighteen days, May 24th to June 10th. During this time they murdered five men; stole a lot of horses; made a big horse trade, exchanging the whole, or a part of the stolen horses; robbed a store; made an alliance with Captain Shore, and captured Pate's posse at Black Jack: a record of strenuous activity, characteristic of the aggressive speculator who directed the movements.
The chapter of robbery and murder on the Pottawatomie, of which Brown's success over Pate at Black Jack was an incident, closes with the settlement herein stated and the dissolution of Brown's band June 10th. It further appears that John Brown and his unmarried sons quit the Territory late in July, en route to the east. Inquiry then, very properly turns to what Brown did during the fifty days intervening between these dates. In the case of an altruistic hero, a "leader of the Free-State Cause," such as the heralds proclaim Brown to have been, the public supposes, naturally, that he did something during these days of opportunity that was worthy of the great distinction with which he is credited. But to the question: WHAT did he do? history gives back no answer. The historical record of John Brown, except as to three days, July 2d to 4th, is a total blank. Even his "whereabouts" during these fifty days is, to the public, unknown. The history of those days of strenuous endeavor, shows clearly where Robinson was, and what he was doing. He was the Free-State Governor of the "State of Kansas," and was in jail, or in confinement, under indictment in the Territorial Court for "Constructive Treason." History shows where Lane was, and where Walker was, and where Sam, Woods, and Deitzler, and G. W. Brown and the others were, but not where John Brown was. His latest biographer dismisses the question as immaterial, with the following generalization:[167]
"Not until the beginning of July," he says, "did John Brown terminate this life in the bush and again become active. On July 2 he boldly entered Lawrence, and called upon the Tribune correspondent, William A. Phillips." Brown's object, in calling upon Phillips, was not to make a report of the public services which he had rendered during the thirty days preceding; but for the purpose of having him publish a letter which he had written in reply to Captain Pate's report of the Black Jack affair—a personal matter between himself and Pate. It may be said that if Brown had done anything creditable during "this life in the bush" he would not have failed to report the fact to Phillips for publication, for he was vain. He did, however, the next best thing; he told Phillips what he intended to do: "That he was on his way to Topeka with his followers, to be on hand at whatever crisis might arise at the opening of the legislature." Continuing his remarks Mr. Villard says: