John Brown, Soldier of Fortune: A CritiqueWilson, Hill Peebles
History
John Brown, Soldier of Fortune: A Critique
Wilson, Hill Peebles
Brown, John, 1800-1859
It was the original intention to steal four lots of horses and murder
seven men. The persons murdered in pursuance of their plans were John
Doyle and two of his sons, Hon. Allen Wilkinson, and William Sherman.
Those who escaped death were Henry Sherman, a brother of William, and
another person whose name has been withheld from publication.[114] The
_silent_ weapons used in these murders were some of the short swords,
ground to a keen edge, that Brown had brought with him when he came to
the Territory. The unfortunate victims, in holding up their arms in vain
attempts to shield their heads from impending blows, were struck upon
their forearms and hands; these in some instances were almost severed
from their bodies. The heads of the murdered men, except in the case of
Doyle, were split open and their bodies otherwise mutilated. In the
case of Doyle, he was shot in the head; and in addition thereto, a sword
was run through his breast. He was the first victim of the tragedies.
The shot which struck him was the only shot that was fired in these
murders, and the firing of it stands charged to John Brown himself. Of
this Mr. Villard says:[115] "Salmon Brown will not positively state that
his father fired it but admits that no one else pulled a trigger."
An account in detail of these murders is found in the testimony of the
widows of Doyle and Wilkinson, and of James Harris, and others, taken
before Hon. M. N. Oliver, of Missouri, minority member of a
congressional committee of which Hon. W. A. Howard was chairman. The
committee was appointed in 1855 to investigate and report to Congress
upon the troubles in Kansas. The character of the evidence brought out
in this investigation incriminated the Browns; but for more than twenty
years thereafter the surviving members of the family stoutly denied
having any participation in the crime. Even at Harper's Ferry, when
standing within the shadow of the gallows, John Brown denied having had
anything to do with it. To Judge Russell "the prisoner reiterated his
assertion often made in those prison days that he was not personally
concerned in the Pottawatomie murders."[116] But after the confession of
James Townsley, his biographers and friends were forced to acknowledge
Brown's directing hand in the crime. Since that time, they have
continuously sought, by various pretexts--defensive, patriotic and
altruistic--to justify him in the killing of these men; and to distract
attention away from the real motive that prompted it; with the result
that they have thus far succeeded in so agitating discussion upon the
merits of the _murders_, as to concentrate public attention upon that
feature of the crime--the murders--and to eliminate or silence any
allusion whatever to the fundamental feature of it--_robbery_. As a
consequence of their propaganda, writers of history have not made any
reference to the robberies to which the murders were subordinate and
incidental.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account