Questions About John Brown

[KLarson]

Actually, Buchanan and others, for all intents and purposes, did send the equivalent of troops into Northern States during the 1850s. After the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act as part of the Compromise of 1850, citizens, the authorities, and judges were required to aid in the recapture of fugitive slaves under the penalty of the law. The fines were substantial and consequences of not aiding in arrests meant jail time, too. Slaveholders and slave catchers were virtually deputized to snatch any black person they pleased off the street of cities and towns across the North. They roamed with impunity. They could claim any black person was a former slave even when that person was not. Kidnappings of free people became more common, and of course, fugitive slaves were at greater risk and some were captured and returned south. While Wendell Phillips was involved with Brown, I doubt Lincoln knew much of anything - remember, he was campaigning. The passage of the Kansas Nebraska Act in 1854 further deepened mistrust and anger among northerners regarding southern demands for protections for and expansion of slavery. That anger fueled the Republican Party. The Constitution was and is a very good foundation, but the establishment and protection of slavery during its creation was its deep flaw that unfortunately took a bloody conflict to change.

(01-03-2016 06:06 AM)maharba Wrote:  As I have said, Northern politicians were openly flaunting the constitution in regard to escaped slaves, and were constantly speaking of Disunion and that the constitution was no good. If John Brown had been tried for Treason, I think that would have shone back directly on: Lincoln, Seward, Phillips, etc. It might not be provable that they also were funding Brown, but that their actions and statements were provoking Disunion and a breakup of the constitution and the Union. The same 'cherished Union' that Lincoln and company brought on the War to reimpose. If the constitution and the Union had not been any good BEFORE the South seceded, why was it suddenly such a treasured item after? Imagine if Pres James Buchanan had sent troops and some sort of Prosecutor into the North (and Canada) seeking Traitors and Disunionists. That might have been the end of the Republican party.

---

Defining slaves as 3/5ths of a person for representation was a compromise. NOrthern States with no or few slaves at the writing of the Constitution did not want slaves counted at all, but Southern slaveholders demanded it be inserted. The 3/5ths clause gave the south more representation than it would have with no slaves counted. And slaves could not vote. The raid on Harper's Ferry happened in October 1859 - Brown had hoped to conduct the raid a year earlier. He did not know it would actually spark the Civil War (though he must have been pleased.) He did not coordinate his attack with the election on the horizon more than a year ahead. The time was right. He did it. War came, and the slaves were finally freed.

(01-03-2016 10:13 PM)maharba Wrote:  Maybe they could have begun with not defining Blacks as only a fraction of human, in the first place. But the North wanted it set in stone that way in the Constitution. And the timing of the Harpers Ferry raid so close to the election and War, prevented the Federal government under Pres Buchanan from aggressively going after all the financial supporters of John Brown to a strong completion. If the good folk in Mass and CT and Penn had seen their Disunion schemes unraveling under a Federal prosecution, maybe then they would have been first to secede?