John+Brown

**by Jesse Rosenberger** John Brown is a historical figure with much significance. His role in American history as a catalyst in the Civil War is undisputed. He was the leader of the Pottowatomie Creek Massacre, paramount to “Bleeding Kansas” in 1856. He is even better known for his failed raid on the Federal arsenal in 1859 at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia. So who really was John Brown? What perception should historians have of the man? Jules Abels’ book __Man on Fire__ says that a man’s reputation changes from time period to time period depending on what is popular at the time. Some call him a murderer. Some make biblical comparisons of him to Gideon, Moses, and even Jesus Christ. These opinions are of a broad range. Some considered him a madman, others considered him a martyr. Many biographers say he was a religious family man constantly in pursuit of his cause of abolition. Stephen B. Oates in __To Purge This Land with Blood__ asserts that his father, Oliver Brown, sowed the seeds of this abolitionist cause in his son from a very young age. Jules Abels in __Man on Fire__ echoes the common theme of his religious faith determining his cause. The different accounts do give a variety of perspectives on exactly who John Brown was. In 1856 W.A. Phillips wrote about John Brown. His statement shows the myth surrounding the man even before Harper’s Ferry. He wrote: “So carefully can he conceal his quarters, that when you wish to find him when he does not wish it, you might as well hunt for a needle in a haystack. He is a strange, resolute, repulsive, iron-willed, exorable old man. He stands like a solitary rock in a more mobile society, a fiery nature, and a cold temper, and a cooler head – a volcano beneath a covering of snow.” Did Phillips believe John Brown was super-human? Or possibly he believed John Brown was a stoic, cold-blooded man of his convictions, someone devoted to fighting for their cause. Was John Brown that much of an imposing figure? Possibly the publicity of his deeds later inflated the myth of John Brown once people learned what he had done in “Bleeding Kansas”. During the Civil War the poem __John Brown’s Body__ became popular among Union soldiers. Stephen Vincent Benet wrote this poem at the beginning of the Civil War. He wrote about John Brown: “His soul is marching on.” And “His song is blown out of the mouth of a cannon.” This popular song seemed to almost deify John Brown. Jules Abels writes later that many people in the United States and in Europe felt that John Brown was murdered not executed, that he was killed by the greed of heartless Southerners defending their peculiar institution. Abels continues by comparing what John Brown did for the Negro race to what Jesus Christ did for all humanity. This idea of self-sacrifice is found in other books about John Brown. W.E.B. Dubois writes in 1909 in __John Brown__ how John Brown started the Civil War by giving himself to the cause to bring justice to the slaves. Even earlier biographies paint the picture of John Brown being a hero worthy of sainthood and worship. James Redpath,1860, Franklin B. Sanborn, 1885, and Richard J. Hinton,1895, were the first three full-scale biographers. Al three men knew John Brown personally and all three knew he was going to invade the South in 1859. They did not know the location but nonetheless did not betray him; they must have been in support of his cause. All three men, especially Sanborn, considered Brown to be a virtuous hero without flaw. James Redpath did not even mention the Pottowatomie Creek Massacre. Sanborn and Hinton both wrote about the 1856 massacre but did not admit that Brown had done anything wrong. They felt he was guilty of nothing. These authors all could be considered biased because they knew John Brown personally before his execution in 1859. So for the first fifty years plus some following John Brown’s execution biographers viewed him as a heroic martyr without guilt. Into the twentieth century that perception does not change immediately. W.E.B. Dubois wrote a book about John Brown entitled __John Brown__ in 1909. Dubois continued the praise for John Brown. His writing was extremely passionate, he considered Brown to be “Christ-like” in his life of abolition. He made the Christian-like statement of “John Brown loved his neighbor like himself.” Dubois used many primary sources such as letters to and from John Brown. He includes newspaper accounts. He also quotes Franklin B. Sanborn’s book quite often. Just like Sanborn Dubois believed John Brown’s role in history was of great social, political, and moral significance. W.E.B. Dubois was a black man who founded the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, N.A.A.C.P. He championed equal rights for blacks. This sheds some light on his quote that John Brown had a belief in equal distribution of property. According to Dubois, John Brown wanted land redistribution even before the Civil War started. This would have been as radical an idea possible in the 1850’s since slavery still existed. Considering the time period in which Dubois wrote this, it must have been a positive reflection on John Brown. In 1909, when Dubois wrote __John Brown__, socialism was somewhat popular in America. Eugene Debs gained six percent of the popular vote in the already crowded presidential election of 1912. W.E.B. Dubois had some ideas from outside the mainstream. He claimed John Brown was a racial pioneer, someone destined for what he accomplished. Dubois also makes the argument about the cost of liberty versus the price of repression. The idea behind it was that the effort it required to keep blacks as second class citizens was much more difficult than just giving in and allowing liberty, which cost very little to give. Dubois also referred to Charles Darwin as reason for change in the treatment of blacks. He also mentions such grand and noble influences such as the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Puritanism of Colonial America as contributing factors to who John Brown came to be. Dubois also spoke of Negro destiny as being something that needed sought after. He felt John Brown was a racial pioneer in that pursuit. Was this a justifiable claim? Or was W.E.B. Dubois just hero-worshipping to promote the continuation of his own cause of racial equality. In 1909 racial equality was an ignored issue, the progressivists cared more about immigrants than blacks who had lived in America for many generations. So is it possible that __John Brown__ by W.E.B. Dubois was written passionately on purpose? Or was it to serve his purpose. Dubois’ references to Brown as a biblical hero like Moses or Jesus Christ could be considered excessive, or at least self-serving. In the book __Man on Fire__ by Jules Abels there is reference to some anti-John Brown feelings. Abels makes reference to Robert Penn Warren’s book __John Brown; The Making of a Martyr__ published in 1929. This book Abels said “debunks” Brown. He alludes to the criticism not being very severe but that it argues John Brown to be less than a hero. Abels also mentions a paper by James C. Malin printed in 1942. This paper was printed by the American Philosophical Society and it speaks of Brown in a negative way. According to Abels the paper was a culmination of years of research based in Kansas where John Brown has thought to have been more of a criminal than a saint was. These anti-Brown feelings have been present since the time of the Harper’s Ferry raid. These feelings could possibly represent ethnocentristic feelings from Kansas. “Bleeding Kansas” was truly a prototype for the Civil War. With this in mind it is reasonable to assume that some of the ”lost cause” mentality continued on there well after the time of John Brown. The next source of information is __Invasion at Harper’s Ferry__ by Robert M. Fogelson. This book does not tell a story as much as some others, at least in such an obvious way. The central theme of the book is examining the collective American attitude toward mass violence. Do Americans tend to have mass violence as a part of their mindset? This book was not so much of a monograph of John Brown as a part of this supposed American tendency toward mass violence. One could easily argue that this book, written in 1969, was a sign of the times. The 1960’s were a time of turmoil, a time of radical change. The 1960’s saw many ugly things happen in America. The assassinations, the civil rights struggle, the cold war, and the resulting “hippie” counterculture shocked many Americans. So linking the radical change spawned by John Brown in the mid-Nineteenth century to contemporary Americans would be natural. It would give some meaning to the state of affairs in 1969. __To Purge This Land with Blood__ by Stephen B. Oates is an objective look at the life of John Brown. This book, written in 1970, was composed from a great variety of sources including letters, diaries, journals, newspapers, published reports and eyewitness recollections. Oates gives a biography that states the facts, he does not speak ill of John Brown nor does he give excessive praise like Sanborn or Dubois. He does attempt to show how Brown got his personality. The theme throughout the book is showing the cause and effects of John Brown’s life. His father Oliver Brown’s attitudes, his strong Calvinist faith and his family are but a few of the factors that shaped John Brown into the radical abolitionist he became. Oates’ book is a complete objective tool in examining John Brown. __Man on Fire__ by Jules Abels is also a complete work. Abels raises some interesting points. His book, like Oates’ book’ was written in the early 1970’s. This meant it was far removed enough from the Civil War and Reconstruction to be objective. Abels portrays John Brown as a martyr. This is not uncommon. But in the same breath he argues that Brown was significant because he was a political weapon. Considering John Brown as just a pawn in the social forces of mid-Nineteenth century America is not as praiseworthy as being a hero. To view him wholly, as either a martyr or a political weapon would not be accurate, Abels tries very hard to present John Brown as something. He just is not sure what he wants to present so he reverts back to a common theme and speaks of the myth of John Brown. The myth is more exciting than the arguments about the facts so Jules Abels leaves John Brown’s story open-ended, sort of like decide for yourself. James L. Collins wrote in 1991 in __John Brown and the Fight Against Slavery__ “John Brown was one of the most daring men in the history of civil rights.” Statements such as this link the efforts of the abolitionists to the civil rights activists of the 1950’s and 1960’s. Interjected in Collins’ book were other pre-Civil War stories such as Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s __Uncle Tom’s Cabin__, and other various anti-slavery events. Collins’ book is a great overview of the time period but not of John Brown. The works of the 1990’s do show a bit of a shift back to the hero-worship of John Brown. In Gwen Everrett’s 1993 book __John Brown: One Man Against Slavery__ she paints a mythical picture of John Brown. This narrative is told from the perspective of Annie Brown, one of John Brown’s daughters. The basic outline of Brown’s abolitionist activities are told but the focus is on his morality. The author romanticizes John Brown’s myth. Throughout the book is modern African-American art by Jacob Lawrence. It depicted John Brown as something as a demi-god. In today’s desensitized world it has become increasingly necessary to portray some historical figures this way to make sure they are given proper attention. James Tackach continues this ideas with his 1998 book __The Trial of John Brown: Radical Abolitionist__. By comparison this book is more scholarly than Everetts. Tackach does use more facts but his central theme is to present John Brown as a hero. He does give an explanation of how Brown’s Calvinist faith influenced his cause. He does consider Brown to be quite significant. Tackach makes the point of John Brown’s raid at Harper’s Ferry being “The first shots fired in the Civil War.” Edward Ruffin would surely disagree with that statement. This focus on the raid is continued in R. Conrad Stein’s 1999 book __John Brown’s Raid on Harper’s Ferry__. The central point of this book was to focus on the raid on Harper’s Ferry and not on John Brown. Can you separate the two? John Brown is considered a hero in the book but the results of the raid are what the author argued were most important. John Brown has been called everything from murderer to martyr and demon to demi-god. Most authors have though tried to present John Brown as a significant historical figure. One could say that historians have encouraged the myth of John Brown and have left his status as a man purposefully ambiguous. To label John Brown as any one thing; radical, abolitionist, criminal, madman, saint or hero would do an injustice to our American history. Attempting to understand this man is as close as we can get. What would be worse, to allow the myth to get in the way of the facts or to allow the facts to get in the way of the myth? Hopefully in attempting to understand both we can gain a perspective worth attention.
 * Back to Reviews List** **John Brown: An Annotated Bibliography**


 * To add a comment, you must have a wikispaces account. Sign in and click on the Discussion tab to add a comment.**