Early thoughts on ‘John Brown, Abolitionist’
My reading bug continues.
While almost done with Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation, I am now 30 pages into “John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights” by David S. Reynolds, which tracks the life of the deeply Puritan John Brown.
John Brown
Brown, it goes without saying, was, not just years, but centuries ahead of his time. He was unequivocally for the meritorious cause of equal rights for all people in America, white and black, way back in the mid-19th century. The book recounts the moments before and after Brown and his cohorts’ ill-fated 21-man raid on Harpers Ferry. Reynolds, makes the case that Brown had misread a couple elements in his efforts to smash the engine of slavery. In particular, Brown
misread the slaves and sympathetic white among the locals, whom he expected to rally in masses to his side as soon as his raid on Harpers Ferry began. The blacks he liberated misread him, since, by most reports, few of them voluntarily joined him in the battle against the Virginia troops—a fact that may have contributed to the fatal delay on the part of Brown, who had expected ‘the bees to hive’ as soon as his liberation plan became known among the slaves.
This, of course, was unfortunate since Brown was just about the best and most anti-racist advocate black folks had at the time. Enslaved blacks probably had no way of knowing this, however, since darn near every white person they had encountered up to that point was either an outright racist or unwilling to advocate or unable to envision any kind of emancipation.
While some earlier biographers have painted Brown as a nut or fanatic, Reynolds seems to present a more even-handed view and culturally biographical look at the man who, singlehandedly was responsible for setting this trifecta in motion: killing slavery, igniting the American Civil War and planting the early seeds of civil rights.
The Reynolds bio is a fine contribution and has done a great deal to advance the popular misunderstandings and biases that have reigned as a result of older, biased works. On the other hand, Reynolds himself followed certain conventions in his writing that are likewise problematic, including the quotation you feature. It is absolutely not a given that enslaved people did not respond to his efforts in Virginia, or that he "misread" the black community. If Brown misread blacks, it was that segment of educated, elite leaders to whom he appealed for assistance. You may want to consult Benjamin Quarles' fine book, Allies for Freedom. Even though Quarles succumbed to the biases of the ivory tower somewhat in his assessment of Brown as an individual, he gives the richest analysis of Brown and free blacks. As to the enslaved people, I refer you to Osborne Anderson's 1860 booklet, A Voice from Harper's Ferry, which you can read on Google books. Anderson was one of Brown's raiders, a black man, and an enlistee from among the Canadian African American expatriate community. Anderson vehemently decries the imposition of the slave master's version of what happened at Harpers Ferry. He says that blacks turned out enthusiastically, and would have greatly supported Brown had he not gotten himself bogged down in gunfighting in the town. I have analyzed this in my own book, John Brown–The Cost of Freedom. Another man, enslaved in Virginia at the time, later gave a similar account to a Union officer, which the latter published in 1869. One of JB's raiders later said Brown was surprised but pleased with the response of local blacks. So Reynolds is deficient in this important area of research and has followed conventional assumptions. Remember too, that for many years, a segment of people, by virtue of regional, political, or prejudicial reasons, were intent on sustaining a view of Brown that conformed to the "failure" thesis. Even Abraham Lincoln, who dismissed him publicly in 1860 as a visionary loser, reinforced the misinformation that Brown had failed at HF. Likewise, a lot of what has been written about Brown negatively is not "given."
Louis A. DeCaro Jr.
17 Jan 11 at 9:51 am
Hello Louis,
Sorry that I am just now responding. Work has been ferocious the last week.
Thanks for your insight on this subject and for the recommendations. I will have to check them out. As for Brown, I will admit that I was a little surprised at Reynolds' stock conclusion that Brown had "misread" the slaves and that they did not positively respond to what he was trying to do. But on the other hand, this made sense to me in some way since even Douglass seemed surprised at how adamant Brown was about helping the black cause. I think the point Reynolds may have been getting at what was that while some were enthusiastic supporters of Brown, Brown's assumption that droves (i.e. "hundreds") would turn out to fight against slavery was an overestimation on Brown's part since most of them had been beaten down, sometimes physically, or at the least, socially and emotionally, for decades and generations by white people. It must have not been an easy thing for many of them to willy-nilly trust a white man who claimed to want to fight with them to end slavery.
Nonetheless, these are intriguing questions. I am about halfway through the book, and will check out some of your suggestions when I get done. Thanks for reading the blog!
Jeremy
jeremystyron
25 Jan 11 at 11:31 pm