John Brown, Soldier of Fortune: A Critique — John Shaqi
John Brown, Soldier of Fortune: A CritiqueWilson, Hill Peebles
History
John Brown, Soldier of Fortune: A Critique
Wilson, Hill Peebles
Brown, John, 1800-1859
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.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account