John Brown, Soldier of Fortune: A CritiqueWilson, Hill Peebles
History
John Brown, Soldier of Fortune: A Critique
Wilson, Hill Peebles
Brown, John, 1800-1859
My intimate acquaintance with Brown demonstrated to me that
he was very human; the angel wings were so dim and shadowy
as to be almost unseen. Very superstitious, very selfish
and very intolerant, with great self esteem.... He could
not brook a rival. At first he was very fond of
Montgomery, but when he found that Montgomery had thoughts
of his own, and could not be dictated to, why, he loved him
no longer. Montgomery, Lane and all others went down before
his imperial self. He was intolerant in little things and
in little ways, for instance, his drink was tea, others
wanted coffee. He would wrangle and compel them to drink
tea or nothing, as he was cook and would not make coffee
for them. I had it from Owen in a quiet way and from other
sources in quite a loud way that in his family his methods
were of the most arbitrary kind.... I have known Stevens to
sometimes raise merry hell when the old man would get too
dictatorial. He was iron and had neither sympathy or
feeling for the timid or weak of will. Notwithstanding
claims to the contrary, he was essentially vindictive in
his nature. Just before we left Kansas, during a trip that
Brown and myself were some days away from the rest, the
boys arrested a man. (I think by the name of Jackson.)
Montgomery gave him a trial and he was released by general
consent as not meriting punishment. When we returned Brown
was furious because the man had not been shot.... It seems
hard and cruel in me to tell you of Brown's individuality
as I have told you, yet it seemed to me that you, perhaps
the last writer on the theme, should know all, whether it
be any use to you or not....
Yours truly,
GEORGE B. GILL.
There is nothing in Mr. Gill's pen picture of John Brown that suggests
to the mind a "misplaced Crusader," or a "self-denying Roundhead," a
"Cromwellian trooper" or an "armored searcher for the Grail;" but there
is that in it which does suggest a man of low instincts, trifling and
contentious about little things; of a vindictive and quarrelsome
disposition; inordinately selfish, inhuman and intolerant. It is for the
reader to determine which of the two estimates of the man is entitled to
credit.
In view of the facts presented herein, this much debated event in
Brown's life cannot be considered, abstractedly, as a study in altruism;
but as a premeditation in robbery, to which the murders were 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