John Brown, Soldier of Fortune: A Critique. Hill Peebles Wilson
in minute detail. It is therefore improbable, in the opinion of the writer, that he discussed the manners and customs of the white people of that section with his wife, and wrote of minor conditions existing there, without making some reference to the black people of the country; and to the more important questions of slavery and labor—matters in which he would have a deep personal and pecuniary interest. Mr. Villard did not fail to comment, with surprise, upon the omission of the subject from Brown's letter. He said:[59]
But his letter to his family from Ripley, Virginia, April 27, 1840, already cited, is peaceable enough and his hope of settling his family there is hardly consistent with his anti-slavery policy of later years. Indeed, while recording his pleasure that the residents of the vicinity were more attractive people than he thought, he had nothing to say about the institution of slavery which he then, for the first time, really beheld at close range.
No one inspired with an enthusiasm upon the subject of slavery, such as has been attributed to Brown, could have failed, under these circumstances, to dwell upon the theme. A dilemma is, therefore, herein presented to his biographers and eulogists which they cannot disregard: either he discussed the questions of labor, and what their relations to slavery would be in their prospective estate, in this letter to his wife; or else, he considered slavery of so little importance in the premises, and was so indifferent at heart upon the subject, that his first sight of real slaves, in actual slavery, failed to elicit from him any expression whatever in regard to it. It is the opinion of the writer that John Brown, the man of iron will, the reckless speculator, optimist and sportsman, was well pleased with the prospect of owning a plantation of a thousand broad acres in Virginia; and with having it well stocked with fine horses, fine cattle, fine sheep, and fine slaves.
This opinion of the man is consistent with his reckless speculative career, and with his indifference as to the means for the accomplishment of his ends. And after all, it is by a man's actions, and not by any explanation of his motives, furnished by himself or by others, that we must, in the final analysis, estimate his character.
CHAPTER III
KANSAS—A CRISIS IN OUR NATIONAL HISTORY
There are no greater heroes in the history of our country than Eli Thayer of Massachusetts, and Charles Robinson of Kansas.—William H. Taft
In its relation to Government, our country has completed two periods of its existence. The Colonial period ended at Yorktown. The period of State Sovereignty had its ending at Appomattox. Kansas was the herald of Appomattox; the climax in the series of political incidents which led to secession and the war between the States.
By the Ordinance of 1787, the last Continental Congress excluded slavery from all that part of the public domain lying north of the Ohio River. In 1803 our territorial limits were expanded by the purchase of Louisiana, and a serious clash between the Free and the Slave sections of the country came upon the division, in relation to slavery, of this newly acquired domain. It was precipitated upon Congress by the application of Missouri, in 1818, to be admitted into the Union. Its constitution provided for slavery. The northern part of the new state extended from the Mississippi to the Missouri; the north boundary being 40° 30' north latitude; and this line, taken in connection with the Platte River from the Missouri to the Rocky Mountains, suggested what the South intended should be the dividing line between the sections in the new territory. After two years of acrimonious debate a compromise measure was adopted admitting Missouri, as prayed for, but excluding slavery forever from all the remaining territory, acquired from France, lying north of 36° 30' north latitude.
The debate upon the measure developed the existence, in the North, of a growing hostile sentiment toward slavery, which confirmed in the minds of Southern statesmen the necessity of keeping the number of Slave States equal, at least, with the number of Free States; for only by thus maintaining a balance of power in the Senate, could legislation adverse to slavery be prevented. Also, the limitations of the compromise agreement emphasized a further necessity; the acquisition of additional territory south of 36° 30' from which Slave States could be created in the future, to balance the admission into the Union of prospective Free States. This resulted in a propaganda for territorial expansion southward. In pursuance of such policy, the revolt against Mexico, by Texas, was probably encouraged.[60] In discussing the recognition of the Republic of Texas, in January, 1836, Mr. Calhoun said, "It prepared the way for the speedy admission of Texas into the Union, which would be a necessity to the proper balance of power in the Union between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding Commonwealths, upon which the preservation of the Union and the perpetuation of its institutions rested.[61]
The State of Vermont "apprehended that the political strength which the annexation of Texas would give to the slave-holding interests, would soon lead to a dissolution of the Union, or to the political degradation of the Free States"; and, in pursuance of that apprehension the "Legislature of Vermont adopted a set of resolutions protesting against the annexation of Texas or the admission of any Slave State into the Union," which was presented in Congress.[62] Having respect for Northern sentiment, Congress kept Florida waiting six years: until Iowa was ready to come into the Union.[63] The South consented readily to the settlement of the "Oregon Boundary Question" at 49° north latitude instead of 54° 40'. In fact, at the time the Democratic National Convention of 1844 declared our title to the whole of Oregon as far as 54° 40' to be "clear and unquestionable," Mr. Calhoun, secretary of state, had proposed to Her Majesty's representative to settle the controversy by adopting the 49th parallel as the boundary.[64] Texas was admitted into the Union; the articles of annexation providing that it might be subdivided into five states, at any time it chose to make such division. Also, after a war of conquest with Mexico, Upper California and New Mexico were added to the public domain.
The mutual congratulations indulged in by the Southern managers over the accomplishment of the pro-slavery program for territorial expansion, were interrupted by intelligence of the most startling character. Before the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo had been signed, gold was discovered in the Sierras, and the occupation of California by emigrants, principally from the Northern States, was an immediate result. Thus, the conquest of Mexico—the prize trophy in the triumphal procession of pro-slavery events—carried with it, by the irony of fate, the Nemesis of her despoiled people. Within two years a Free State had been carved out of the Territory which the South had won for slavery.
The contests which were had over the admission of Missouri into the Union, and the annexation of Texas, were trivial in comparison with the storm that burst upon the Thirty-first Congress over the admission of California. The already strained relations between the North and the South reached the limits of tension; and but for the tabling of the "Wilmot Proviso," and the adoption of the "Compromise" measures, the cords that bound the Union would have snapped then and there. "The first weeks of the session were more than enough to show in its full breadth and depth, even to the duller eyes, the abyss that yawned between the North and the South."[65] "All the Union men, North and South, Whigs and Democrats, for the period of six months were assembled in caucuses every day, with Clay in the chair, Cass upon his right hand, Webster upon his left hand, and the Whigs and Democrats on either side."[66] It was during this debate that Mr. Seward announced the doctrine of the "higher law":
The Constitution regulates our stewardship; the Constitution devotes the domain (the territories not formed into states) to union, to justice, to defence, to welfare, and to liberty. But there is a higher law than the Constitution, which regulates our authority over the domain and devotes it to the same noble purposes.
Webster thus began his great speech:
I wish to speak today, not as a Massachusetts man, nor as a Northern man, but as an American. … The imprisoned winds are let loose. The East, the North, and the stormy South combine to throw the whole sea into commotion, to toss its billows to the skies, and disclose its profoundest depths. … I speak today for the preservation of the Union. Hear me for my Cause.[67]
Said Toombs of Georgia: