From the point of view of ethics, John Brown's crime on the Pottawatomie cannot be successfully palliated or excused. It must ever remain a complete indictment of his judgment and wisdom; a dark blot upon his memory; a proof that, however self-controlled, he had neither true respect for the laws nor for human life, nor a knowledge that two wrongs never make a right. Call him a Cromwellian trooper with the Old Testament view of the way of treating one's enemies, as did James Freeman Clarke, if you please; it is nevertheless true that Brown lived in the nineteenth century and was properly called upon to conform to its standard of morals and right living. For John Brown no pleas can be made that will enable him to escape coming before the bar of historical judgment. There his wealth of self-sacrifice, and the nobility of his aims, do not avail to prevent a complete condemnation of his bloody crime at Pottawatomie, or a just penalty for his taking human life without warrant or authority. If he deserves to live in history, it is not because of his cruel, gruesome, reprehensible acts on the Pottawatomie, but despite them. Conceptions of the distinguishing traits in Brown's character are widely divergent; a divergence not attributable to a "blind prejudice." Those who knew him best did not have the exalted opinions of the nobility of his aims, or of the sublimity of his humanity, that inspired his eulogists and biographers. Prominent among the dissenters was John Brown himself. As late as March 31, 1857, he did not personally understand that what he had been doing in Kansas was either sentimental, patriotic, or romantic. It had not occurred to him that he had been impelled by the covenanters spirit, or that he was a crusader, either ancient or modern. On that date, replying to a letter that he had received from his wife, in which she informed him that "his sons were now inclined to give up war and remain at North Elba," he said:[155] I have only to say as regards the resolution of the boys to "learn and practice war no more," that it was not at my solicitation that they engaged in it at first; and that while I may perhaps feel no more love of the business than they do, still I think there may be in their day what is more to be dreaded if such things do not now exist.