I was raised to understand an extremely important, but usually overlooked, aspect of United States history – that the abolitionists were bloodthirsty terrorists. And, of all those vipers, none were as dangerous, deranged or psychotic as John Brown. As of yet, he has not been transformed into a national hero, though some quarters of the country have lionized him – think urban (colored) areas and leftist schools. No doubt (either this year or next) Hollywood will paint the man, not as the homicidal murderer he was, but as a martyr of the “muh civil rights” movement.
Trust me, it will happen. They tried to make Nat Turner into a freedom fighter and not the unhinged murderer of unarmed men, women and children – fortunately, the film flopped hard at the box office. There’s also the truly terrible film, Free State of Jones – providing a fawning and an extremely inaccurate depiction of the White trash, traitor and highwayman, Newton Knight. Like Turner’s Birth of a Nation (not to be confused with D.W. Griffith’s 1915 epic and national treasure with the same name), Free State of Jones was a dud with audiences. Evidently, remaking The Patriot within the Confederacy and presenting a ragtag interracial band of rebels heroically battling jackbooted gray-clad Confederate “stormtroopers” didn’t sit well, with even the normie public. It seemed beyond absurd on its face.
The preeminent anti-White Hollywood hustler and now a talentless hack, Quentin Tarantino, has described the terrorist as, “John Brown is my favorite American who ever lived. He basically, you know, he basically, single-handedly, started the road to end slavery, and the fact that he killed people to do it, you know, he decided, “OK, we start spilling white blood, then they’re going to start getting the idea.” If you’ve seen any of Tarantino’s recent work (which I don’t suggest you do), you’ll see that the ugly faced man has really gone off the deep end with his hatred for White people and his fetishistic fascination for Negros – its really quite sickening.
In time, we’ll start seeing Hollywood, along with the Old Right (just controlled opposition really), begin the process of rehabilitating Brown’s appalling record. After all, the Old Right – think (((National Review))) in particular – practically fell over themselves to sing the praises of the illiterate slave Harriet Tubman, when it was announced she would replace the hard charging President Andrew Jackson on the twenty dollar bill. During the Old Right’s applause for a squat subhuman replacing a former United States president, they conveniently left out Tubman’s devotion to Brown (she’s quoted as saying, “He done more in dying, than 100 men would in living”). After all, Brown recruited Tubman on his infamous raid (she declined), but they ran in the same subversive circles and he affectionately called her, “General Tubman.”
But, the Left has always admired anti-White and, specifically, anti-Southern agitators and madmen. Richard Owen Boyer, outed as a communist at a Senate Internal Security Subcommittee in 1955 and a frequent profiler for The New Yorker, described Brown as “an American who gave his life that millions of other Americans might be free.” Boyer had also written a biographer of Brown titled, The Legend of John Brown: A Biography and a History. It’s not surprising that Boyer was a communist – only a lunatic could attribute anything positive to Brown’s bloodstained (and thoroughly anti-White) legacy.
Frederick Douglass, the former slave, a man of limited capacity and now considered practically a god by our federally controlled public schools, described the treacherous Brown as, “one of the most marked characters, and greatest heroes known to American fame.” Words of high praise for a man that butchered families in Kansas in 1856 and planned on creating an anti-Southern black/white hybrid ethnostate in the mountains of West Virginia – with long-term plans on killing all pro-slavery men, women and children. Usually, Douglass’ acclaim for Brown is left out when modern-day Republicans equate Douglass to the Founding Fathers.
We also have that paragon of American literature, the highly overrated Ralph Waldo Emerson – who described Brown in angelic terms. The pansy poet (and an insufferable Yankee of the worst sort) described Brown as, “That new saint, than whom nothing purer or more brave was ever led by into conflict and death, — the new saint awaiting his martyrdom, and who, if he shall suffer, will make the gallows glorious like the cross.” I always hated Emerson’s work, now I have a more compelling reason to dislike the transcendentalist.
Make no mistake, Brown planned on killing as many White men, women and children as possible to end slavery (in the same vein as Nat Turner). Brown believed that on the first night of the Harper’s Ferry raid, between 200 to 500 dindu slaves would join his mad rebellion. He also stupidly underestimated the efficiency of Virginia’s militia and the United States Marines that might oppose him – Colonel Robert E. Lee would make him pay dearly for his overconfidence. Like Turner, Brown planned on sending his most intelligent (which isn’t saying a lot) dindu lieutenants to nearby plantations, killing the master and his family and rallying the slaves.
If successful, there’s no doubt Brown would have sacked Harper’s Ferry and killed most of the townsfolk. Brown expected, in his warped and deluded mind, that thousands of volunteers (both White and black) would rally behind him and lead him to everlasting glory. Once victorious, Brown planned on moving rapidly southward, sending out his multi-racial brigands along the way (likely to pillage and loot to their hearts’ content). As part of their righteous cause, they would free more slaves, obtain food, horses and hostages and destroy the South’s morale. Brown’s “army” would travel down the Appalachian Mountains and eventually strike in the Deep South.
If Brown had succeeded, the South would have experienced the Haitian Revolution on a grand scale (I believe it would have been ultimately unsuccessful – Southerners would have eventually outsmarted and defeated Brown’s army of low IQ jiggaboos and race traitors). Fortunately, Brown’s reign of terror was short-lived and he was hung in Charles Town, Virginia (now West Virginia).
With respect to the War of Northern Aggression and much of U.S. history, it’s important to reference primary sources – as they’re less likely to be retconned by shitlibs and cultural Marxists.
I was reading H.V. Traywick, Jr.’s Empire of the Owls – a valuable collection of first hand accounts of The War Against The South. Traywick, a graduate of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) and a U.S. Army Vietnam veteran, provides a required-reading collection of diaries, reflections and writings from before the war, during and afterwards. While practically all of his sources are noteworthy, he does include a few that illustrate the insanity and barbarity of the abolitionists, as well as, an account on Brown’s raid – a description far more revealing than the two paragraphs usually given him in today’s high school history books.
The first is one Wendell Phillips. In today’s age, Phillips would have been one of the most ardent anti-White progressives in the Democratic Party (I’m surprised he wasn’t Jewish). Naturally, he was a Boston Yankee and entertained a host of loathsome proclivities – a rabid abolitionist and proto-feminist lawyer with a burning hatred for the South and an advocate for the Indians. If you were a White Southerner – he hated you and wished for your death.
Below is an excerpt from one of his abolitionist speeches, this one on November, 1, 1859. Note: This occurred AFTER Brown attempted to start a race war and destroy Dixieland.
Whatever calls itself a government, and refuses that duty, or has not that asset, is no government. It is only a pirate ship. Virginia, the Commonwealth of Virginia! She is only a chronic insurrection. I mean exactly what I saw. I am weighing my words now. She is a pirate ship, and John Brown sails a Lord High Admiral of the Almighty, with his commission to sink every pirate he meets on God’s ocean of the nineteenth century…
High praise for a butcher. But, it shouldn’t be too surprising. Phillips always had a rabid hatred for tradition, particularly the American tradition. During Reconstruction he advocated for land redistribution – taking land from White Southerners and giving it to free blacks. He supported the temperance movement, universal suffrage and the various labor movements of the nineteenth century. In my opinion, you would be hard-pressed to find a more repulsive orator of the abolitionist movement.
The second citation is from John Sargeant Wise, the son of (at the time) Virginia Governor Henry A. Wise, from his memoir The End of an Era. Like Traywick, Wise was a proud son of Virginia (and a graduate of VMI) and provides a more unflattering and realistic depiction of Brown – more so than the abolitionists of Brown’s time and the shitlibs of today.
This mad effort, so quickly and so terribly ended, was in itself utterly insignificant. John Brown, its leader, was the character of murderous monomaniac found at the head of every such desperate venture. He has often been described as a Puritan in faith and in type. It is not the province of this writer to inquire into the correctness of this classification. He was an uncompressing, bloodthirsty fanatic. Born in the year 1800, he lived for fifty-six years without any sort of prominence. He was never successful in business ventures, had farmed, raised sheep, experimented in grape culture, made wine, and engaged in growing and buying wool. At one time in his life, and up to a period not long before his death, he was regarded as an infidel by his associates, although at the time of his death, he declared himself a true believer. In October, 1855, he appeared in Kansas, and at once became prominent as a leader of armed bands of free-soilers. On his way to the defense of Lawrence, in 1856, he heard of the destruction which had taken place there, and turned back. He resolved to avenge the acts of the pro-slavery horde. He reckoned up that five free-soil men had been killed, and resolved that their blood should be expiated by an equal number of victims.
“Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins,” was a favorite text with Brown. He called for volunteers to go on a secret expedition, and held a sort of Druidical conclave before starting out. Four sons, a son-in-law, and two others accompanied him. He had a strange power of imbuing his dupes with his own fanaticism. When he avowed his purpose to massacre the pro-slavery men living on Pottawatomie Creek, one of his followers demurred. Brown said, “I have no choice. It has been decreed by Almighty God that I should make an example of these men.”
On Saturday night, May 24, 1856, John Brown and his band visited house after house upon Pottawatomie Creek, and, calling man after man from his bed, murdered five in cold blood. They first visited the house of Doyle, and compelled a father and two sons to go with them. The next morning, the father and one son were found dead in the road about two hundred yards from the house. The father was “shot in the forehead and stabbed in the breast. The son’s head was cut open, and there was a hole in his jaw as though made by a knife.” The other son was found dead about a hundred and fifty yards away in the grass, “his fingers cut off and his arms cut off, his head cut open, and a hole in his breast.”
Then they went to Wilkinson’s, reaching there after midnight. They forced open the door and ordered him to go with them. His wife was sick and helpless, and begged them not to take him away. Her prayer was of no avail. The next day Wilkinson was found dead, “a gash in his head and side.”
Their next victim was William Sherman. When found in the morning, his “skull was split open in two places, and some brains were washed out. A large hole was cut in his breast, and his left hand was cut off, except a little piece of skin on one side.” The execution was done with short cutlasses brought from Ohio by Brown.
“It was said that on the next morning, when the old man raised his hands to Heaven to ask a blessing, they were still stained with the dry blood of his victims.” (See Rhodes’s History of the United States, vol. ii. p. 162, etc.) In his life by Sanborn is a picture of him made about this time. It represents him clean-shaven, and is, no doubt, the best picture extant by which to study the physiognomy of a man capable of these things.
The tidings of these executions caused a cry of horror to go up, even in bloody Kansas. The squatters on Pottawatomie Creek, without distinction of party, met together and denounced the outrage and its perpetrators. The free-state men everywhere disavowed such methods. The governor sent a military force to the Pottawatomie to discover the assassins. The border ruffians took the field to avenge the massacre. One Pate, feeling sure “Old Brown,” as he was called, was the author of the outrage, went in search of him. Brown met him, gave battle, and captured Pate and his command.
Kansas was in a state of civil war; the governor ordered all armed companies to disperse; and Colonel Sumner, with fifty United States dragoons, forced Brown to release his prisoners, but, although a United States marshal was with him, made no arrests.
This gives an insight into the character of John Brown, “the martyr.” Drunk with blood, inflamed by the death of one of his sons in these border feuds, impelled to further deeds of violence, no doubt, by the immunity secured from those committed in Kansas, John Brown began, as early as the fall of 1857, in far-away Kansas, to formulate his plans for an outbreak in Virginia. His confederate Cook, in his confession, has left the whole story.
Inducing Cook and eight or ten others, over whom he seems to have possessed complete mastery, to join him, they started east to attend a military school, as it was said, in Ashtabula County, Ohio. The party united at Tabor, Iowa; there, in the autumn of 1857, he revealed to this choice band that his ultimate destination was the State of Virginia. His companions demurred at first, but his strong will prevailed. They shipped eastward two hundred Sharp’s rifles that had been sent to Tabor for his Kansas enterprises the year previous. In May, 1858, Brown held a convention in Chatham, Canada, in a negro church, with a negro preacher for president, and adopted a constitution, which, without naming any territory to which it was to apply, said: “We, the citizens of the United States, and the oppressed people, who, etc., do ordain and establish for ourselves the following provisional constitution and ordinances.” This constitution, drawn up by John Brown, and adopted by himself and half a dozen whites, and as many more negroes in Canada, provided for legislative, executive, and judicial branches of his government. It also provided for treaties of peace, for a commander-in-chief, for communism of property, for capturing and confiscating property, for the treatment of prisoners, and for many absurd things besides. After providing for the slaughter or the robbery of nearly everybody in the United States who did not join the organization, or voluntarily free their slaves and agree to keep the peace, it culminated in a declaration:
“Art. 46. The foregoing articles shall not be construed so as in any way to encourage the overthrow of any state government, or of the general government of the United States, and look to no dissolution of the Union, but simply to amendment and repeal, and our flag shall be the same as our fathers fought under in the Revolution.”
No one can read the absurd jargon and believe the it was the product of the sane brain. Yet the last declaration of the document is no more inconsistent with the facts than were the repeated declarations of Brown after he had killed a number of people at Harper’s Ferry, that he proposed no violence. Nor was it a whit more absurd than the pretended loyalty to State and country of those who applauded his career of murder and robbery, and treason both state and national.
From May, 1858, to October, 1859, Brown pursued his plans. He rented a farm near Harper’s Ferry, and there collected his arms and ammunition, without exciting suspicion. Delays occurred from lack of funds, etc. An anonymous letter was sent to the Secretary of War, in the spring of 1859, revealing his plans and purposes, but it seems to have made no impression, although the Secretary of War was a Southern man.
Shortly before Brown made his demonstration, his cohorts, to the number of twenty, black and white, assembled at his farmhouse, and Sunday night, October 16, 1859, they descended upon Harper’s Ferry. About 10.30 P. M., they seized and captured the watchman upon the railroad bridge across the Potomac, and proceeded with him to the United States armory, of which they took possession. Brown then sent forth a party, headed by his lieutenant, Cook, to capture Colonel Lewis Washington and Mr. Allstadt, leading citizens, who were to be held as hostages. These gentlemen were compelled to leave their beds, and accompany the invaders. Their slaves, to the number of thirty, were also compelled, against their will, to join the party. Colonel Washington was a grandnephew of George Washington, and a member of the staff of the governor of Virginia.
A sword of Frederick the Great, which had been presented to George Washington, was “appropriated” for use by John Brown. At this point we are introduced to the word selected by Brown as descriptive of his taking other people’s property. He did not call it stealing, or robbery, or violent seizure. He invariably referred to it as “appropriating,” and he pronounced the word in a peculiar way, – putting the whole emphasis upon the second syllable, as if it were a-prop-riating. It was a favorite and oft-repeated word with him. Here also we see, in his appropriating the sword of Frederick the Great to be worn by himself, that overshadowing egotism which was one of his most prominent characteristics, – the inordinate vanity of lunacy.
It was an ill omen for his venture that the first person killed by his band in the early morning was an inoffensive colored man, a porter at the railroad station, who, being ordered to stop and seeking to escape, was shot as he ran away. The next victim was a citizen killed standing in his own door. The next, a graduate of West Point, who, having heard of the trouble at the Ferry, was shot from the armory as he rode into town on horseback armed with a gun.
When the marines had completed their lawful and proper work the following morning, John Brown lay on the grass desperately wounded. His entire party was killed, wounded, or captured, and the dead bodies of two of his sons were beside him. It was a ghastly ending of a horrid venture…
Finally, how did our Northern countrymen, those champions of virtue and justice, take to the justifiable quelling of Brown’s insurrection and his eventual execution? About how you would expect anti-Southern Puritan Yankees would – Wise goes on to illustrate their reaction:
When it was learned that, in many parts of the North, churches held services of humiliation and prayer; that bells were tolled; that minute-guns were fired; that Brown was glorified as a saint; that even in the legislature of Massachusetts, eight out of nineteen senators had voted to adjourn at the time of his execution; that Christian ministers had been parties to his schemes of assassination and robbery; that women had canonized the bloodthirsty old lunatic as “St. John the Just;” that philanthropists had pronounced him “most truly Christian;” that Northern poets like Whittier and Emerson and Longfellow were writing panegyrics upon him; that Wendell Phillips and William Lloyd Garrison approved his life, and counted him a martyr, – then Virginians began to feel that an “irrepressible conflict” was indeed upon them.
And indeed it was.
Brown’s body was not humiliated or grotesquely mutilated, although, perhaps it should have been – as a stark warning to the Northern abolitionist terrorists (and their apologists) – who drove the nation to war.