John Brown
Did He Or Didn't He?
(Only the Eyewitnesses Know for Sure)

The Question: Was John Brown's raid on the Federal Arsenal at Harpers Ferry in (then) Virginia the real cause of the American Civil War? And if so, do we owe it to John that statutory slavery came to an end in the United States and ultimately in the rest of the world?

Many, of course, say yes.

But others ................

Well, look at it this way.

John's raid was on October 16, 1959. But the Civil War didn't begin until April 12, 1861. And rather than instigating the South's secession, John Brown's attack produced a massive obsequious fawning by a number of Northern politicians to appease the most hard-line Southerners. As you might expect, after the raid there was the inevitable and ineffectual Congressional investigation whose unstated purpose was to squelch the talk of dissolution of the Union. And as Congress dallied, physical attacks on Abolitionists¹ increased. For a while it looked like the biggest casualty of John Brown's insurrection would be the Abolition Movement itself.

And even when South Carolina did secede, the move was seen as symbolic, ineffective, and temporary. No less an authority than Frederick Douglass, the former slave who became a famous speaker and Abolitionist, wrote (here edited for brevity and clarity):

We thought that South Carolina might secede. Georgia, too, we thought might possibly secede. But, strangely enough, we thought and felt quite sure that these twin rebellious States would stand alone and unsupported in their infamy and their impotency, that they would soon tire of their isolation, repent of their folly, and come back to their places in the Union.

So what changed things? And why did the first state to secede wait until December, 1861?

Well, there was this dark horse named Abraham Lincoln who got elected President of United States the month before. South Carolina made no bones about it. In their "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina From the Federal Union", among the "immediate causes" which "induced" and "justified" the secession was:

A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.

South Carolina even clarified the point by saying the President, although never mentioned by name, had proclaimed:

"Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free."

That, of course, meant Abe.

We have to point out that at the time the cause was not in question. As Frederick Douglass put it:

Leading public men of the South had, with the vehemence of fiery purpose, given it out IN ADVANCE [emphasis added] that in case of their failure to elect their candidate (Mr. John C. Breckenridge) they would proceed to take the slaveholding States out of the Union, and that, in no event whatever, would they submit to the rule of Abraham Lincoln.

We see, then, that Abe's election was the immediate cause of secession. And the ball was rolling. Within a month of South Carolina's declaration, five more states had seceded followed by another on the first of February. Within two weeks, all had united as the Confederate States of America, and six more Southern states ultimately joined in.

But why, we wonder, was Abe's election such a big deal? We'd really like to know this.

I thought you would as Captain Mephisto said to Sidney Brand. Again we don't have to look very far as long as we stick to what the Southerner's themselves said. They were simply not going to be part of a country that elected an Abolitionist.

Ha? (To quote Shakespeare). But we know that Abraham Lincoln was not an Abolitionist! We know that because college professors tell us so!

And it wasn't only college professors. Even the Abolitionists didn't consider Abe one of their own. In fact, they were often irritated with his namby-pamby wiffle-waffling. Again we can turn to Frederick Douglass - a staunch Abolitionist - for clarification:

Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent.

Of course, Frederick was willing to cut Abe some slack:

But measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.

But what did Abe himself say? His opinions should surely be heard.

Well, he seems to have distinguished himself from the Abolitionists. But not by a whole lot. As he stated:

I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist.

We see that although Abe shared some opinions with the Abolitionists, he isn't claiming he was one of them.

The problem is that if you don't define a word, you're not going to agree on what it means. After all, the meaning of a word can change in over a hundred and fifty years.

Today when we say someone was an Abolitionist we mean someone who wanted to end slavery by law throughout the United States. Abe, on the other hand, promised not to interfere with slavery where it already existed. So by our definition, Abe was not an Abolitionist.

But back in 1860, it didn't matter who modern historians say was an Abolitionist. In fact, back then it didn't even matter who 19th century Abolitionists thought an Abolitionist was.

Instead it mattered what Southern politicians thought an Abolitionist was. And whatever their definition was, we know that Abe certainly fit the bill

Or as the Southern gentlemen put it:

S. A. Douglas, of Illiaois [sic] is now stumping the United States, not to elect himself but to elect that black hearted Abolitionist, Abraham Lincoln ... The [Fayetteville] North-Carolinian, September 22, 1860, Page 2.

The first great object will be to defeat the candidate of the Abolitinists, Mr. Lincoln.... - Pointe Coupee [Louisiana] Democrat, September 15, 1860, Page 2.

When [Stephen Douglas] visited this city, shortly after his triumph in Illinois over that arch and unmitigatedly abominable Abolitionist, Abraham Lincoln, we bade him "welcome"... - New Orleans Daily Crescent, July 11, 1859, Page 1.

There is an attempt being made throughout the South, no doubt with very good intentions on the part of those engaged in it, to induce the Southern people to submit to the rule of Abolition Lincoln... - New Orleans Daily Crescent, November 21, 1860, Page 1.

... we have the Opposition, consisting of the Lincoln-Abolition party... - Richmond [Virginia] Enquirer, August 28, 1860, Page 4.

Mr. Lincoln an Abolitionist - Proof from his Own Lips ... - The Weekly [Jackson] Mississippian, November 28, 1860, Page 1.

... and for some two cents worth from the North:

Many of the Friends of Lincoln are anxous [sic] to conceal from the public just now, the fact that he is an Abolitionist... - [Ebensberg, Pennsylvania] Democrat and Sentinel, October 31, 1860, Page 2.

Well, with that all said and done, it's now time to proceed to a matter of even more astronomical import.

Is it "Harpers Ferry" or "Harper's Ferry"?

Those fans of the excellent BBC Comedy/Panel Show Qi will remember that the host Stephen Fry - the "presenter" in the British patois - told the audience that in the United States there are only five place names with a possessive apostrophe-s. These are: Ike's Point (New Jersey), Clark's Mountain (Oregon), John E's Pond (Rhode Island), Carlos Elmer's Joshua View (Arizona), and Martha's Vineyard (Massachusetts).

So the true writing is "Harpers Ferry" not "Harper's Ferry".

And yet if we look in the contemporary documents - newspapers, pamphlets, and books from the 19th century - the name was universally spelled "Harper's Ferry".

So what, we wonder, happened?

What happened was that in 1890 the Federal Government issued guidelines which "discouraged" using the final apostrophe-s. Although not, as the Rabbi told Perchik, expressly forbidden, you need to get permission to add the mark. There have only been the five exceptions (as listed above) since the rule was introduced and the last was in 2003.

The rationale for the ruling actually makes some sense. A plethora of apostrophes gets inconvenient, both in writing and in speaking, particularly when you really need to add an apostrophe to the name. For instance for "Richardsons Creek" you had the original "Richard's Son's Creek". That means you'd have to write something like "Richard's Son's Creek's flowing waters". It's easier on both the eye and tongue to simply say "Richardsons Creek's flowing waters".

All right. We've answered the questions as to what was the immediate cause of the Civil War, found that Abraham Lincoln wanted to end slavery, that the Southerners thought he was an Abolitionist, learned the proper spelling of Harpers Ferry, and understand why place names don't have apostrophes.

But there's one more question we can't avoid, despite its contentious and controversial nature.

And that question is:

Did John Brown have a

BEARD

at the Raid on Harpers Ferry?

Huh! What a question! After all, everyone's seen the painting that's in the Kansas State Capitol Building. It depicts a fanatical John Brown brandishing a rifle while sporting a lengthy beard all while surrounded by appropriate and powerful symbolism.

And there's the famous painting by Thomas Hovenden of John Brown walking down the steps of the jail where he stoops down to kiss a young black child. John's beard is full and flowing.

We also have an engraving of John Brown being arraigned in court. Again his most prominent feature is his chin adornment.

And for contemporary evidence, there's the famous 1859 photograph - sometimes mistakenly called a daguerreotype. John stands looking into the camera and his facial hair is most impressive.

So it seems this question is answered.

Weeeeeellllllll, hold on there a moment.

For all the depictions of John with a long luxurious jawbone coverlet, there's a surprising dearth of descriptions from the time of the insurrection. Certainly in the early daguerreotypes John had no beard. Frederick Douglass - always a good source - described John's appearance in 1847, when the two men met in Springfield, Massachusetts. He wrote:

His face was smoothly shaved, and revealed a strong, square mouth, supported by a broad and prominent chin.

Then in 1859, three weeks before the attack at Harpers Ferry, Frederick got a letter from John. It asked for a meeting in a stone quarry outside Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. When Frederick arrived, John tried to recruit him for the attack on Harpers Ferry. Fred was aghast. Up until that point the question of slavery had been one of dealing with the individual states. But Harpers Ferry was a federal facility and his plan would be an attack on the Federal government. It was guaranteed to fail and would turn the nation against the Abolitionists.

In his telling Frederick described how John was disguised as a fisherman. He carried tackle and:

He looked every way like a man of the neighborhood, and as much at home as any of the farmers around there. His hat was old and storm-beaten, and his clothing was about the color of the stone-quarry itself - his then present dwelling-place.

So Frederick made no mention of a beard.

And there were also witnesses who saw John at the time of the attack. After the marines had stormed the building that is now called "John Brown's Fort", a reporter described the scene:

The lawn in front of the engine-house, after the assault presented a dreadful sight ... The wounded father and his son Watson, were lying on the grass, the old man presenting a gory spectacle. He had a severe bayonet wound in his side, and his face and hair were clotted with blood.

So after his capture, John's hair and face were "clotted" with blood. But again no mention of a beard.

But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If everyone knew that John had a beard, there would be no real need to mention it. So it seems we've arrived at the point of which flummoxes so many historical investigators.

Fortunately that isn't so. If you keep sifting through all of the accounts, books, and articles, you will finally come across one eyewitness that unequivocally addressed John's facial decorations. This was an unnamed reporter from the New York Herald who was allowed to be present during John's questioning. What we read is:

Brown is fifty-five years of age [he was actually 59], rather small-sized, with keen and restless grey eyes, and a grizzly beard and hair.

Today when thinking of a person with a "grizzly" beard, there is a picture of a scruffy, unkempt individual. A "grizzly" beard conjures up an image of one that's short or at most of medium length. "Grizzly" and "bristly" are sometimes thought of as synonymous.

However, the actual definition of "grizzly" - and one that was used in the 19th century - is simply gray or partly gray (the etymology gives us the artist's term "grisaille"). So although we can be sure that John Brown had a gray or graying beard, the length remains undetermined.

At this point, though, we can turn to contemporary descriptions. And in particularly are there any pictures of John when he was captured.

Well, yes, there are. But unfortunately they are all pictures in magazines and newspapers. At the times printed images were from hand carved woodblocks which in turn were based on drawings of an artist. Although you sometimes had top notch artists - Winslow Homer was a Civil War illustrator - you could still lose a lot in the reproduction.

All illustrations show John with a beard. But it wasn't long and luxuriant. Instead it was of the short and bristly - and no doubt "grizzly" - style.

But are these pictures accurate?

Regardless of the original length of John's plumage, when John was captured he was given medical treatment (he struck by a sabre). In tending his wounds, the surgeon would have washed away "clotted blood" from John's hair and face. So it is also extremely likely that a lengthy beard would have been trimmed.

So we seem to be left in a quagmire of uncertainty. Is there even any indication that there was anyone at Harpers Ferry with a long beard?

Well, yes, although at first glance it doesn't seem to give us much enlightenment. As stated in a contemporary document:

The whole party numbered seventeen white men and five Negroes [African-Americans]. Among them were Edwin Coppie, white, and Shields Green, colored, from Iowa, who were unhurt; Aaron Stephens, from Connecticut, Stuart Taylor and J. C. Anderson, a fine looking man with a flowing white beard.

Yes, J. C. Anderson with "a flowing white beard". But there's even more as the writer continued:

Anderson was for some time supposed to be the leader of the insurrection.

Ha! So there was someone at Harper's Ferry who had a "John Brown Beard". But according to the account, it wasn't John Brown. So it seems the story of the John Brown cum barba longa is a case of mistaken identity.

The problem is there's no indication there was "J. C. Anderson" at Harpers Ferry with or without beard. The only Andersons in the group were Osborne Anderson - who managed to escape and later served in the Union Army - and Jeremiah G. Anderson who was killed in the raid. "J. C." could easily be a mistake for "J. G." but Jeremiah was only 26 years old and such a young man having a "flowing white beard" doesn't seem to fit the picture.

At this point we have to abandon the most satisfactory approach - looking only through contemporary sources and fall back on "reminisces". That is, see what people said who were actually there although the accounts may have been written years later.

The solider who actually led the charge into the engine house was Lieutenant Israel Greene. His account, though, was written over 25 years after the event. But nevertheless it's still the one by an eyewitness who was there when John Brown was actually captured.

I have often been asked to describe Brown's appearance at the instant he lifted his head ... It would be impossible for me to do so. The whole scene passed so rapidly that it hardly made a distinct impression upon my mind. I can only recall the fleeting picture of an old man kneeling with a carbine in his hand, with a long gray beard falling away from his face, looking quickly and keenly toward the danger that he was aware had come upon him.

So there you are. The one eyewitness account of John Brown's appearance at the raid on Harpers Ferry says it is impossible to describe his appearance - and then he goes on to say there is the "fleeting" picture of an old man "with a long gray beard".

So taking the totality of the evidence, we can be confident that John Brown had a beard at Harpers Ferry. It was certainly "grizzly" in the original sense of the word.

Then for want of any further evidence - and having reservations of what psychologists refer to as "memory deterioration" and "hindsight bias" - we have to rely on the one eyewitness at the final action. And he stated that John Brown did indeed have a long gray beard. For now, there's nothing more that can be gleaned and concluded.

Finally we have to mention that the one part of John Brown's legacy is the famous song that no one remembers. Shortly after John's execution, some aspiring bard picked out an old "camp-meeting" (i. e., religious revival) tune and came up with some new words:

John Brown's body lies a-rottin' in his grave.

Hm. That doesn't seem quite right.

Maybe ...

John Brown's body lies a-putrefyin' in his grave.

No, that's not it.

Well then, how about ...

John Brown's body lies a-moulderin' in his grave.

By George, I think he's got it!

The song, as we said, is now largely forgotten. But a few years later a nice lady named Julia Ward Howe rewrote the words, ironically dropping any mention of John Brown. Her song starts out:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

THAT song you may have heard.

References

John Brown, John Sterngass, Chelsea House, 2013.

The Life, Trial and Execution of John Brown: The Life, Trial and Execution of Captain John Brown, Known as "Old Brown of Ossawatomie," With a Full Account of the Attempted Insurrection at Harper's Ferry. Compiled From Official and Authentic Sources Including Cook's Confession, and All the Incidents of the Execution. New York: Robert M. De Witt, Publisher, 160 & 162 Nassau Street. Entered According to Act of Congress, in the Year 1859, by Robert M. De Witt, in the Clerk's Office of the United States Court for the Southern District of New York, Project Gutenberg.

The John Brown Invasion; an Authentic History of the Harper's Ferry Tragedy, With Full Details of the Capture, Trial, and Execution of the Invaders, and of All the Incidents Connected Therewith. With a Lithographic Portrait of Capt. John Brown, From a Photograph by Whipple, Thomas Drew (Author), J. Campbell (Publisher), 1860, Library of Congress.

"No Possessive Apostrophe in Place Names", Jeff Suess, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 26, 2014.

"John Brown's Beard", Emerging Civil War, October 16, 2011.

"The Last Days of John Brown: The Famous Beard", John Warren, Adirondack Almanac, Monday, November 9, 2009.

"His Then Present Dwelling Place: That Chambersburg Stone Quarry", H. Scott Wolfe, John Brown the Abolitionist, May 2, 2013.

"Lincoln on Slavery", Lincoln Home, National Park Service.

"What This Cruel War Was Over", Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic, June 22, 2015.

Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Pronouncing, Explanatory, Etymological, With Compound Phrases, Technical Terms in Use in the Arts and Sciences, Colloquialisms, Full Appendices, and Copiously Illustrated, Edited by Rev. Thomas Davidson, Assistant-Editor of 'Chambers's Encyclopedia', Editor of 'Chambers's English Dictionary', W. & R. Chambers, Limited, London, 1903, Edinburgh.

The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, Written by Himself. His Early Life as a Slave, His Escape from Bondage, and His Complete History to the Present Time, Including His Connection with the Anti-slavery Movement; His Labors in Great Britain as Well as in His Own Country; His Experience in the Conduct of an Influential Newspaper; His Connection with the Underground Railroad; His Relations with John Brown and the Harpers Ferry Raid; His Recruiting the 54th and 55th Mass. Colored Regiments; His Interviews with Presidents Lincoln and Johnson; His Appointment by Gen. Grant to Accompany the Santo Domingo Commission - Also to a Seat in the Council of the District of Columbia; His Appointment as United States Marshal by President R. B. Hayes; Also His Appointment to Be Recorder of Deeds in Washington by President J. A. Garfield; with Many Other Interesting and Important Events of His Most Eventful Life; With an Introduction by Mr. George L. Ruffin, of Boston, Frederick Douglass, De Wolfe & Fiske, 1892, Documenting the South, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill.

"Genitive Apostrophes", U.S. Board on Geographic Names, Principles, Policies, and Procedures, Domestic Geographic Names, Domestic Names Committee, Version 1.0, December 2016.

Qi Series G - Episode 1: Gardens, Stephen Fry (Presenter), Alan Davies (Host), Rob Brydon (Host), Dara O'Briain (Host), David Mitchell (Host), Ian Lorimer (Director), John Lloyd (Creator), BBC, November 26, 2009.

"The Capture of John Brown", Israel Green [Greene], The North American Review, December, 1885.

Senate Select Committee Report on the Harper's Ferry Invasion, 36th Congress, 1st Session, June 15, 1860.

The Last Moments of John Brown, 1882-1884, Thomas Hovenden, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gallery 762, Public Domain.