John Brown's significance

[Progressive88]

I tried several search combinations, but nothing produced exactly what I was looking for. Anyway...
As we all know, John Brown attacked the Harper's Ferry Arsenal on 10/17, 1859, and was executed 12/2. But after all was said and done, what impact did this event have on the start of the Civil War? I've run through the situation several times in my mind, but I can't seem to figure out how this was related in any way other than being an isolated example of radical abolitionism. Could someone please clarify this? Thank you very much.

[LWhite64]

Re: John Brown's significance

It was the "fire bell ringing in the night", it seemed to confirm all of the worst fears that many southerners had about how far radical abolitionists were willing to go. Across the South you have militia companies being formed, some states like Alabama appropriate large sums of money for arming these newly formed units in that state. So the raid served to drive many into the secession camp, it was the kick start for the creation of a lot of the militia companies that would be the first units to offer their services to their states as the left the Union.

Lee

[Hairy Nation Boys]

Re: John Brown's significance

Lee nailed it!
I would suggest that you pick up the book

John Brown ,
Abolitionist
By David S. Reynolds.

This book gave me a better idea about John Brown.

[BrianHicks]

Re: John Brown's significance

There are volumes written about John Brown, with more than a few that ask the very question you have posed.

Her are a few links or publications which might help in providing the answer you may be looking for:

http://www.historynow.org/09_2005/historian6.html

Finkelman, Paul, ed. His Soul Goes Marching On: Responses to John Brown and the Harpers Ferry Raid (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1995).

Reynolds, David S. John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005).

Rossbach, Jeffery S. Ambivalent Conspirators: John Brown, the Secret Six, and a Theory of Slave Violence (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982).

You may find this interesting: Legal Phases of the Trial of John Brown: http://www.wvculture.org/history/jb8.html

And this is relevant to the legal issue:

From the book, Lincoln At Cooper Union, by Harold Holzer, the results of the Senate investigating committee that looked into the Harper's Ferry affair:

A Committee of five, consisting of Messrs. Mason, Davis and Fitch, (Democrats,) and Collamer and Doolittle, (Republicans,) was appointed Dec. 14, 1859, by the US Senate, to investigate the Harper's Ferry affair. That Committee was directed, among other things, to inquire:

(1.) Whether such invasion and seizure was made under color of any organization intended to subvert the government of any of the States of the Union.

(2.) What was the character and extent of such organization.

(3.) And whether any citizen of the United States, not present, were implicated therein, or accessory thereto, by contributions of money, arms, munitions, or otherwise.

The majority of the Committee, Messrs. Mason, Davis, and Fitch, reply to the inquiries as follows:

1. There will be found in the Appendix, a copy of the proceedings of a Convention held at Chatham, Canada, of the Provisional Form of Government there pretended to have been instituted, the object of which clearly was to subvert the government of one or more States, and of course, to that extent, the government of the United States. By reference to the copy of Proceedings it appears that nineteen persons were present at that Convention, eight of whom were killed or executed at Charlestown [site of John Brown's execution--ed.], and one examined before the Committee.

2. The character of the military organization appears, by the commissions issued to certain of the armed party as captains, lieutenants, &., a specimen of which will be found in the Appendix. (These Commissions are signed by John Brown as Commander-in-Chief, under the Provisional Government, and by J.H. Kagi as Secretary.)
It clearly appeared that the scheme of Brown was to take with him comparatively but few men; but those had been carefully trained by military instruction previously, and were to act as officers. For his military force he relied, very clearly, on inciting insurrection amongst the Slaves.

3. It does not appear that the contributions were made with actual knowledge of the use for which they were designed by Brown, although it does appear that money was freely contributed by those styling themselves the friends of this man Brown, and friends alike of what they styled the cause of freedom, (of which they claimed him to be an especial apostle,) without inquiring as to the way in which the money would be used by him to advance such pretended cause.

[Progressive88]

Re: John Brown's significance

Thank you all for the information. Mr. Hicks, thank you for that bibliography. I was not aware that he had committed any acts of violence prior to the arsenal raid... fascinating!

[Bruce Schultz]

Re: John Brown's significance

Don't forget that John Brown also raised hell in Kansas and Missouri also in the late 1850s, inflaming both sides.

[NYCivilWar]

Re: John Brown's significance

David,

You may also want to check out William A. Link's Roots of Secession: Slavery and Politics in Antebellum Virginia. Link discusses, mainly, the decade prior to secession and focuses on Virginia only. According to Link, the master-slave relationship in Virginia was changing, and slaveowners became quite worried over the increasing independence of their slaves in certain sectors of the population. Especially the prcatice of hiring out of slaves, and slaves working in factories in larger cities gave slaves increased independence though not much, but enough to unsettle whites in Virginia. All the while white southners were convinced that "northern abolitionist fanatics" were conspiring with slaves in the south to revolt. So, when Brown and his followers raided Harpers Ferry, white southerners' fears were only confirmed.

Virginia, upon the eve of secession though, was a divided state. The northwest (where Harpers Ferry is located) by-and-large was becoming anti-slavery. Because they were so close to bordering northern states, the northwest was tied economically and in some instances politically to the north-- moreso than the rest of the state. It is this reason that in the wake of Brown's raid that the entire state was not "for" secession. Moderates within the state dragged their feet when the secession convention was held, and it was only when Lincoln called for troops that many moderates changed their tune and voted for secession.

Also, not to mention the fact that when compared with the rest of the state, the northwestern counties relied less on slave labor; not to mention the fact that out of the major regions of Virginia, the northwest had the lowest percentage of slaves of the entire state. So if we follow Brown's logic-- he was hoping nearby slaves would flock to his "army"-- he chose a bad location for his raid. Granted though, he had targeted the Harpers Ferry to get weapons.


I've done some research for a paper on Virginia's reactions to John Brown's raid and I found a most interesting Broadside that was published in just after the raid. The Broadside is titled "Old John Brown: A Song for Every Southern Man." The last stanza reads:
"Now all you Southern darkies, a word to you I'll say;
Always mind your masters, and never run away,
And don't mind these Northern agents, they tell you a lie,
They get you at the North, and starve you till you die."

I also came across the "Report of the Joint Committee of the General Assembly of Virginia on the Harpers Ferry Outrages." There final resolutions included forming of militia units, encouraging domestic manufactures (commercial independence), co-operation of "sister States of the south" and prompt punishment of any insurrectionists."

I think it can be safe to say that John Brown's raid came at the culmination of a decade of crisis-- the 1850s. And depending on what "academic" scholar you ask, there are a host of reasons that this decade can be said to be in a crisis...changing dynamic between masters and slaves, the collapse of the two party system, the competition between slave and free-labor systems, or the slavery issue itself. For Virginians--many of whom were already worried over increased slave independence, Brown's raid hit too close to home for them. This is the first time that the issue over slavery came to the very doorstep of slaveholders in the east.

Just my thoughts...

[Progressive88]

Re: John Brown's significance

Mr. Seitz - Thank you very much for that analysis, I'm going to check the library for that book.
Given what you've said regarding the location of Virginia to Northern States, the decreased reliance on cash crops in the Northwestern areas, and the changing dynamic of slave labor, do you think that (had John Brown not conducted his raid) Southern tensions were growing to the point that eventually militias would have been formed anyway once the Lincoln administration was elected into office, and secession would have been voted for in the Virginia legislature? It almost seems like Brown was a welcome reason for many Southerners to finally take measures to defend what they had feared over the past decade. But of course I could be completely off base with that assumption.

[NYCivilWar]

Re: John Brown's significance

David,

Hard to answer your question, because it's one of those "what ifs." I definitely think that Brown's raid pushed the southern states further to the edge, but had the 1850s not been so unstable-- if you will-- then the raid may not have taken on the significance that it did. You may also want to check out Michael Holt's The Political Crisis of the 1850s, he argues that the war was brought on by the collapse of the two party political system. But to get at your question, Holt states that becuase there was no recovery from this collapse in the Deep South, secession was their focus from mid-century on. Whereas in some of the more northern southern states, like Virginia, a opposition party was able to survive and thus took longer for secession to win out.

[Chihuahua]

Re: John Brown's significance

Pards,
I'm a real fan of John Brown.
Here's a fine book...
Patriotic Treason by Evan Carton

Mark Warren
Hairy Nation

[Indianabugles]

Re: John Brown's significance

I too am an unashamed fan of JB, but couple of things worth mentioning. JB asked for support from the radical abolitionists, or at least the most "hands on ones" like Tubman. They were not altogether helpful, apart from Tubman who got him some but not all of the help she said she would. Fred Douglas was far less helpful!
JB was the extreme activist wing of the extreme activist wing of the aboitionist movement who were mainly a non violent organzation.
I would be inclined to agree that wha JB did did not make the militias form or cause the ACW or anything like that.
I do however think that has raid may have significantly sped up the chain of events that led to eventual war and if I were asked what JB's impact was I would be inclined to say he hastened the road to war.

[Auld Pelty]

Re: John Brown's significance

John Brown was a cold blooded terrorist who preyed on unarmed civilians in Kansas before he got the warped idea to ignite a bloody slave insurrection. It has been said the Civil War started in Kansas and Missouri. Seems like trouble just followed him around to Virginia.

There, on 23 May 1856, Brown and his murderous band descended on a settlement of Southerners at Pottawatomie Creek. They carried with them newly sharpened swords —and his fellow terrorists literally hacked to death five innocent men
The first three of his victims, James P. Doyle and his sons, Drury and William, were Catholics from Tennessee who moved to Kansas to get away from slavery. They never had a thing to do with the institution. But because they spoke with a Southern drawl, and possibly because they were Catholic, Brown marched them to a clearing where their heads were split open with the sharpened swords. Drury’s arms were chopped off.
The other victims of Brown’s murderous rampage were Southern settlers Allen Wilkinson, executed while his wife and children stood by in horror, and William Sherman, whose mutilated body was found floating in the creek with his left hand hanging by a strand of skin and his skull split open with "some of the brains" washed away.

[LWhite64]

Re: John Brown's significance

The swords used were artillery swords, so they could chop very well. Also, in regards to the Doyles they were from the Chattanooga area. The widow and the third surviving son went back there, the son later enlisted and fought in the 2nd Tennessee Cavalry.

[jake.koch]

Re: John Brown's significance

This post made me think back to a paper I worte in undergrad that dealt with the secession of South Carolina. I went back and reread the thing for the first time in a couple of years. There is no doubt in my mind that Brown's raid was the spark that set of the powder keg. There had been slave revolts led by Nat Turner and Denmark Vessey in the South, however both of them were black. Brown's Raid was so important because for the first time, a white abolishionist had practiced what the Northern radicals had preached and attempted a large scale insurrection in the south.

On October 31, 1859 at a meeting in Gillisonville, SC, five new vigilance committees were formed to enforce the slave patrol laws, each being filled immediately.

You have Edmund Ruffin sending some of the captured pikes Brown had planned to arm slaves with to every Southern governor with a note attached reading "Sample of the favors designed for us by our Northern Brethren."

The South Carolina Assembly passed bills creating a night police force in Georgetown, and a new fire guard and rifle regiment in Charleston. The South Carolina Joint Committee on the Military reported that measures were being taken immediately to increase the abilities of the state militia in order that they were able to "meet any sudden emergency which may arise from the political condition of affairs."

J. Johnston Pettigrew, while visiting friends in Charleston noted that:
"The watchmen here are not provided simply with alarming weapons, such as rattles, etc., but are accoutred as soldiers, with muskets, uniform and bayonet"

In essence a declining state militia system throughout the South was rejuvenated and more then able to handle the token force of US regulars stationed in the South.

C. G. Memminger of SC noted that "Every village bell (in the North) which tolled it's solemn note at the execution of Brown proclaims to the south the approbation of that village of insurrection and servile war."

According to the Charleston Mercury: "Harpers Ferry, was nothing more than practical appication of anti-slavery ideology. Our connection with the North, is a standing instigation of insurrection in the South. The South must control her own destinies or Perish."

The timing of Brown's Raid was worse because of the coming election and the growing identification of the Republican Party as a group of radical abolishionists (from the South's viewpoint). Alfred P. Aldrich, a member of the SC Legislature stated: "If this Republican Party, with its platform of principles, the main feature of which is the abolition of slavery and, therefore, the destruction of te South, carries the country at the next Presidential election, shall we remain in the Union, or form a seperate Confederacy? This is the great, grave issue. It is not which party shall rule - it is a question of political and social existence."

It is easy to see how the South viewed Brown's Raid as the practice of what the radicals had preached for years. The organizations formed to defend against any similiar incursion became a basis for a Confederate Army before there was even a Confederacy.

[Michael Shea]

Re: John Brown's significance

Mr. Koch,

Furthermore Brown had raised money in New England and had rich, powerful supporters who were never punished for their role. Jefferson Davis wrote this after the war:

"Insignificant in itself and in its immediate results, it afforded a startling revelation of the extent to which sectional hatred and political fanaticism had blinded the conscience of a class of persons in certain States of the Union" - Rise and Fall of the Conf. Gvt., Chapter 6.


Michael Shea