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 FathersThomas Jefferson and George WashingtonJames 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 overr