ROBBERY AND MURDER ON THE POTTAWATOMIE

From a rude home in the bleak mountains of northern New York, John Brown went to Kansas; not for the purpose of fighting, but inspired by the hope of bettering his shattered fortunes; a hope that withered in the budding, and gave place to feelings of deep disappointment and discouragement. He wrote February 1st:

These were hard conditions. It would be difficult to imagine circumstances of greater discomfort and hopelessness. But what about the future—the future for himself and for the wife and the daughters depending upon him for the necessaries of life, for whose benefit he had come to Kansas? Did Brown think of them? Present inconvenience and privation may be borne with fortitude if the future holds out a promise of betterment. In his case we may reasonably assume that the problems of the future, rather than the present conditions and discouragements, engrossed his thoughts. It is altogether unreasonable to suppose that this unscrupulous man of affairs—this restless, aggressive speculator—sat listlessly, amid his environment of discomfort and poverty, and permitted the dreary months to pass without thinking of his precarious financial condition, and of the incessantly urgent family responsibilities impending; and of the possibilities of bettering his fortunes in the immediate future. His biographers have wisely avoided discussion of the practical side of Brown's condition at this time, preferring to wander in more intangible fields, and to speculate upon the emotional and metaphysical phenomena they seek to involve in the situation. The record of his life at this time, however, reveals the fact that Brown did think of the future and of its responsibilities; and that he did mature a plan to better his financial condition. Also, that his plan was in harmony with his latest and best biographer's estimate of his character: "It was not only that he was visionary as a business man,"[111] says Mr. Villard, "but that he developed the fatal tendency to speculate; doubtless the outgrowth of his restlessness, and the usual desire of the bankrupt for a sudden coup to restore his fortune," To his wife he wrote as follows:

This letter foreshadows the turning point in John Brown's career. It discloses the fact that he and his sons intended to engage in an enterprise that was related to danger, against which he sought to quiet his wife's apprehensions. The letter also foreshadows the fact that as a result of what they intended to do, they would probably leave the neighborhood; but as to either the nature of the undertaking which they had in view, or the time at which the venture would be executed, she would not be informed until they left the country. It discloses further the significant fact, that his attitude toward the Free-State cause had undergone a change. That instead of treasuring in his heart a patriotic desire to win freedom for Kansas by peaceable means, he had assumed a hostile attitude. He now desired, not peace, but war.

Three important facts appear at this point in Brown's history: That he had decided to do something of a dangerous character and leave the neighborhood; that he desired a revival of pro-slavery aggressions; and that he had disbanded the "Liberty Guards."

On the 16th of April, 1856, John Brown, Jr., was in command of the "Pottawatomie Rifles."[112] He said: "During the winter of 1856, I raised a company of riflemen, from the Free-State settlers who had their homes in the vicinity of Osawatomie and Pottawatomie Creek."[113] James Townsley, in his "confession," made December 6, 1879, said: "I joined the Pottawatomie Rifle Company at its reorganization in May, 1856, at which time John Brown, Jr., was elected captain."

Why Brown should desire a revival of pro-slavery aggressions, if he intended to leave the neighborhood; and what he intended to do, are important questions in this analysis which his versatile biographers have failed to attempt to explain. Brown could not have desired a provocation from the pro-slavery people because he wanted an opportunity to fight—to march against them at the head of the "Liberty Guards," and "stagger the slave-power by the driving force of his iron will;"—for he intended to leave the neighborhood; he intended to go away from the scene of the prospective aggressions. He was no longer "Captain of the Liberty Guards," but a private citizen; therefore, he must have desired an outbreak of pro-slavery hostility for personal reasons; for reasons relating to operations which he intended to engage in with Henry Thompson as an associate; who wrote, equivocally, to his wife in May, 1856, that "Upon Brown's plans would depend his own, until School is out."

The operations that Brown and his four unmarried sons and Henry Thompson engaged in immediately after the letter containing this extract was written, show that the "plans" therein referred to related to the capital tragedy in the history of Kansas Territory. These plans provided for the theft of a large number of horses on Pottawatomie Creek. The horses were duly stolen by Brown and his band. To make the theft possible, and personally safe, they planned to quietly assassinate the owners of the horses. To avoid identification, and to dispose of the horses which they intended to steal, they planned to deliver them to confederates, who would run them out of the neighborhood; and, at the same time, they were to receive from such confederates horses of a more desirable character—fast running horses—which were to be brought from the northern part of the Territory to a designated rendezvous.

It was the original intention to steal four lots of horses and murder seven men. The persons murdered in pursuance of their plans were John Doyle and two of his sons, Hon. Allen Wilkinson, and William Sherman. Those who escaped death were Henry Sherman, a brother of William, and another person whose name has been withheld from publication.[114] The silent weapons used in these murders were some of the short swords, ground to a keen edge, that Brown had brought with him when he came to the Territory. The unfortunate victims, in holding up their arms in vain attempts to shield their heads from impending blows, were struck upon their forearms and hands; these in some instances were almost severed from their bodies. The heads of the murdered men, except in the case of Doyle, were split open and their bodies otherwise mutilated. In the case of Doyle, he was shot in the head; and in addition thereto, a sword was run through his breast. He was the first victim of the tragedies. The shot which struck him was the only shot that was fired in these murders, and the firing of it stands charged to John Brown himself. Of this Mr. Villard says:[115] "Salmon Brown will not positively state that his father fired it but admits that no one else pulled a trigger."

An account in detail of these murders is found in the testimony of the widows of Doyle and Wilkinson, and of James Harris, and others, taken before Hon. M. N. Oliver, of Missouri, minority member of a congressional committee of which Hon. W. A. Howard was chairman. The committee was appointed in 1855 to investigate and report to Congress upon the troubles in Kansas. The character of the evidence brought out in this investigation incriminated the Browns; but for more than twenty years thereafter the surviving members of the family stoutly denied having any participation in the crime. Even at Harper's Ferry, when standing within the shadow of the gallows, John Brown denied having had anything to do with it. To Judge Russell "the prisoner reiterated his assertion often made in those prison days that he was not personally concerned in the Pottawatomie murders."[116] But after the confession of James Townsley, his biographers and friends were forced to acknowledge Brown's directing hand in the crime. Since that time, they have continuously sought, by various pretexts—defensive, patriotic and altruistic—to justify him in the killing of these men; and to distract attention away from the real motive that prompted it; with the result that they have thus far succeeded in so agitating discussion upon the merits of the murders, as to concentrate public attention upon that feature of the crime—the murders—and to eliminate or silence any allusion whatever to the fundamental feature of it—robbery. As a consequence of their propaganda, writers of history have not made any reference to the robberies to which the murders were subordinate and incidental. After the manner of sheep, they have followed the lead of Brown's eulogists into the interesting field of metaphysics; and have there engaged in profitless speculation upon Brown's mental processes, and the probable psychical impulses which may have controlled his actions.[117]

The confession of James Townsley is as follows:

From this statement it appears that John Brown set the example for his sons to follow by killing Doyle. "Old John Brown drew his revolver and shot old man Doyle in the forehead, and Brown's two younger sons immediately fell upon the younger Doyles with their short, two edged swords."

Mrs. Doyle, in her testimony said:

The son testified:

Allen Wilkinson was the postmaster for the community, and was a member of the Territorial Legislature. Like Doyle, he was married, and had a family of small children. Mrs. Wilkinson states that the persons who murdered her husband, came to their home after midnight, and after knocking at the door, inquired "the way to Dutch Henry's." Wilkinson began to tell them, but they told him to "come out and show them." Her testimony is in part as follows:

James Harris, at whose house William Sherman was staying on the night of May 24th, states in his testimony, what came under his observation. Harris was a day laborer. He testified in part as follows:

It should be remembered that prior to the date of these murders and robberies, the zone of conflict in the Territory had been confined within the limits of Douglas, Leavenworth, and Atchison counties. Also, that the settlers living south of Douglas county had, up to this time, enjoyed the repose and benefits of a condition of profound peace; and that during all of the time that Brown was formulating his plans to rob and murder his unsuspecting neighbors, the "Shannon Treaty" was in full force and effect, and a season of peace prevailing throughout the whole Territory. Mr. Villard says of this period:[121]

And John Brown himself, in his speech before a committee of the Massachusetts Legislature, February 18, 1857, said:[122]

Some of Buford's men had been in the neighborhood but they were not brutal toward the Free-State settlers. There was a potent restraining influence controlling their conduct. They were at the time on the pay roll of the General Government as deputy United States marshals, and the respectability and responsibility of their official positions demanded reasonably proper behavior on their part.[123]

The most important evidence upon the important subject under consideration, appears in Brown's letter to his wife, written after his fight at Black Jack; and in a personal statement made by John Brown, Jr., to F. B. Sanborn. The letter is, in part, as follows:[124]

The statement that John Brown, Jr., made to Mr. Sanborn is, in part, as follows:[127]

Referring to a horse whose mane and tail had been shaved—"Dutch Henry's gray pony"—Mr. Sanborn states:[128] "This horse was soon taken to northern Kansas by some Free State men who gave in exchange for that and other horses captured on the Pottawatomie, some fast Kentucky horses, on one of which Owen Brown afterward escaped from his pursuers."

But John Brown, Jr., received his fast running horse on the morning of May 26th and "upon a mate to it" Owen Brown escaped from his pursuers on the same day near Osawatomie. Therefore, the exchange of the horses "taken as reprisals" on the Pottawatomie, for the fast running horses, was not made in northern Kansas some time afterward, as Mr. Sanborn states, but was made immediately after the robbery—May 25th or 26th—at the appointed time and place; probably on Middle Creek.

These statements, made by John Brown, and by his son, complete the recorded evidence of Brown's plan to retrieve his shattered fortunes by a plunge in horse stealing. It shows that he was in partnership with others in the transaction, and that his confederates brought the northern horses, eight at least, to the appointed rendezvous and delivered them to him. It shows also, that John Brown, Jr., was in his father's confidence, and that he knew enough about his father's plans and of what had been done on the night of the 24th, to enable him to walk to a point "a few miles south of Ottawa Jones's place" where he was "offered one of the northern horses," and accepted it as his own.

Who Brown's confederates were in this transaction, except as to Weiner, is as yet unknown. Salmon Brown still guards the sacred secret. But it is probable that the "mysterious courier," who came to the camp of the Pottawatomie Rifles on the morning of the 23d, was one of them, and that he delivered a message to John Brown. There has been much debate concerning this messenger and his identity.[129] B. L. Cochrane may have been the important person, or it may have been Jacob Benjamin that bore the important message, or Charles Lenhart, or Mr. John E. Cook. None of these men have heretofore been charged with having taken any part in the Pottawatomie episode, but there are incidents in this history which connect them with it as confederates. Weiner owned the store at "Dutch Henry's Crossing," and Benjamin was in his employ. Weiner disposed of his stock of merchandise and gave up the business to engage in this speculation in horses. He was from Texas and to Texas he returned. It is also probable that he was a pro-slavery man. Benjamin was subsequently "imprisoned" for some act that he committed while in Brown's service; as appears from a reference which the latter made, during July, concerning him.[130] The name of Benjamin Cochrane also appears in the same reference, as having been with Brown at the Pottawatomie and at the Black Jack.

On page 101, Mr. Redpath states that Charles Lenhart and John E. Cook left Lawrence on the 21st to "commence reprisals." There is also evidence that they went southward. They were horse thieves, and at Cleveland in May, 1858, Cook stated that he had killed five men in Kansas.[131] It is therefore probable that these men were accomplices with the Browns in this deal; and participated, directly or indirectly, in the murders. Cook was a guest in their camp June 4th, two days after the fight at Black Jack, when they had Pate's horses and mules in their possession. Thereafter he continued to be Brown's faithful lieutenant, and followed his fortunes to the gallows at Charlestown. Charles Lenhart, too, appeared at Charlestown, engaged in an effort to effect Cook's escape from the jail.

The terms of the agreement which the Browns made with these confederates, and the details for the execution of the Pottawatomie transaction, would make history of absorbing interest. How many horses did Brown turn over to them? Did they trade one bunch of horses for the other, and let it go at that? Or, did his confederates charge him with the value of the horses which they turned over to him; and then, after offsetting their services in selling Brown's horses, against his services in stealing them, did they divide the net profits, or the difference in value between the two lots of horses? Then as to the time when Brown was to make his delivery; it would be interesting to know about that. Were the parties to wait until the Border Ruffians started something, and raised some friendly dust that would distract public attention from their operations? Probably so, for Brown was prepared to kill his neighbors and take their horses at any time. His letter of April 7th shows that he intended to do this whether the slave-power renewed its acts of aggression or not. He simply preferred to commit his robbery under cover of some pro-slavery provocation. Otherwise, after the grass had well started, he intended to execute it in cold blood and leave the country. In that event, he probably intended to "go to Louisiana," and "head an uprising of the slaves there."[132]

For reasons obvious, Mr. Villard could not obtain the exact facts as to all these incriminating matters from his friends, Salmon Brown and Henry Thompson; but the former is still living,[133] and can yet supply them if he desires to do so. He can, if he be so disposed, give out the "exact facts" as to all the principal happenings on the Pottawatomie. For instance: He can give the name of the man whose horses they intended to steal, but failed to get, and the number of them. Townsley referred to this incident, but Salmon Brown gave further details and spoke very interestingly upon the subject. He said:[134]

From the expression "it was a method much used later" we derive a confession that the Browns continued in the horse stealing business.

Upon the number of horses that Brown expected to get as a result of the murder of seven men, depends this interesting problem in his psychology: his estimate of the value of a human life in terms of horses. In the case of the Doyles, he took three lives and got, probably, eight or ten horses; but the whole number of horses taken will never be known unless Salmon Brown, or some one who has his confidence, should decide to reveal it.

"The Shermans," Bondi says, "had amassed considerable property by robbing cattle droves and emigrant trains."[135] They lived at a "crossing" of the Pottawatomie, and were buyers and traders in horses, oxen, and cattle passing over the trail. "Crossings" are usually camping places for emigrants and drovers; and at such locations lame, footsore, or otherwise unserviceable stock, can be, frequently, bought or traded for at a very profitable margin in favor of the trader. Travelers must either sell or abandon their lame stuff, and replace it with serviceable animals, or lie over and wait until such animals get in condition to travel. The trader not being compelled to trade, names the price he will pay, or the terms upon which he will exchange good stuff for bad. When the stock which he buys is recuperated, he sells it for a good profit to other travelers, or to immigrants who locate in his neighborhood. In this way the Shermans, William and Henry, had accumulated wealth in horses and cattle; and since there was then much travel on the trail, they may have had on hand at that time, from twenty-five to forty or fifty horses.[136]

The importance of exchanging the Pottawatomie horses immediately, and getting them out of the country was a high card in Brown's play. If he and his gang had been caught with their murdered neighbors' horses in their possession the next morning, there would not have been any sophistical discussion fifty years after about how the "killings on the Pottawatomie" could be "justified"; or about Brown's "sudden impulses"; or of his altruistic convictions that it was necessary to "remove" anybody. The men of that outraged neighborhood, regardless of party affiliation, would have promptly hanged the outlaws. But the robbers were too deep for them. The neighbors lost the trail of the robbers and murderers; also, they lost the trail of the Browns.

The horror of these murders, aggravated by the brutal mutilation of the bodies of the victims, seems to have shocked that community into a condition of semi-insensibility. In a lot of resolutions adopted at a public meeting of citizens at Osawatomie, on the 27th, "denouncing the murders"; the motive prompting the crime, the theft of the horses owned by the victims, is not referred to. It is probable that the Osawatomie people, who drew the resolutions, did not then know that any horses had been stolen. At any rate, these resolutions came to be regarded as the public or official announcement of what had occurred; and since they contained no reference to any robbery, in connection with the murders, the public was thus, unintentionally, led to believe that the assassinations were acts of partisan warfare; a killing of obnoxious pro-slavery men by unknown, but over zealous Free-State men. The resolutions are as follows:[137]

The pillage and burning of Lawrence put the killings upon a war basis. They were supposed to have been a war measure, instead of a case of horse stealing; and, instead of the Browns et al. being hanged for their crimes, as they would have been, by common consent, as undesirable citizens, partisan spirit and sectional sentiment soon rallied in their behalf and not only condoned their horrible crimes, but, in time, approved of the murders, and recognized Brown as among the foremost defenders of the Free-State cause. At a meeting of the Anti-Slavery Society in Lawrence December 19, 1859, Governor Robinson said:

Robinson also stated at this meeting that he himself thought the murders justifiable at the time.

Governor Robinson further said on February 5, 1878:

The character of Charles Robinson is evidence that if he had known, at this time, that the murders on the Pottawatomie had been committed in the promotion of robbery, instead of resulting from a supposed spasm of patriotic resentment, provoked by the sack and burning of Lawrence, he would not have declared them justifiable.

In the light of these occurrences, the student of history may readily solve the enigmas involved in Brown's letter of April 7th and in Henry Thompson's reference to his relation with Brown's plans: until school is out. He finds in them a logical reason for the disbanding of the "Liberty Guards"; for the organization of the Pottawatomie Rifles; and for Brown's desire that the slave-power should not "cease from its acts of aggression." These preliminary acts are in harmony with, and form a part of his general plan for a "sudden coup" on the Pottawatomie.

The evidence is complete that the theft of the horses was the part to be performed by Brown in this comprehensive scheme. His crime cannot be excused or justified upon any pretext of supposed conditions or of supposed circumstances. A condition of profound peace was prevailing throughout the entire Territory when he laid his plans for this assault upon his neighbors. The settlers in the region south of Douglas County were living in a state of amity and neighborly interdependence; so much so that Jason Brown and the members of the Pottawatomie Rifles, who started to go to Lawrence, and who expected to be absent for an indefinite period of time, deemed it safe to leave their families and their property in the care of, or at the mercy of these same pro-slavery neighbors. Neither can the crime be justified upon the ground that the robbery and the attendant murders were acts of partisan or guerrilla warfare. Such warfare is conducted in the open, with the knowledge and approval of the side to which the guerrillas belong; there is no secrecy concerning their operations. But Brown robbed and murdered in the night for his personal gain; and sought by secretly exchanging the loot to hide his identity therewith from the world, and denied his participation in the crime to shield himself from the wrath of his outraged friends and neighbors. Neither can Brown's crime be compared to the execution of undesirable persons by vigilance committees, as some have attempted to do. The swift vengeance of such committees falls upon criminals—persons whose existence in a community is a menace to public order and safety; it is exercised by reputable persons whose social and commercial interests are involved; and in a public or semi-public manner, and after notice has been served upon the offensive persons. It is simply monstrous to conceive of a vigilance committee secretly murdering well-to-do citizens—heads of families, engaged in legitimate occupations; and then stealing their property and dividing it up among themselves. Yet such is the logic of that comparison.

Also, it is gratuitous to assert that the persons who were killed were disreputable. Wilkinson was the local postmaster, and was, when assassinated, a member of the Territorial Legislature; the Sherman brothers were successful horse dealers and stock men. Concerning the Doyles, notwithstanding the efforts which have been made to defame them, they seem to have been decent, respectable, well-to-do settlers. Of them Mr. Eli Moore of Lawrence, Kansas, says:

They were not "poor whites" as has been recently said.[140] If they had been poor; if they had not owned a lot of good horses, they would not have been murdered. The desperado always appeared upon the fringe of our advancing settlements; but he was neither a settler nor a home builder. The men who were murdered and robbed had taken claims, had built homes, and were living peaceably and honorably in them. They did not in their lives exhibit the characteristics of the desperado, but their assassins measure up to the part. They had no homes; they were not cultivating the fertile soil of eastern Kansas; they had abandoned their claims and were living upon their wits; they were floaters who intended to leave the neighborhood. These men wore the brands which distinguish the desperado; they carried "slung-shots";[141] they were swearing, swaggering bullies[142]—"rough-necks"—who infested that border and preyed upon the home builders.

In the preface to his great book, Mr. Villard states that "to Salmon Brown and Henry Thompson is due his ability to record for the first time the exact facts as to the happenings on the Pottawatomie." It is evident that he was imposed upon by these principals in the "happenings"; for it is unfair to suppose that he would withhold the facts from his publication if he had correct information in his possession concerning them. He has written voluminously, and in a scholarly manner about this episode, and has shown the inconsistency of a part of the brood of fallacies which were conjured, and put forth as motives justifying Brown's conduct therein; but he has not added any valuable fact to the narrative that was given out by Mr. Townsley concerning it.

Mr. Townsley withheld the facts relating to the robbery and the exchanging of the horses through confederates, for the personal reason that he did not desire to incriminate himself as a horse thief. Salmon Brown and Henry Thompson had greater reasons for withholding from Mr. Villard, and from the public, the damning evidence of the brutal selfishness of this crime. It was theirs rather to guard, jealously guard their father's fame and to defend his memory; and not to betray it by giving up facts that would disclose the secret of his and of their own dishonor. Statements made by criminals, concerning their criminality, are not usually true. It is well enough to get such statements, but it is the safer way not to attach much importance to them. These men were not credible witnesses. John Brown, himself, was a very unreliable witness upon any question wherein his personal interests were involved; and was especially so in relation to this incident; and these two men, as witnesses in their own behalf, continually denied having any knowledge of the facts herein, until Townsley gave out the secret of their complicity with the murders. Salmon Brown wrote December 27, 1859:[143]

Criminals who are tried and judged upon testimony furnished by themselves are usually acquitted. In this important case it is unfortunate that the distinguished author accepted the statements which these men made to him, as being the whole truth, and that he certified them to the public and wrote them into history as the exact facts therein.

Salmon Brown and Henry Thompson could not fructify the desert, but they held the secrets of the Pottawatomie, and if they had revealed them to Mr. Villard instead of practicing a deception upon him, he would have written the history of the tragedy differently.

But Mr. Villard was zealous in a quest for evidence that would sustain the conception of the character of John Brown which he desired to establish for him in history: a "complex character," which only those can understand who hold a chart upon the mysteries of the soul. He said:[144]

It thus appears that it was not historical facts that he sought, but evidence that would counteract the force of the historical facts already existing. It was a partisan zeal that led him to seek the testimony of partisans.

To obtain a true understanding of John Brown, the man, the student of his life must take up the threads of history that lead to the character making incident of May 24th. Mr. Villard concedes this[145] but he made no effort to gather them up. In a chapter of more than thirty pages, under the title, "The Captain of the Liberty Guards," he refers only to the organization of the company, and to Brown's two days' service with it at Lawrence—December 7th and 8th, 1855. The disorganization and abandonment of this company by Brown in the spring of 1856, is of far greater significance in this history than the organization of it. In honor, as "Captain of the Liberty Guards in the Fifth Regiment Kansas Volunteers," John Brown first received the historic title of "Captain," and in dishonor he abandoned his commission three months later.

Back of every human action there is that which incites the action, that which determines the choice or moves the will. There was that back of the actions of John Brown, and of his sons and confederates, that moved them to do what they did on the night of the 24th of May, 1856; this inciting force was motive.

John Brown had a motive for disbanding the Liberty Guards. What was it? He had a motive for quitting the Free-State army secretly. Why secretly? He had "no desire all things considered, that the slave-power should cease from its acts of aggression." Why should he not desire peace? He had a purpose in view when he organized the Pottawatomie Rifles under the command of his son, and a motive for organizing five of his sons into a separate company: "a little company by ourselves." What were the purposes? He wrote to his wife that he contemplated leaving the neighborhood, but did not tell her when he would leave, or why he expected to leave, or where he intended to go. What motive prompted him to conceal from her the facts in relation to a subject in which she was so intimately concerned? The matters referred to here are "stones" that have lain in the path of this history for more than fifty years which have not heretofore been turned over. Salmon Brown and Henry Thompson could have answered all these questions correctly if they had been asked so to do. Also, they could have cleared the atmosphere of the Pottawatomie of the mockeries relating thereto, and of its glamour, which have been foisted upon the public as history; and could have given to Mr. Villard and to the public the exact facts concerning the robberies, and brutal tragedies. It was the duty of Brown's historians to take up these matters and to make clear interpretations of them. But, because of his personal pledge of fidelity to the subject, it was especially incumbent upon the author of Fifty Years After, to make known the facts that these "stones" were in the record, and to turn them over; and with an analysis characteristic of his distinguished ability, make clear the essential truths which they covered; for without a clear appreciation of them "a true understanding of Brown, the man, cannot be reached." This he has not done; but has elected to conceal these motive interpreting incidents from further historical research. He has excluded from history the facts relating to this period of Brown's life. It may be said of this biographer, that having determined to issue a certificate of altruism for John Brown, he did not wish to take up these threads of history and follow them to their logical sequence; because they lead, unerringly, to the robberies and the murders which the Browns intended to commit; and expose, in the character of his hero, the extremity of selfishness.

None of Brown's biographers has found it convenient to explain or to comment upon his letters of April 7th and June 16th, although the first contains a personal statement that he intended to do something of a dangerous nature, and the latter a similar statement concerning dangerous things which he had done. In their treatment of the Pottawatomie incident they have written without regard to the restrictions and limitations contained in these authenticated papers relating to the subject. Mr. Redpath chose to proceed along the lines of the least resistance. He suppressed both of these letters; denied that Brown had anything to do with the incident; and upon the "authority of two witnesses" stated that "he was on Middle Creek twenty-five miles distant, at the time."

Mr. Sanborn published both letters; made no comment upon the letter of April 7th, and, concerning the letter of June 26th said:[146]

This is all that Brown says in his letter about the events of that night in May when the Doyles were executed. Doubtless his text the next morning was from the Book of Judges: "Then Gideon took ten men of his servants, and did as the Lord had said unto him; and so it was that he did it by night. And when the men of the city arose early in the morning, behold the altar of Baal was cast down. And they said one to another, Who hath done this thing? And when they inquired and asked, they said, Gideon, the son of Joash, hath done this thing."