Transcripts For CSPAN2 H.W. Brands The Zealot And The Emancipator 20240711

No. Hello and welcome to the other talk series. And virginia prescott and the host to deny the conversation with some fine about the zealot and the emancipator john brown and the struggle for american freedom. Theres a link to the right of your screen or you can go to the link provided at the History Centers web site. As we are talking please submit your questions with the q a feature at the bottom of the screen. Not the chat, just the q a. Tends to get less credit that when i will try to integrate as many of them into the conversation as they can. H. W. Brands is the chair of the university of houston and offered some 30 books on u. S. History month in the First Americans biography for pulitzer prize. Bill brands thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for having me. Abraham lincoln and john brown wellknown historians. What did you want to add to the understanding of these famous american martyrs really by writing this . I think teaching American History for 35 going on 40 years and some of the basic questions of history or questions about they get down to almost moral questions and there is a moral question at work here that goes beyond John Brown Abraham Lincoln but i can summarize. Theres this timeless question that confronts citizens of any republic sooner or later and that is what does the good person to when he or she is convinced that the government is involved in something that is wrong or perhaps even downright evil . What do you do and different generations confront this in different ways. I grew up during the 1960s and i was at teenager in the 1960s and in college and the 1970s and a pressing question was the vietnam war. The vietnam war as an immoral colonial war. You vote for someone who will vietnam, do you march . Do you pro molotov caught tells . What do you do . In the 19th century the pressing moral question of the day was what does a person John Brown Abraham Lincoln what does a person who is wrong on policy grounds wrong on moral grounds, what does that person do about it and what obligation does the verse and have, what responsibilities and what avenues are ethically open to that person . I chose to look at john brown because while they agree on the fundamental zibol that slavery was wrong they disagreed diametrically on what to do about it to john brown believed enforceable direct action. He in effect declared war on slavery and did what he could to carry out to launch the war. Abraham lincoln thought that violence was counterproductive and it was bad policy but also is going to be ineffective. Abraham lincoln chose the path of moderation. He believes the issue of slavery could be effectively addressed only through constitutional means and he was as committed to emancipation as john brown was that he thought around was simply going to make matters worse by going into the realm of violence. The only way thought lincoln was to bring slavery to an end in a way that preserved dignity and gave the former a chance he was to do it through political means or constitutional means. John brown takes a different tactic and very early on hes a man of faith and is radicalized in 1837 when a prominent prohibitionist was murdered by the mob. He stands up in church and says hes going to devote his life to this and he also comes up with a detailed plan for what he calls to resist of the fugitive act passed and i to 50. Was violence always a part of that plan or did he begin by saying we can do this in a different way . John brown views on slavery and emancipation evolved over time. He was born in the 1800s in lincoln was born in 18 on line but they were both born at a time when slavery was considered by many people in the United States to be something of a Necessary Evil and how necessary and how evil depended on where you were. By 1800 most northern states had had not because they have been seized by fit of morality but their economy hate evolved in a way where slavery was unnecessary if not downright counterproductive. They focused on parts of slavery and saying we dont want anything to do with it anymore. To their surprise the Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson and George Washington James Madison who thought slavery would die out in the south the way was dying out in the north doesnt happen. Slavery with changes in technology with the cotton industry and the growth of territories ended slavery so john brown became increasingly discouraged with the future the country and slavery. In 1830s when the Abolitionist Movement blew up in the north john brown was radicalized by the murder of an abolitionist editor who was killed by a mob and john brown thought this is gone too far. People who believe that slavery must and need to stand up. If the proslavery forces are willing to use violence than antislavery crowd needs to take up arms as well but thats when john brown devoted himself against slavery. The first one was metaphorical and it quickly it became. They were the things converging in the mid19th century. The change in the economy in the north and the south but also the expanded settlement of the western territories and growing influence of Abolition Movement at odds with the southern planter. This comes to a head in kansas when you write the closest thing to a National Referendum on slavery. The hope of the forces opposed to slavery was if slavery is not allowed to spread eventually it will die out if the opponents of slavery understood that what made slavery profitable and virginia ann in the Eastern States was the fact that there was a market for in the west. Take away that Market Expansion and in slavery would become noneconomic and the holders themselves would decide it isnt worth it anymore. The hope was foiled when the west was open to slavery. The west was not supposed to be open to slavery. In 1820 there was a compromise between the northern states in the missouri compromise and had to do with missouri. An agreement was made the rest of the western territory part of Louisiana Purchase slavery would be forever forgotten from the northern part of the Louisiana Purchase including what would become kansas territory. But in 1854 Steven Douglas democratic senator from illinois decided to push through the kansas nebraska act and this act repealed that heart of the missouri compromise and allowed kansas territory to be open to the possibility of slavery under the principle of what douglas called popular sovereignty. A great name, misleading but he could sell it to quds it simply said kansas territory is open to everyone and when they are enough settlers there to justify forming a state and the people there will call a Constitutional Convention in the convention says the state of kansas shall not have slavery than the state of kansas shall not have slavery in the the people at the Constitutional Convention say they should have slavery then there will be slavery. In a democracy what could be better than that . In fact what happened was it turns out the kansas nebraska act measure invited proslavery forces and the antislavery voices to raise to kansas. When the Constitutional Convention was held their side would win. By the mid18 50s and we are talking about 1855, by this time the line had clearly been drawn between the north and the south on slavery as a moral issue, and overriding moral issue and in the north abolitionist took the position that we had to pose the extension of slavery. In antislavery Settlement Society free state emigrant societies in the north would fund immigrants to plant the flag for an opposition to slavery. The south had an advantage because kansas territory was right next to missouri. The missourians the socalled border referee and would go across the border into kansas and they would terrorize the place but they would destroy the settlements including the free states, they called in the free state settlements opponents of slavery and they committed what was called they basically destroyed it and the idea was to make kansas unfriendly down like downright dangerous to free state separatists. This is where john brown comes then. He rounds up his partys to fight. Exactly so john brown had 20 children and by this time five of his sons were adults. They were strapping young man almost is committed to the Antislavery Movement is john brown himself and the suns go first to kansas. They arent initially going to take up arms but they are going to take up opposition to slavery or they get their then they write home and said and john brown does. John brown is increasingly distressed at the failure of the Antislavery Movement and the Abolitionist Movement to actually frustrate them. John brown is just appalled at the fact that the proslavery force seems to be rolling right over physically rolling over the antislavery side and following the destruction of kansas john brown concludes that he needs to take strong action to send a message to the proslavery side. So he gathers his sons and 300 men and in the dark of one night they descend upon a proslavery on pottawattamie creek. They flag five men, proslavery settlers from their bed and just outside the cabins where they are living they leave the mangled lattes and ride off. John brown was to the left of the proslavery side realized if you use force in kansas will use more force against you. Of the pottawattamie massacre was a brutal time. Men dragged out of their beds with their wives screaming and sons begging for their lives hearing the murders of their fathers. Really is horrible and its a call for war. Brown never quite admits to the crime and by now hes infamous andys a wanted man. He and his militia are joined at different times by reporters. Theres a pro abolitionist newspaper by horace greeley. We get a sense of the canton bearing his desk contemporaneous john brown. How do they characterize him and what does that do . The striking aspect of john brown has to try to come to terms with how does this guy who before he becomes famous and kansas was not much of his success at anything in life and if he had been more successful in business as a farmer he probably wouldnt have become the figure he became and it wouldnt have turned to abolitionism. He never could make a success of anything in life before this but there was something about his personality that true people to him. His sons were raised in the antislavery space but they feared their father. They didnt know what to make of him. He had this really powerful personality. They couldnt leave him. They couldnt resist him but neither could they buy entirely into it. They were very disturbed by what john brown was making them do but they still couldnt leave him. In the first place this was a great story in the correspondence sent, this was the big story and in the days before television they would write these very vivid stories describing the characters and recounting the events that they saw. John brown was instinctively brilliant at dealing with it he does he was to all appearances utterly transparent comments on the set could be. He was one who understood and charity so important that once you learn to fake it then youve got it made. John brown would draw the reporters and that they werent the only ones. There was a network of abolitionist abolitionist philanthropist centered in boston in upstate new york. These were men typically who were eager to support the antislavery cause but they were in no position to take up arms. They were enormous and pressed by somebody who did like john brown. They became the Financial Support of john brown and john brown, nobody knew him from anybody else until the pottawattamie massacre. Now there was no direct evidence linking john brown because the people who were killed, nobody knew who this guy was. He was somebody but eventually everyone pointed to john brown. The federal authorities and kansas territory put out wanted posters for john brown but the trouble was in those. Photography days theres no picture on the posters of john brown all he had to do was grow his hair or cut his hair grow his bird beard art cut his beard and changes name and he wandered freely around the north. Just as there was an underground railroad for escaping there was something comparable for people like john brown antislavery militants. When he got back east to raise money for the project he made a point of not admitting or denying that he had been behind the murders at pottawattamie creek and his supporters made a point of not asking him direct way because they didnt really want to know. If they knew for sure that he was as coldblooded murder than they would have had a hard time justifying giving him money to do more of the same but if he simply was this militant, the strongminded supporter of the cause then fine we will give him his money. Its remarkable for the historian to try to figure out what was it about john brown that drew them . These were intelligent welltraveled people but its almost as though he spun this web that drew them all then. He presented himself as the person that they could imagine themselves to be in their younger braver days. Theres a similar effect after he leaves kansas and after things sort of settle down and he starts concocting this plan which has been in effect for some time to raise money to plant for billions across the country. People regarded as lunacy and some didnt want to know the plans. John brown rejected all criticism and is noted for his volcanic moods and some of it testimonials that you write about in the book. Maybe theres even delusional thinking that a saving the world and generations to come. Some historians have referred that he is mentally ill. Was john brown fanatic for bring on the war . I miniatures its unknown your thoughts if he was actually mentally ill . The title of my book is the zealot and the emancipator. John brown i had to think what is a word that i can apply a . I was tempted for a brief time, just a brief time to say the terrorist and the emancipator to kizzee was indeed a terrorist. If he committed those crimes today especially if it was for a cause that people didnt sign on to the definition of terrorism is someone who commit violent acts for political purpose and thats exactly what john brown did. Theres too much contemporary overlay of a terrorist. I could have justified using that because he was a fanatic. Was john brown krazy . Was john brown and same . I would say definitely not, certainly not in the sense of losing touch with reality. He always understood what he was doing and why he was doing it. He was perhaps more committed that he knew exactly what god wanted him to do then questioning what self questioning people do but one of the reasons of john brown was so persuasive was people who are encountered him knew that he was on the right side of history and on the right side of this fundamental moral question and the test becomes and i wont dont want to anticipate twoparter but when he encounters people who oppose everything that he stood for in a political way he drew them in. They thought they were dealing with someone who had the utter courage of his conviction and thats something that is also to people even if you dont leave in the conviction here someone who at the risk of his life is is. You mentioned, lets go back to lincoln for just a moment because he himself said he had no quarrel with being against slavery and hes trying to make an appeal against expanding slavery and these nude territories being built in the west end you mentioned Steven Douglass rival in the senate and i didnt know this but for mary todd. I didnt realize that they were both courting mary todd. But theres a question here about lincoln and where lincoln was a real road lawyer with a lot of capital vested rover then the return of investment hinge upon selling cotton to Manchester England that outlawed slavery so slavery had to end. Any connection you can see there . No, i dont think so and here is why. Even after england outlawed slavery the textile mills in manchester had no problem buying southern cotton and if anything emancipation or heaven forbid a war in the United States between the north and the south would disrupt this buyer economy. Lincoln came to his conclusion that slavery was wrong from its early days. He was born in kentucky but his family moved to indiana and then to illinois but lincoln and his family were opposed to slavery initially on College Grounds of selfinterest because for a workingman, someone who made his living by manual labor in a place like southern ohio, slavery simply meant that the wage rate would be far lower than the other buyers. Slavery was a threat to the selfinterest of free workingman ironically emancipation was to because slavery, when the became free they would flood onto the market. Working man in the north were kind of conflicted on the subject. They didnt know where to land on this one but lincoln had a moment relatively or it early in his life. He was 18 or 19 when he confronted slavery in a way that he never had before so he grew up in free state illinois and he was aware of slavery because if you lived anywhere near the border with slavery and in this case kentucky slaveholders with travel to illinois and some of them had property in both states. They could bring the over for a limited time. Lincoln was aware of this but ill and i didnt have any dig market. As a teacher Abraham Lincoln was tired. He went to new orleans and for the first time he saw a auction in full force and the idea of this property and the sale of human flesh and the were being sold just like one would sell horses or cattle and lincoln would measure that is the moment when he realized this just isnt right so he returned. Is the evolving sensibilities. But he sternly rejected the project of abolition to have that distinction somebody opposed to slavery and the abolitionist to say slavery is so bad it has to be at the top of anybodys list of priorities and to justify overruling anything else including the constitution. So john brown took emancipation outbreaks the constitution not that he is any less opposed but he believes the constitution was for all americans in his position was shut emancipation, the constitution should collapse in american freedoms are worse off than before. He was also a practicing politician. The book also talks with the deeply problematic views on race or ethnicity or what to do can we have a sense of that quick. Sure. One of the appeals of john brown you nobody with the complexities of the issue but what will happen to the slaves after they are free . Where will they leave one love . Had a society deal with it . Practicing politician especially since lincoln has enough slaveholders and voluntarily so we can had to do the basic problems which is easy for massachusetts to end slavery because theres hardly any slaves in massachusetts. But tell somebody in South Carolina that. Is that this country is something it is important to note it was still an experiment and that should not be allowed to happen. And that people will go way to demonstrate they cannot govern themselves. And to not point to any successful biracial work in the world or world history. But jefferson was opposed to slavery so basically get them all to go back to africa or somewhere else. Never said essentially the same thing that white people have done so many wrongs to black people that they could never forgive them. And furthermore way people having denigrated a black people for so long they cannot do it either. So they say i want to give up democracy. No one slavery so the only thing we can do is cause them all to go back to africa or somewhere most of them do not want to go. Many had emigrated long after the ancestors had come to america. There are a number of questions about emancipation and the war have to talk about the raid on Harpers Ferry. Running up to the Election Year with 1850 election. The band were camping out at a local farmhouse with a playbyplay was the unbelievable joy was fairly easy but the great grand nephew of George Washington of all people slip into is the enslaved people to their cars. So how did others respond . Exactly. John brown when uses several miles from Harpers Ferry and present themselves so he presented himself as a relatively harmless guy. And then when it turns out he had led the anti slavery militia at the battle which is sometimes called the first battle of the civil war. And it was regular so when they discovered the guy its very strange. But in the case of was washington his arm is entered by the people he doesnt know and is told he has to come with them and has to hand over his weapons and meanwhile the slaves on the property are being told they should come along and join the army for their freedom. Nobody told them about this. Theyve never heard of this guy. Now john brown just before the raid on Harpers Ferry called a meeting with Frederick Douglass former slave a noted abolitionist john brown had met several years before and shared his plan for handing out weapons to slaves in the vicinity of Harpers Ferry. And the slaves use those weapons so john brown said to Frederick Douglass, if you come along if you are a part of this, then all of a sudden i have far more credibility than i would otherwise. And then to say no i dont think so memo writer not a fighter but then he knew and then it was a Suicide Mission because mr. Lewis as a slave in the first thing the slave would do is ask themselves what am i getting into . As bad as slavery is as soon as i take up weapons that is and i would be murdered and killed really do as if there was a reasonable chance i will be in see. The other thing is john brown discovered that Harpers Ferry is really easy to get into hard to get out of. There are sleepy guards around resisted by one guy first. And the shots were fired of the town wakes up and once they realize that its curtains from john brown and the other people that are there that there are steep hills to climb and it is easy to look down on the armory or the person also the others are and down that could resist. So they wait there for a while and then are at the head of somebody in the us marine. He doesnt mess around and proudest taken prisoner and nearly killed and he would have been with the officer that had not been in such a hurry to join the forces going north instead of getting for the was a ceremonial favor you are to move ahead and read like crazy but did not kill him. Then the john brown story would have ended right there nothing like the effect it had. A dramatic scene at some point during the capture and he attends the jury selection and every now and again says something and its which is pretty dramatic. There are number of different realms Public Opinion was always between north and south this is beyond repairs on his way to the gallows he slipped and no to his jailer that said the crimes shall not be purged away except by blood. And john brown publicized there would be what was an end to slavery and imported himself to impress even his captors. The governor of virginia was very impressed by john brown. So she was hanged. And at that point even and southerners even though john brown was this terrorist type of guy he had to give him begrudging credit but then what happened is john brown was treated as martyrdom in the north and john brown was proclaimed the next to jesus christ who gave his life for the freedom of the slaves. And when white southerners saw this, they thought oh my gosh what type of the country do we live in . Somebody who murdered by southerners in the way that may have left us in our bed as a hero by the north they said this is a country thats not safe institution of slavery not for our very lives. This heads into the election and is now the president of a completely divided nation and if there are any echoes here some people and to disregard the results that he was part of the john Brown Network to call him negro so they all become president of the divided nation. And all of these questions here are about the emancipation proclamation in which influences decisions did it affect him at all was he trying to distance himself from the john browns of the world . Can you comment the lincoln conducting a war to save the union during the first two years and not to end slavery . Can you tie these together . Talking about what happened lincoln is completely silent after the inauguration and doesnt say anything to address the anxiety that is building for succession in the country. And lincolns position was i will not give any promises and they are contemplating secession i have made my position clear in my campaign and my speeches before that if i repeat myself they will not take me seriously. To me that sounds like a rational decision because thats a fundamental difference saying something is a candidate and saying something as president elect. Now youre the guy and people want to know if you still take seriously what you said before. I think it was a strategic mistake but once he was inaugurated he made very clear he will not tolerate secession. One that he swore to uphold and defend the constitution for every state the constitution did not allow states to secede. Second he made very clear that his opposition to secession had nothing to do with slavery. For Abraham Lincoln beginning 1861 with the emancipation proclamation lincoln took the position in the war was all about states rights and his interpretation not the right to secede and was asked by the antislavery man who was pushing lincoln to say call this a war about slavery then we can get them on our side Frederick Douglass said come on you know this is a war about slavery you might as well say i make it a war about slavery and he said no. Because his interpretation still held the president of the United States nor congress have the authority to tell the states that they could not have slaves until forever that was their prerogative under lincolns interpretation. But second, not all staves play seceded there were four reporter states especially with missouri and kentucky and maryland of maryland seceded and lincoln declared this oregon slavery then maryland would have almost no choice but to join the confederacy going that happened they would have to evacuate washington dc. Would be very much harder to hold the ohio river and the mississippi river. Lincoln new on constitutional and strategic grounds making this a war against slavery would be counterproductive. And he knew that was hardly unified. After fort sumter april 1861 he issued a call for volunteers to save the union if he issued a call for 75000 volunteers to free the slaves he would not got anywhere near 75000. The opinions of the north is not universal slavery is not that big of a deal it was a big deal for people like john brown or an abolitionist but for most people may be mildly opposed to risk my life and go to war . I dont think so. What does that shift . Because i guess also to the Jefferson Davis to say this isnt about slavery but states rights. Ironically lincolns position was southerners was a this isnt about slavery but strikingly at the beginning and most of those ordinances slavery is clearly identified as the proximate cause they all say every state including massachusetts and new york have a right to secede but they also understood you dont do this just for any reason. You do because there is a basic interest in danger and they all identified slavery is a basic interest that was endangered. So lincoln takes the position its about lack of states rights to secede but hes worked upon people in forest greeley and furthermore those who say the slaves in the south our resource and ovide the labor to keep the Confederate Army in the field. Whatever we can do to diminish the effects of that labor force we should do. If you promise freedom to the slaves then we will encourage slaves to abandon the plantation and their masters and head to union lines. May be soldiers of our own and that was a dicey issue another one that is overlooked is the role of ten in all of this. Everybody alive knew the story of the American Revolution and succeeded only with the help of france the confederacy new if the attempt of 1861 would require the help of a foreign power depended on southern cotton and britain was tempted to recognize the independence of the confederacy then it would be a great plan. But brandnew slavery was in the empire 30 years before there was emotional and political moral opposition and the idea to recognize a slave holding republic, does the existence was a tough political sell but as long as lincoln said this isnt about slavery, then theres no difference between north and south. Search and that from happening lincoln realized i better make this a were about the slavery so the british will know if you stay neutral that helps us and the cause of anti slavery in effect then you overturn 30 years of your own policy and support slavery. A fascinating turn it wasnt always the abolitionist to support it in but you do point out the irony lincolns political path leaves too far more than john brown insurgency and that in effect did more to advance john brown school more than 100,000 enslaved people took up arms for the union and im sure you are well aware there are many contemporary historians who say he was a racist and was pushed into it and backed into a corner john lewis gates wrote he was a racist who became opposed to slavery impressed by the courage of africanamerican troops the politician always opposed allowed him to the slaves. I do not use the term racist in the book because we use racist in 1860 is different than 2020 but i will say this. Acknowledging the race the differences are not innate and the opportunity for black people so how in the world we look smart compared to people who have the advantage of education . He makes a very clear he was not in favor of interracial marriage. But he also says that one point he wasnt claiming this , but even if one for the black race that doesnt justify enslaving the black race because then the smart people of any race can enslave the dumb people. And lincoln words say just because they dont want to marry a black woman doesnt mean i want to enslave her. So by modern standards lincoln says black people have to leave america if this will work. Okay. Leftdoublequote him to say he says a lot of stuff that makes the modern sensibility queasy. But it is important to note if lincoln passed muster on those points in the year 2020, he never wouldve had a prayer being elected president in 1860. So progress is made by people like lincoln those who are in their own time once i have that firm footing can they take a step in the direction of what we call the future or the right side of history. But you take somebody from 2020 and drop them back into the 1860s, they would be so removed from the people of the da day, remember we live in a democracy people vote for you if you live in a time when most white people have their own racial way of thinking , then if you are northern john brown could never be elected presiden president. We have to wrap but i want to ask reading a report today about the very real threat of violence from groups not expecting the results of the election. Fears of civil war being stoked by given the political environment red states and blue states and the geographic location of that Political Party of the gop, how much of the struggle for civil rights did they fight for so vigorously . How much exist today . I would say there is a much greater appreciaon of who should receive equal rights today than there was a lincolns day. D lincoln say there is a much greater perception a and thomas and one Thomas Jefferson stable human rigs evils over time white men thinkers of europe in 1882 in front of the concept of human rights. If you told somebody in 1750 all these people have common rights they would say you are crazy but now we take it for granted. I think that something everybody should aspire t nobody did in 1750. And with American History, it is a progressive in the direction of more rights to more people have we perfected that . By no means more work needs to be done. Some questions are answered in the book others are not but i am grateful to you for joining us tonight. My pleasure thank you for everybody who was watching. Talking about the zealot and the emancipator. We encourage you to support a cappella books buying a copy from them there is a link on the website and also on the chat link. Full schedule coming up we are plenty more author talks owner of the Atlanta Falcons and Atlanta United and now author of the book good company on wednesday bowling alone author has a new book out. Its called the upswing i will be speaking with him and his coauthor. Full schedule at the Atlanta History Center thank you for tuning in thank you again h w brands and for your questions. Good night