SPEECH TO THE COURT 1

JOHN BROWN

(1859)

JOHN BROWN (1800-1859) was born at Torrington, Connecticut. He was one of the first settlers in Kansas, where he opposed the extension of slavery. In 1859, he went to Harper's Ferry, and seized

to free the slaves. I intended certainly to have made a clean thing of that matter, as I did last winter when I went into Missouri and there took slaves without the snapping of a gun on either side, moved them through the country, and finally left them in Canada. I designed to have done the same thing again on a larger scale. That was all I intended. I never did intend murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite or incite slaves to rebellion or to make an insurrection.

1 John Brown's last speech to the court which condemned him to death, after his raid on the government arsenal at Harper's Ferry.

I have another objection; and that is, it is unjust that I should suffer such a penalty. Had I interfered in the manner which I admit, and which I admit has been fairly proved (for I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses who have testified in this case) had I interfered in behalf of the rich, the powerful, the intelligent, the so-called great, or in behalf of any of their friends, either father, mother, brother, sister, wife, or children, or any of that class, and suffered and sacrificed what I have in this interference, it would have been all right; and every man in this court would have deemed it an act worthy of reward rather than punishment.

This court acknowledges, as I suppose, the validity of the law of God. I see a book kissed here which I suppose to be the Bible, or at least the New Testament. That teaches me that all things whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I should do even so to them.1 It teaches me, further, to "remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them." 2 I endeavored to act up to that instruction. I say I am yet too young to understand that God is any respecter of persons. I believe that to have interfered as I have done, as I always freely admitted I have done, in behalf of His despised poor was not wrong, but right. Now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments I submit; so let it be done!

1 Cf. Matthew vii. 12.

2 Cf. Hebrews xiii. 3.

Let me say one word further.

I feel entirely satisfied with the treatment I have received on my trial. Considering all the circumstances, it has been more generous than I expected. But I feel no consciousness of guilt. I have stated from the first what was my intention and what was not. I never had any design against the life of any person, nor any disposition to commit treason, or excite slaves to rebel, or make any general insurrection. I never encouraged any man to do so, but always discouraged any idea of that kind.

Let me say also a word in regard to the statements made by some of those connected with me. I hear it has been stated by some of them that I have induced them to join me. But the contrary is true. I do not say this to injure them, but as regretting their weakness. There is not one of them but joined me of his own accord, and the greater part of them at their own expense. A number of them I never saw, and never had a word of conversation with till the day they came to me; and that was for the purpose I have stated. Now I have done.

1

THE ENFRANCHISEMENT OF THE NEGRO 1

STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS

(1858)

STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS (1813-1861), statesman, was born at Brandon, Vermont. In early life he removed to Illinois and was elected attorney-general of that state, and afterwards judge of the Supreme Court. He was a member of Congress for two terms, and later was elected United States senator. He took

part in a notable series of debates on the slavery question, and in 1860 was an unsuccessful candidate for the presidency.

We are told by Lincoln that he is utterly opposed to the Dred Scott 2 decision, and will not submit to it, for the reason that he says it deprives the negro of the rights and privileges of citizenship. That is the

first and main reason which he assigns for his warfare on the Supreme Court of the United States and its decision. I ask you, are you in favor of conferring upon

1 From an address delivered in the first debate with Lincoln at Ottawa, Ill., 1858. This extract is taken from the Nicolay and Hay version, by permission of the Century Company.

2 Dred Scott was a slave who had been taken by his master, an army surgeon, from Missouri to Illinois. By law he then became a free man. Later he was taken back to Missouri and sold. His new master assaulted him, and Scott brought action against him on the ground that he, Scott, was a free man. The case at last reached the Supreme Court of the United States, and a decision was rendered against Scott, on the ground that no one of slave ancestry has a citizen's rights before the courts. The court further stated that slaves were property, and that, therefore, Congress had no right to forbid slavery in the territories. This was equivalent to declaring that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.

a negro the rights and privileges of citizenship? Do you desire to strike out of our state constitution that clause which keeps savages and free negroes out of the state, and allow the free negroes to flow in, and cover your prairies with black settlements? Do you desire to turn this beautiful state into a free negro colony, in order that, when Missouri abolishes slavery, she can send one hundred thousand emancipated slaves into Illinois, to become citizens and voters, on an equality with yourself? If you desire negro citizenship; if you desire to allow them to come into the state and settle with the white man; if you desire them to vote on an equality with yourselves, and to make them eligible to office, to serve on juries, and to adjudge your rights, then support Mr. Lincoln and the Black Republican party, who are in favor of the citizenship of the negro. For one, I am opposed to negro citizenship in any and every form. I believe this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by the white men and for their posterity forever; and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians, and other inferior races.

Mr. Lincoln, following the example and lead of all the little abolition orators who go around and lecture in the basements of schools and churches, reads from the Declaration of Independence that all men were created equal, and then asks how can you deprive a negro of that equality which God and the Declaration of Independence award to him? He and they maintain that negro equality is guaranteed by the laws of God, and that it is asserted in the Declaration of Inde