Dr. Howe also knew of the impending insurrection. Mr. Sanborn says:[433]

Thaddeus Hyatt, of New York, too, seems to have known what Brown intended to do, and from whence he derived his inspirations. Also the indiscriminate massacre of non-combatants, white women and children, by the negroes of Hayti seems to have had his approbation. He presented to the Black Republic a portrait[434] of the man, John Brown, who in 1859 sought to incite the negroes of the Southern States to do what the negroes of San Domingo did, when "one August night, in the year 1791 the whole plain of the north was swept with fire and drenched with blood. Five hundred thousand negro slaves in the depths of barbarism revolted, and the horrors of the massacre made Europe and America shudder."[435]

August 27, 1859, Gerrit Smith wrote the following letter to the "Jerry Rescue Committee":[436]

Commenting upon this letter, Mr. Sanborn, after quoting from Mr. Smith's biographer the expression "This Cassandra spoke from certainty," says that he (Smith) "knew what Brown's purpose was; and his last contribution to Brown's campaign was made about the time the Syracuse letter was written." Referring to the same letter, his biographer, Frothingham, says:

As late as 1867, Mr. Smith disclaimed having any knowledge of Brown's plans or of his intentions. He denied that he gave money with the purpose of aiding the insurrection. Concerning this Mr. Frothingham continues:

The theory of Brown's operations being the conquest of the South through an insurrection of the slaves, the collapse of the scheme was coincident with the failure of the slaves to execute the part assigned to them in the plan of the invasion. It is herein that Brown's leadership may be criticised. The creation of the army depended upon the success of the insurrection. The latter, therefore, should have been made safe—beyond the possibility of failure—before he committed any subordinate irremediable acts.

At Cleveland, Brown took credit for never having killed anybody, but said, in a self conscious manner, referring to his Kansas successes, that on "some occasions he had shown his young men with him how some things might be done as well as others and that they had done them." Brown plainly attributed the failure of the insurrection, and his consequent failure, to a cause which he could have controlled—to his failure to do things which he could have done, and which he then reproached himself for not having done.

"It is my own fault," he said, October 18th, "that I have been taken. I could easily have saved myself from it, had I exercised my own better judgment rather than yielded to my feelings."

"You mean if you had escaped immediately?" inquired Mr. Mason.

"No," he said, "I had the means to make myself secure without any escape, but I allowed myself to be surrounded by a force by being too tardy."

Brown had planned how to prevent being surrounded, and continuing said: "I do not know that I should reveal my plans. I am here a prisoner and wounded because I foolishly allowed myself to be so. You overrate yourself in supposing I could have been taken if I had not allowed it."

Nat Turner had shown his followers how to start an insurrection. He personally spilled the first blood, the blood which turned loose the furies in Southampton County, and Brown now saw, too late, that if he and his captains had each led a party of negroes, as Turner had led; and shown them how to kill, as Turner had shown his followers; they too might have turned loose the furies of which Brown and Forbes dreamed, and launched the hurricane of death. Then, with thousands of rioting slaves, brandishing their bloody spears, the occupation of Harper's Ferry would have been but an incident of minor importance in this history.

Forbes perceived the weak link in the chain of Brown's forecast, and made the point, that unless the slaves were "already in a state of agitation, there might be no response, or a feeble one." But Brown, carried away by an enthusiasm inspired by a continuous contemplation of the grandeur of his scheme, failed to give the warning the consideration which its importance deserved. He dismissed Forbes's caution with the confident assertion that he "was sure of a response" His over-confidence led to his immediate undoing. Upon the rock that Forbes had pointed out foundered the new-born ship of state. The great uprising of the blacks upon which he relied, failed to materialize; the thousands of reënforcements which he looked for, appeared not at all.[437] The plans for the conquest of the Southern States, and for the establishment of the Provisional Government miscarried.

Concerning Brown and his plans Mr. Vallandigham said:

John Brown was not a pioneer in the slave insurrection business, nor does his plan of procedure at Harper's Ferry suggest any novelties or anything original in the way of such insurrections. He had before him a long line of precedents and examples which he studied; and ideals, written in blood, which he sought to emulate. His heroes were Toussaint L'Ouverture and Nat Turner, their hands red with the blood of innocence. Turner had killed between fifty and sixty white people, mostly women and children, and Mr. Redpath tells us that Brown "admired this negro patriot equally with George Washington." Turner was his most recent and most direct example. It was from what Turner had done, that Brown and Forbes formed their estimates of what they could do. From the example furnished by this ideal patriot, they framed the Maryland-Virgina equation. They reasoned in this way: If an ignorant slave, with a score of poorly armed negro followers, who were also slaves, could kill sixty white people in a day, how many white people could a thousand negroes, who are well equipped for midnight slaughter, kill in a single night? Their solution of that problem found expression in the order which they placed, in March, 1857, with the Collinsville blacksmith. It was Brown's answer to this question, expanded as Brown sought to expand it at Harper's Ferry, that was to "make slavery totter from its foundations."

Upon several occasions—notably, once in South Carolina, and twice in Virginia—the slaves of this country had engaged in conspiracies against their masters. In each instance the men who promoted the revolt were themselves slaves. In two instances the insurgents planned to seize the arsenals, and public arms and ammunition, as Brown planned to do, and did, at Harper's Ferry. In each instance the revolt was to be accomplished by a general massacre of the white inhabitants. Brown and Forbes, in 1857, studied the trails that had been blazed on these occasions, and planned with reference to the experiences of the men who had directed the efforts.

The first attempt at insurrection in this country was led by "General" Gabriel in September, 1800. The date agreed upon was Saturday [Monday], September 1st. The place of rendezvous was on a brook six miles from Richmond, Virginia. The force was to comprise eleven hundred men, divided into three divisions. The attack was to have been made upon Richmond, then a town of eight thousand population, under cover of the night.[439]

The plan for the occupation of Richmond was similar in some respects to Brown's plans at Harper's Ferry. One of the divisions of the army was to take the penitentiary, which had been improvised into an arsenal. Another division was to seize the powder-house. A statement of the trouble was published in the United States Gazette of Philadelphia, September 8, 1800:

A formidable insurrection was attempted in 1822 by Denmark Vesey. The slaves involved in this plot were distributed over a territory of forty-five to fifty miles in extent around Charleston, South Carolina. Vesey's plan of revolt contemplated the wholesale slaughter of the white population and the occupation of the country by the blacks.

Two promoters of slave insurrections were born during the year 1800: John Brown and Nat Turner. The latter was born in Southampton County, Virginia, October 2d. Turner became a preacher, and later, saw visions. He saw visions of conflicts "between white spirits and black spirits engaged in battle; and the sun was darkened, the thunder rolled in the heavens, and blood flowed in the streams...." Afterward he had another vision in which an angel told him that "the time is fast approaching when the 'first shall be last and the last first'"; which he interpreted as foreshadowing the promotion of the blacks to control in public affairs, and the subordination of the whites. Encouraged by his conclusion, he determined to attempt the promotion of the blacks by eliminating the whites. In pursuance of this he planned a general uprising of the slaves and massacre of their white masters. His blow was struck on the night of August 21, 1831, near Jerusalem Court House, Virginia.

Turner trusted his plans to four men: Sam Edwards, Hark Travis, Henry Porter, and Nelson Williams. After the plans had been completed. Turner made a speech appropriate to the occasion. He said: "Our race is to be delivered from slavery, and God has appointed us as the men to do his bidding; and let us be worthy of our calling. I am told to slay all the whites we encounter without regard to age or sex. We have no arms or ammunition but we will find these in the homes of our oppressors; and, as we go on, others can join us. Remember we do not go for the sake of blood and carnage, but it is necessary that in the commencement of this revolution, all the whites we meet should die, until we have an army strong enough to carry on the war on a Christian basis. Remember that ours is not war for robbery nor to satisfy our passions; it is a struggle for freedom. Ours must be deeds, not words. Then let us away to the scene of action." In his confession after sentence of death had been passed upon him, Turner described the scenes of the murders which they committed. Of the attack upon the home of Joseph Travis, his master, he said:[442]

After they had taken the lives of the Travis family, "they went from plantation to plantation, dealing death blows to every white man, woman and child they found." A list of the "dead that have been buried" was published August 24th: At Mrs. Whitehead's, 7; Mrs. Waller's, 13; Mr. Williams's, 3; Mr. Barrow's, 2; Mr. Vaughn's, 5; Mrs. Turner's, 3; Mr. Travis's, 5; Mr. J. Williams's, 5; Mr. Reece's, 4; names unknown, 10; total, 57.

The news of the massacre spread rapidly, and the excited whites quickly armed themselves to suppress the insurrection. As a result, "Arms and ammunition were dispatched in wagons to the county of Southampton. The four volunteer companies of Petersburg, the dragoons and Lafayette Artillery Company of Richmond, one volunteer company from Norfolk and one from Portsmouth, and the regiments of Southampton and Sussex, were at once ordered out. The cavalry and infantry took up their line of march on Tuesday evening, while the artillery embarked on the steamer 'Norfolk' and landed at Smithfield."[443]

A Mr. Gray, to whom Turner made his confession, said of him:

And yet, such were the phenomenal inconsistencies occurring in the philosophy of persons who professed, and who, perhaps, believed themselves to be humane, this negro's crime was exultingly approved of by Brown's Eastern supporters. Mr. William Lloyd Garrison, at a meeting called to witness "John Brown's resurrection" said in his speech:

CHAPTER XVI

A SOLDIER OF THE CROSS

No man can produce great things who is not thoroughly
sincere in dealing with himself.

—Lowell

The regular semi-annual term of the court of Jefferson County, Virginia, began October 20th. Brown was taken into custody on Tuesday, October 18th, and on Tuesday morning, October 25th, he was put on trial for his life. For this unseemly haste the Virginia authorities have been censured. The spectacle of an old man, physically incapacitated, and suffering because of recent wounds, being rushed to trial without reasonable time and opportunity to even secure friendly counsel, justified harsh criticism, and did not fail to win sympathy for Brown from right thinking men in all sections of the country. Also, that wrong had much to do with promoting his "martyrdom." It was, however, his right to the courtesies of judicial procedure, in such cases, rather than any of his legal rights, that was infringed. In his efforts to explain his purpose for being at Harper's Ferry he had not only, in effect, confessed his guilt of all the charges upon which he was being held for trial, but had sought to justify his conduct in relation to them. Mr. Greeley, in the Tribune of October 25th, wrote:[445]

The jurisdiction of the Federal courts in the premises, was not seriously considered. The State had never ceded to the United States its jurisdiction over the territory that Brown had taken possession of, in behalf of the Provisional Government, and from which he had directed his operations. The question was raised as an expedient, because the Federal court afforded better facilities for incriminating Brown's northern supporters, the men "higher up," than did the State courts. Later, it was agreed upon that Stevens should be surrendered to the United States for trial. Mr. Hunter, for the prosecution, announced the fact, in court, November 7th, saying, that they were now after "higher and wickeder game."[446] But when, on December 15th, the President inquired by wire whether Stevens had been so surrendered, the prosecution hesitated; Mr. Hunter replying:

December 8th, Governor Wise wrote to Mr. Hunter:

The political necessity for trying Stevens in the Federal court, was obviated by Congress. December 14th, a select committee of the Senate was appointed to "inquire into the late invasion and seizure of public property at Harper's Ferry." It was clothed with authority to investigate the whole subject. The members were Mason, of Virginia, chairman; Davis, of Mississippi; Fitch, of Indiana; Doolittle, of Wisconsin; and Collamer, of Vermont; the majority being pro-slavery. The findings of the committee constitute the Mason Report, referred to in this book.

At the preliminary examination, the presiding justice of the peace, Mr. Braxton Davenport, appointed as counsel for Brown Mr. Charles J. Faulkner and Mr. Lawson Botts. Mr. Faulkner was present at Harper's Ferry during the trouble, and thought it would be improper for him to represent the prisoners as counsel. He was therefore excused, and Mr. Thomas G. Green was appointed in his stead. Mr. Villard states that in "Messrs. Green and Botts, John Brown had assigned to him far abler counsel than would have been given to an ordinary malefactor." Brown's reply to the Court when asked if he had counsel is deserving of a place in this history. It was worthy of a leader of a lost cause. Though feebly rising to his feet, he said with defiant spirit:[449]

When the question relating to counsel was submitted to Stevens, he promptly accepted the gentlemen named and the examination was proceeded with.

At 2 o'clock the preliminary court of examination reported its findings, and the presiding judge, Hon. Richard Parker, of the circuit court, at once submitted the case to the grand jury in an able and dispassionate address. At noon the next day, the 26th, a true bill was returned against each of the prisoners on the following counts: For "Treason to the commonwealth"; for "conspiring with slaves to commit treason"; and for "murder." After the noon hour the defendants were brought into court to plead to the indictments. Brown, refusing to appear voluntarily, was carried into the court room on a cot. He then made a plea for delay.

Mr. Hunter objected to consideration of Brown's plea until after the arraignment had been made. The Court held that the indictment should first be read, so that the prisoners could plead guilty or not guilty; after that he would consider Brown's request. Each prisoner pleaded not guilty and having demanded separate trials, the State chose to try Brown first.

The Court did not take the question of Brown's guilt or innocence seriously. The trial was simply to be a dignified conformance with the laws of the Commonwealth relating to the subject. Except as to respect for this formality, it was not considered important whether Brown had any counsel at all. On the 22d of October, Mr. Hunter, in a letter to Governor Wise said:

Immediately upon the announcement by the Court that Brown should have a fair trial, arrangements were made to provide friendly counsel for his defense. First, Mr. J. W. Le Barnes, of Boston, at his personal expense, employed Mr. George H. Hoyt, a young lawyer of Athol, Massachusetts, to go to Charlestown and represent Brown in the dual capacity of counsel and spy. His instructions were, "first, to watch and be able to report proceedings, to see and talk with Brown, and be able to communicate with his friends anything Brown might want to say; and second, to send me (Le Barnes) an accurate and detailed account of the military situation at Charlestown, the number and the distribution of the troops, the location and defences of the jail; the opportunities for a sudden attack and the means of retreat, with the location and situation of the room in which Brown is confined," etc.[451]

Hoyt arrived at Charlestown on Thursday night, and on Friday morning, October 28th, reported to the Court and asked to be made additional counsel. His youth and his evident inefficiency, aroused a suspicion, on the part of Mr. Hunter, that he came as a spy rather than as counsel.[452] He accordingly asked that Hoyt be excluded from participating in the trial. In this he was overruled. The same day he reported to Governor Wise that a "beardless boy came in last night as Brown's counsel." And that he thought "he is a spy."[453] October 21st, Brown wrote letters, similar in character, to Judge Daniel Tilden, of Cleveland, Ohio, and to Hon. Thomas Russell, of Boston, asking them to appear for him as counsel, saying:

"I am here a prisoner, with several sabre-cuts on my head and bayonet stabs in my body."[454] In response to his request, Judge Tilden secured the services of Mr. Hiram Griswold, of Cleveland, to appear in his stead. The latter arrived at Charlestown, Saturday morning, October 29th. At the same time Mr. Samuel Chilton, of Washington, D. C., also arrived, and upon reporting to the Court, these two distinguished lawyers were assigned as counsel to Brown's staff. Mr. Chilton came upon the solicitation of Mr. John A. Andrew, of Boston.[455] Judge Russell did not arrive until November 2d.

On Thursday morning, October 27th, the trial was begun with a surprise for the prosecution—Mr. Botts reading a telegram, which stated that insanity was hereditary in Brown's family; that his mother's sister had died while insane, and that a daughter of that sister had been two years in a lunatic asylum, and citing other instances of insanity in the family.[456]

Mr. Botts then stated, "That upon receiving the above dispatch he went to the jail, with his associate, Mr. Green, and read it to Brown, and was desired by him to say that in his father's family there has never been any insanity at all. On his mother's side there have been repeated instances of it.... Brown also desires his counsel to say that he does not put in a plea of insanity."[457]

His counsel again moved for a continuance, and, doubtless, pleaded the insanity phase of the question in support of the motion. Upon the conclusion of Mr. Botts's remarks, Brown raised up on his couch and said:

Mr. Griswold, however, after coming into the case, revived the question of Brown's sanity, and on November 7th, enclosed to the Governor a petition and an affidavit affirming the claim that Brown was insane.[459] Replying to this letter, Mr. Villard states that the Governor replied that "a plea of insanity could be filed at any time before conviction or sentence, and wrote an admirable letter to Dr. Stribbling, superintendent of the lunatic asylum at Staunton, Virginia, ordering him to proceed to Charlestown and examine the prisoner, saying: 'If the prisoner is insane he ought to be cured; and if not insane the fact ought to be vouched for in the most reliable form, now that it is questioned under oath and by counsel since conviction.' Unfortunately, the impetuous Governor countermanded these instructions and the letter was never sent."

Later, acting upon the advice of Mr. Montgomery Blair, the defence secured nineteen affidavits made by friends living at Akron, Cleveland, and Hudson, Ohio, in support of the plea. These affidavits were delivered to Governor Wise by Mr. Hoyt, on the 23d day of November. Mr. Villard states that "these people in their efforts to save Brown laid bare some sad family secrets." However, upon this very important phase of Brown's condition Governor Wise had an opinion of his own. To the Virginia Legislature he said: "I know that he was sane, if quick and clear perception, if assumed rational premises and consecutive reasoning from them, if cautious tact in avoiding disclosures and in covering conclusions and inferences, if memory and conception and practical common sense, and if composure and self-possession are evidence of a sound state of mind. He was more sane than his prompters and promoters, and concealed well the secret which made him seem to do an act of mad impulse, by leaving him, without his backers, at Harper's Ferry."[460]

Brown's line of defense is set forth in a memorandum of suggestions which he personally prepared for the guidance of his counsel.[461] It reads as follows:

The defense began Friday afternoon. Mr. Villard states that Messrs. Botts and Green, following John Brown's suggestion, "essayed to prove, the kindness with which Brown treated his prisoners," which drew from Mr. Hunter the "caustic and truthful comment that testimony as to Brown's forbearance in not shooting other citizens had no more to do with the case than had the dead languages."

Mr. Hunter's objections being overruled, a number of Brown's witnesses were examined to show that he had not only not killed his prisoners and everybody else who came within the range of his rifles, but that he had treated all courteously, notwithstanding the fact that his enemies had fired upon his flag of truce, and had killed one of his men, William Thompson, while he was a prisoner in their hands.

A scene was precipitated at the trial when the names of some of his witnesses were called and it was found that they were not present; Brown thereupon arose and, denouncing his counsel, demanded that the proceedings be deferred until the next morning. A Herald correspondent stated:[462]

Mr. Hoyt, of Brown's counsel, added to the interest of the scene by asking that the case be postponed. Anticipating that his colleagues would withdraw from the case as a result of Brown's speech, he said that he was utterly unable to go on with the case alone and that Judge Tilden, of Ohio, was coming to assist the defense, and would arrive during the night. Counsel Botts and Green, after asserting that they had done everything possible for their client, announced, that since the prisoner had no confidence in them they could no longer act in his behalf. Judge Parker thereupon released them, as counsel, and adjourned the trial until the next day at 10 o'clock.[463]

When court convened Saturday morning, Mr. Griswold and Mr. Chilton appeared for Brown, and asked for delay—a few hours only—in which to make some preparation for the defense, which was refused. "This term will end very soon," the Judge said, "and it is my duty to endeavor to get through with all the cases if possible, in justice to the prisoners and to the State."

With the examination of a few additional witnesses, the testimony for the defense closed and the battle of wits began with a motion by Mr. Chilton, that the State be compelled to elect one count in the indictment and abandon the others. That Brown was charged with treason, and with conspiracy and advising with slaves and others to rebel, and with murder in the first degree. He contended, and cited authorities to sustain his contention, that in a case of treason, different descriptions of treason could not be united in the same indictment; high treason could not be associated with other treason. If an inferior grade of the same character could not be included in separate counts, still less could offense of higher grade, etc., etc., etc. Mr. Harding, associate counsel for the prosecution, of course, could not see the force of the objection made by the learned counsel on the other side. The separate offenses charged were but different parts of the same transactions. "Murder arose out of the treason as the natural result of the bloody conspiracy." Mr. Hunter said the discretion of the Court on one count in the indictment is only exercised where great embarrassment would otherwise result to the prisoner. The Court held that the point might be taken advantage of to move an arrest of judgment; but since the jury had been charged, and had been sworn to try the prisoners on the indictment as drawn, the trial must go on.... The very fact that the defense can be charged in different counts, varying the language and circumstances, is based upon the idea that distinct offenses may be charged in the same indictment. The prisoners are to be tried on the various counts as if they were various circumstances, etc. Mr. Chilton then said he would reserve the motion as a basis for a motion in arrest of judgment.[464]

Mr. Griswold then stated that the prisoner desired that the case be argued, and that while he had not been present at the trial, counsel could obtain sufficient knowledge of the evidence by reading the notes; and since it was nearly dark, he supposed argument for the Commonwealth would engage the attention of the Court until the usual hour of adjournment; and asked that the Court adjourn after the opening argument by the prosecution. Mr. Hunter opposed opening the argument "unless the case was to be finished to-night," and protested against any further delay. The Court ordered the trial to proceed, but at the close of Mr. Hunter's speech, of forty minutes' duration, adjournment was had until Monday. Brown sought by all the means in his power on Saturday, to delay the trial, and when court convened after noon he sent word from the jail that he was sick; whereupon the jail physician. Dr. Mason, was summoned in the case. He reported that Brown was feigning illness. The Court then directed that he be brought into court on a cot. Mr. Hunter states that after the adjournment was procured, the "crafty old fiend was well enough to walk."

On Monday, at 1:30 p. m., the argument was completed. Mr. Chilton asked the Court to instruct the jury that if they believed the prisoner was not a citizen of Virginia, but of another State, they could not convict on a count of treason. The Court declined, saying the Constitution did not give rights and immunities alone, but also imposed responsibilities.

At 2:15 the jury returned their verdict of guilty. It was received in respectful silence; no demonstration of satisfaction or evidence of elation greeted the announcement. Of its reception by the people in waiting Mr. Villard says: "It is to the credit of the Charlestown crowd and of Virginia that not a single sound of elation or triumph assailed the dignity of the court, when the jury sealed Brown's doom. In solemn silence the crowd heard Mr. Chilton make his formal motion for an arrest of judgment, because of errors in the indictment and in the verdict, and it filed out equally silent when Judge Parker ordered the motion to stand over until the next day."

One person was dissatisfied with Brown's trial; not the prisoner—for he acknowledged the deep sense of his obligation, to both Court and counsel, for the treatment he had received—but Mr. James Redpath. He said: