Questions About John Brown

[Rsmyth]

Kansas received the nickname “Bleeding Kansas” even before John Brown had stepped foot in the state. There were murders, pillaging and arson on all sides with one whole town (Lawrence) sacked and burned by border ruffians…before the arrival of John Brown. There were three sides embattled in the state; pro-slavers, who were the largest and best organized side, abolitionists, who did not want the state to enter the Union as a slave state and ultimately wanted the slaves freed. Lastly were the free-staters or free-soilers, who for the most part did not care about the slaves but did not want the territory flooded with cheap labor (slaves).

The abolitionists had been unsuccessful in fighting the issue of slavery since the ratification of the constitution which proclaimed slaves as property. Keep in mind that many of our founding fathers that contributed to the authorship of the constitution were either slave owners or former slave owners. Fifty out of the first seventy years of this countries existence saw an elected president also either a slave owner or former slave owner. How did this come about? Partly because of the 3/5 rule that established that slaves, although they could not vote, counted towards representation for the slave owners in Washington. There is no better example of having your cake and eat it too in this nation’s history.

Guided by manifest destiny, the Louisiana Purchase and the invasion of Mexico were all looked upon by the southern power in Washington as an opportunity to expand slavery.

Until the arrival of John Brown, the abolitionists, ineffectively, continued to fight slavery with words.

Do the ends justify the means? Would Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry have had the same effect if there had been no Pottawatomie? After the raid and Brown’s execution, southern slave owners were fearful that there were others like Brown in the north willing to go to extremes to free the slaves. His actions hastened secession, the Civil War and ultimately, the Emancipation Proclamation.

It was a war in Kansas in the years leading up to the Civil War. War is not pretty. Detractors of John Brown point to the Pottawatomie massacre as justification to label him a murderer. Has anyone heard of Charles Hamilton and his actions in Kansas? He was a pro-slavery militia leader who rounded up eleven; unarmed free-soilers (most of who knew Hamilton) led them to a gully and shot them. There was violence on all sides. John Brown’s actions were the spark that lit the fuse.

[L Verge]

I have read briefly about Charles Hamilton and the Marais des Cygnes Massacre of 1858, the last of the major outbreaks of violence after a series of border wars between Kansas and Missouri dating back to the early-1850s. I believe Hamilton retaliated after anti-slavery ruffians drove him from his home in Kansas.

He withdrew to Missouri and then returned after John Brown's escapades in Kansas in May of 1856. Hamilton rounded up 11 settlers and shot them, but I believe that at least five survived. Both Kansas and Missouri (especially the latter) suffered greatly from sporadic fighting among the three factions until war was declared in 1861, and even during the war as guerrilla warfare often became the preferred method of dealing with the enemy.

Frankly, I sometimes worry and wonder if the "insurrections" that we see against legal authorities today might be a prelude to increased violence such as what we study from a historical standpoint today. Who might be the John Brown or Charles Hamilton of the 21st century? I hope we can learn from the past...

[Jim Garrett]

As usual an incredibly articulate post from Rich. In addition to the Lincoln Assassination, Rich is by far, one of the most knowledgeable people on John Brown.

[My Name Is Kate]

Even war has some rules of conduct. It sounds like total lawlessness in Bleeding Kansas, with murders being committed on all sides. Would the south have seceded if Lincoln hadn't made it clear he was against the expansion of slavery and would do whatever necessary to stop it? What would have been the advantage of seceding if the president had stayed as neutral as possible on the slavery issue?

[Thomas Thorne]

http://www.kshs.org/publicat/history/199...r_watts.pd

I found an interesting article about the the number of killings in "Bleeding Kansas", a phrase invented by Horace Greeley in 1854. I disagree with the author's low ball assessment of how many Kansas killings-56-should be classified as political in nature but even his high end total of 157 is well below the 200 traditionally attributed to "Bleeding Kansas."

It is fascinating to find out how few deaths occurred in some of the most lurid episodes of the war. Only 2 people died in the Wakarusa War despite the presence of 1500 armed Missouri 'border ruffians" who were evidently much better shots in subsequent movies. Only 1 person, a member of the pro slavery posse of 800 died in the Sack of Lawrence and he was killed by falling masonry.

Kansas had all the ingredients for a full scale civil war: fierce ideological differences, contested and fraudulent elections, and rival governments and armed forces. Yet the end of "bleeding Kansas" went unnoticed. On 1/29/1861 Kansas was admitted to the Union as a free state, a fact overlooked in the great drama of secession winter.

Tom

[My Name Is Kate]

I can think of at least one other instance in this nation's history of having your cake and eating it too: Forcing the south back into the Union after they had seceded because the President was no longer representing them and what they considered to be their number one interest (slavery and all the (undeserved) benefits it brought them), but first passing the 13th Amendment while the South was still seceded, and ridding the Constitution of its recognition of the legality of slavery, plus freeing all the slaves everywhere in the country. Maybe that was the only way to get rid of slavery, but isn't it true that the freed slaves paid a pretty high price for the subsequent white southern anger at what they considered betrayal by their own government and country? Though legally "free", black people were still essentially powerless, so it was easiest for the betrayed to vent the brunt of their anger and hatred on them.

Before anyone accuses me of being pro-slavery, I want to try to make my point extra clear: Did no one in the Lincoln administration or among the Radical Republicans foresee major race relations problems in the country after slavery had been eradicated, particularly because of the way it was eradicated? Apparently not, or apparently they didn't care enough, since interest in the plight of the freed slaves waned soon after the war ended.

[ELCore]

(02-11-2016 06:32 PM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  Before anyone accuses me of being pro-slavery, I want to try to make my point extra clear: Did no one in the Lincoln administration or among the Radical Republicans foresee major race relations problems in the country after slavery had been eradicated, particularly because of the way it was eradicated? Apparently not, or apparently they didn't care enough, since interest in the plight of the freed slaves waned soon after the war ended.

Of course. Thus, the efforts to induce gradual emancipation and colonization.

Plus, I hear hindsight is 20/20.

[My Name Is Kate]

(02-11-2016 07:24 PM)ELCore Wrote:  Of course. Thus, the efforts to induce gradual emancipation and colonization.

Plus, I hear hindsight is 20/20.

So what became of those efforts? Lincoln was killed and an incompetent drunk (who Lincoln picked as his running mate) was left in charge. What else? Your (brief and skeletal) response raises more questions than it answers.

Colonization? As in packing up the freed slaves and sending them to Liberia?
Gradual emancipation? As in not fully freeing the slaves until 1912 or so?

So black people were anticipated to be the problem, not white people at all?

[Wild Bill]

You got it Kate. It is surprising how many abolitionists and anti-slavery people saw the problem as ended with the 13th Amendment. One only has to look at Alexander Stephens meeting with Lincoln aboard the River Queen in Hampton Roads in 1865. "What are you going to do with the freed slaves," asked Stephens. Lincoln replied, "It is root hog or die." One may not like the source of this quote but it captures the essence of Reconstruction in the end, and presages the notion of separate but equal in the Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1898.

[L Verge]

Over the years, I have asked probably a dozen students of Lincoln what Reconstruction would have been like if he had not been assassinated. No one would give me a straight answer as to what they thought his actions would be. One of the best scholars was asked to give a talk on that topic at a conference years ago. He declined (probably wisely) saying that no one knows, so he was not going to speculate.

My only knowledge, of course, was based on that rather cold response to Stephens of "root hog or die." It was probably honest on Lincoln's part to say that, but I didn't think it was very benevolent of him. I also knew that he had backed out of compensating slave owners in Maryland, so that won him no support. Had he developed contingency plans with anti-slavery leaders? Cabinet and Congress? Even telling Grant to "let them up easy" at the surrender applied to the Southern military, not the general citizen (and freedmen) of the defeated Confederacy, those whose homes, lands, and infrastructure had just been decimated by Union forces. I know that's what war does, but it just seems strange that there were no written plans for what would happen after surrender.

I seldom read military and political books on the Civil War because I do not digest them well. Has any author written a good one on what Lincoln planned or what his options were? Would Lincoln have been able to control the Radical Republicans once the war was over? Would he have stuck to "root hog" policy? Did he really lack plans for Reconstruction -- and thus leave the problems for someone else to clean up? This inquiring mind wants to know, or at least have someone make an educated guess.

[Wild Bill]

Laurie, try these:
For ideas as to what a Lincolnian Reconstruction might have entailed or actually did entail, depending on one's viewpoint, see Lloyd Lewis, “If Lincoln Had Lived,” in Edward Wagenknecht (ed), Abraham Lincoln: His Life, Work, and Character (New York: Creative Press, 1947), 533-40; William Hesseltine, Lincoln's Plan of Reconstruction (Tuscaloosa: Confederate Publishing Co., 1960); Harold Hyman, Lincoln's Reconstruction: Neither Failure of Vision Nor Vision of Failure (Ft. Wayne, Ind: Louis A. Warren Lincoln Library and Museum, 1980); and John C. Rodrigue, Lincoln and Reconstruction (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2013).

[L Verge]

You are asking me to read a political book on Lincoln, Bill. You know I'm allergic to them!

Can you produce a half-page synopsis of what those authorities suggested? Were there plans in place? Was Lincoln idealistic or realistic about what he would face in reconstructing the country? Anyone else have comments?

[RJNorton]

(02-12-2016 07:44 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Were there plans in place?

Laurie, Reconstruction is not my area, and I am like you when it comes to the questions you ask - I do not know. However, IMO Lincoln was not set on a definitve method of Reconstruction when he died. You ask, "Were there plans in place?" As of April, 1865, I would say "nothing set in stone." At the very least if Lincoln were devising a plan I do not think it was something inflexible. I do not think he was set on any one plan in April, 1865.

I own a copy of Bill Richter's Historical Dictionary of the Civil War and Reconstruction. In the section titled, "Reconstruction, Theories of" Bill writes:

"But Lincoln and Johnson saw the Presidential Plan differently. Lincoln envisioned it as a proposal, not excluding Congress from input, but nothing to be inflexibly tied to forever. Johnson thought of Reconstruction just the opposite. He expected Congress to go along with his plan and fought with them over modifications that Congress thought would make the South pay for the war, like freedmen's rights. The real problem was that neither president could get the people seated without the concurrence of Congress. That body alone is charged in the Constitution with ensuring that each state has a republican form (the theory of government, not the party). Lincoln knew this would give Congress ultimately a voice in Reconstruction, while Johnson seemed to find this reprehensible - odd coming from a constitutionalist such as he was. The result was a bitter fight between legislative and executive branches over policy, with the Supreme Court caught in the middle."

Prior to this Bill writes, "Lincoln had previously put forth his Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction as a method to undermine the Southern will to fight."

My guess is that Lincoln's plan would have been relatively mild (although his previous plan was in wartime, and a peacetime plan may have been stricter than what folks might think). Also, he planned on involving Congress in the plan in contrast to Johnson, as Bill says in his book. And, I think Congress was not scheduled to go back into session until December 4, and Lincoln was assassinated in April. Thus, Lincoln IMO was in no rush to come up with a set plan when Congress was not in session for the next 7 months. He knew he had time to talk to many folks, get advice, etc.

[Thomas Thorne]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201...ast-speech

I hope people can read the above story. In Lincoln's last speech and in an interesting private letter in 1864 he supported suffrage for educated blacks and blacks who had served as soldiers as a way to ''keep the jewel of liberty within the family of freedom."

The defeated white South's imposition of the Black Codes was certainly a smack in the face of Lincoln's ideas. Eric Mckitrick in "Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction" said Johnson failed to communicate the North's displeasure with what amounted to self imposed Southern Reconstruction and argued Lincoln would have quickly disabused the South of the idea that the North found their behavior to be acceptable. .

The author made some interesting comparisons of how differently the defeated Japanese behaved after WW2 in placating the victorious US by adopting democratic institutions. In the post WW2 Japanese parliament there were no unrepentant swaggering uniformed soldiers justifying Japanese militarism.
Tom

[L Verge]

Thank you both for joining in the discussion. I have often wondered if the April 11 speech from the White House formed the basis of what Lincoln intended. We know that one particular sentence was enough to seal his fate as far as JWB was concerned, and I suspect that Booth wasn't the only one in that crowd that objected to it. I wonder what Congress and the North in general thought of it. Do you think that Reconstruction would have been much better under the guidance of Lincoln?