Mr. Griswold, however, after coming into the case, revived the question of Brown's sanity, and on November 7th, enclosed to the Governor a petition and an affidavit affirming the claim that Brown was insane.[459] Replying to this letter, Mr. Villard states that the Governor replied that "a plea of insanity could be filed at any time before conviction or sentence, and wrote an admirable letter to Dr. Stribbling, superintendent of the lunatic asylum at Staunton, Virginia, ordering him to proceed to Charlestown and examine the prisoner, saying: 'If the prisoner is insane he ought to be cured; and if not insane the fact ought to be vouched for in the most reliable form, now that it is questioned under oath and by counsel since conviction.' Unfortunately, the impetuous Governor countermanded these instructions and the letter was never sent."

Later, acting upon the advice of Mr. Montgomery Blair, the defence secured nineteen affidavits made by friends living at Akron, Cleveland, and Hudson, Ohio, in support of the plea. These affidavits were delivered to Governor Wise by Mr. Hoyt, on the 23d day of November. Mr. Villard states that "these people in their efforts to save Brown laid bare some sad family secrets." However, upon this very important phase of Brown's condition Governor Wise had an opinion of his own. To the Virginia Legislature he said: "I know that he was sane, if quick and clear perception, if assumed rational premises and consecutive reasoning from them, if cautious tact in avoiding disclosures and in covering conclusions and inferences, if memory and conception and practical common sense, and if composure and self-possession are evidence of a sound state of mind. He was more sane than his prompters and promoters, and concealed well the secret which made him seem to do an act of mad impulse, by leaving him, without his backers, at Harper's Ferry."[460]

Brown's line of defense is set forth in a memorandum of suggestions which he personally prepared for the guidance of his counsel.[461] It reads as follows:

The defense began Friday afternoon. Mr. Villard states that Messrs. Botts and Green, following John Brown's suggestion, "essayed to prove, the kindness with which Brown treated his prisoners," which drew from Mr. Hunter the "caustic and truthful comment that testimony as to Brown's forbearance in not shooting other citizens had no more to do with the case than had the dead languages."

Mr. Hunter's objections being overruled, a number of Brown's witnesses were examined to show that he had not only not killed his prisoners and everybody else who came within the range of his rifles, but that he had treated all courteously, notwithstanding the fact that his enemies had fired upon his flag of truce, and had killed one of his men, William Thompson, while he was a prisoner in their hands.

A scene was precipitated at the trial when the names of some of his witnesses were called and it was found that they were not present; Brown thereupon arose and, denouncing his counsel, demanded that the proceedings be deferred until the next morning. A Herald correspondent stated:[462]

Mr. Hoyt, of Brown's counsel, added to the interest of the scene by asking that the case be postponed. Anticipating that his colleagues would withdraw from the case as a result of Brown's speech, he said that he was utterly unable to go on with the case alone and that Judge Tilden, of Ohio, was coming to assist the defense, and would arrive during the night. Counsel Botts and Green, after asserting that they had done everything possible for their client, announced, that since the prisoner had no confidence in them they could no longer act in his behalf. Judge Parker thereupon released them, as counsel, and adjourned the trial until the next day at 10 o'clock.[463]

When court convened Saturday morning, Mr. Griswold and Mr. Chilton appeared for Brown, and asked for delay—a few hours only—in which to make some preparation for the defense, which was refused. "This term will end very soon," the Judge said, "and it is my duty to endeavor to get through with all the cases if possible, in justice to the prisoners and to the State."

With the examination of a few additional witnesses, the testimony for the defense closed and the battle of wits began with a motion by Mr. Chilton, that the State be compelled to elect one count in the indictment and abandon the others. That Brown was charged with treason, and with conspiracy and advising with slaves and others to rebel, and with murder in the first degree. He contended, and cited authorities to sustain his contention, that in a case of treason, different descriptions of treason could not be united in the same indictment; high treason could not be associated with other treason. If an inferior grade of the same character could not be included in separate counts, still less could offense of higher grade, etc., etc., etc. Mr. Harding, associate counsel for the prosecution, of course, could not see the force of the objection made by the learned counsel on the other side. The separate offenses charged were but different parts of the same transactions. "Murder arose out of the treason as the natural result of the bloody conspiracy." Mr. Hunter said the discretion of the Court on one count in the indictment is only exercised where great embarrassment would otherwise result to the prisoner. The Court held that the point might be taken advantage of to move an arrest of judgment; but since the jury had been charged, and had been sworn to try the prisoners on the indictment as drawn, the trial must go on.... The very fact that the defense can be charged in different counts, varying the language and circumstances, is based upon the idea that distinct offenses may be charged in the same indictment. The prisoners are to be tried on the various counts as if they were various circumstances, etc. Mr. Chilton then said he would reserve the motion as a basis for a motion in arrest of judgment.[464]

Mr. Griswold then stated that the prisoner desired that the case be argued, and that while he had not been present at the trial, counsel could obtain sufficient knowledge of the evidence by reading the notes; and since it was nearly dark, he supposed argument for the Commonwealth would engage the attention of the Court until the usual hour of adjournment; and asked that the Court adjourn after the opening argument by the prosecution. Mr. Hunter opposed opening the argument "unless the case was to be finished to-night," and protested against any further delay. The Court ordered the trial to proceed, but at the close of Mr. Hunter's speech, of forty minutes' duration, adjournment was had until Monday. Brown sought by all the means in his power on Saturday, to delay the trial, and when court convened after noon he sent word from the jail that he was sick; whereupon the jail physician. Dr. Mason, was summoned in the case. He reported that Brown was feigning illness. The Court then directed that he be brought into court on a cot. Mr. Hunter states that after the adjournment was procured, the "crafty old fiend was well enough to walk."

On Monday, at 1:30 p. m., the argument was completed. Mr. Chilton asked the Court to instruct the jury that if they believed the prisoner was not a citizen of Virginia, but of another State, they could not convict on a count of treason. The Court declined, saying the Constitution did not give rights and immunities alone, but also imposed responsibilities.

At 2:15 the jury returned their verdict of guilty. It was received in respectful silence; no demonstration of satisfaction or evidence of elation greeted the announcement. Of its reception by the people in waiting Mr. Villard says: "It is to the credit of the Charlestown crowd and of Virginia that not a single sound of elation or triumph assailed the dignity of the court, when the jury sealed Brown's doom. In solemn silence the crowd heard Mr. Chilton make his formal motion for an arrest of judgment, because of errors in the indictment and in the verdict, and it filed out equally silent when Judge Parker ordered the motion to stand over until the next day."

One person was dissatisfied with Brown's trial; not the prisoner—for he acknowledged the deep sense of his obligation, to both Court and counsel, for the treatment he had received—but Mr. James Redpath. He said:

On November 1st the Court heard Mr. Chilton's motion in arrest of judgment; reserving its decision upon it until the next day. During the afternoon of November 2d, Brown was brought into court for the final scene of the trial. After Mr. Chilton's motion had been overruled. Brown was ordered to rise, and when asked by the clerk if he had anything to say why sentence should not be pronounced upon him, he delivered the following address:[466]

Judge Parker then pronounced the sentence of death upon Brown, fixing the 2d of December, 1859, as the date for the execution of it, and directing that the execution should be public. He then ordered all persons present to remain in their seats until the prisoner was removed. "There was prompt obedience and John Brown reached his cell unharmed, without even hearing a taunt."[467]

There is conflict between the "authorities" as to the manner in which Brown delivered his speech to the Court. In describing the scene, Mr. Villard gave rein to his bias in this choice flight:

Mr. Redpath, who has not, in this history, overlooked any favorable opportunity to indulge his penchant, is not a bit dramatic in his statement of what occurred. He says that when the clerk directed Brown to stand and say why sentence should not be passed upon him, that "he rose and leaned slightly forward, his hands resting on the table. He spoke timidly—hesitatingly, indeed—and in a voice singularly gentle and mild. But his sentences came confused from his mouth, and he seemed to be wholly unprepared to speak at this time. Types can give no intimation of the soft and tender tones, yet calm and manly withal, that filled the Court room, and, I think touched the hearts of many who had come only to rejoice at the heaviest blow their victim was to suffer."[469]

It appears then, that Mr. Villard has framed and given out an exaggeration of the performance; but it is unfortunate that the subject-matter of the speech, fails to measure up to the height of the exalted standard which has been set for the occasion. When one to whom a prodigal biographer has attributed a pair of flashing eagle eyes, drawls himself up to his full stature, and addresses the whole body of his countrymen, he ought to be truthful as well as dramatic. It is bad form for an orator under such circumstances, to make statements which are not true; it mars the dignity of his utterances, and dwarfs the stateliness of his eloquence. Also, it is embarrassing for a hero to be compelled to retract his more heroic periods, as in this case, after they have "thrilled the world."

On the 18th of October, Brown, in answer to a question, had distinctly stated to Governor Wise and others, that it was not his purpose to run the slaves out of the country; but that he "designed to put arms in their hands to defend themselves against their masters, and to maintain their position in Virginia and in the South. That, in the first instance, he expected they and the non-slave-holding whites would flock to his standard as soon as he got a footing there, at Harper's Ferry; and, as his strength increased, he would gradually enlarge the area under his control, furnishing a refuge for the slaves, and a rendezvous for all whites who were disposed to aid him, until eventually he overrun the whole South...."[470]

Later, when Governor Wise called Brown's attention to the discrepancy between these statements and the statement which he had made in the opening paragraph of his speech to the Court on November 2d, he retracted what he had said to the Court, and wrote the following letter, to Mr. Hunter, explaining the dereliction:[471]

Mr. Emerson, in his oration at the funeral services of Abraham Lincoln, held at Concord, April 19th, 1865, saw fit to compare Brown's discredited speech with the greatest orations of time. He said:

But is this comparison really relevant? Will the historian accept Mr. Emerson's comparison of this exhibit of Brown's prevarication, with the immortal words of the immortal Lincoln? The speeches are characteristic of the men who uttered them. Mr. Lincoln did not begin his sublime oration with a falsehood. Brown made a speech October 25th, which was truly an heroic utterance and deserving of a place in history.[473] His words on that occasion, were hurled at his enemies, the "Virginians" whom he addressed. That speech was as characteristic of his splendid courage, as his speech of November 2d, was of his craftiness, for John Brown was as brave as he was crafty.

In a letter to Governor Wise, Mr. Fernando Wood commended him for the firmness and moderation which had characterized the Governor's course in the emergency, and asked, if he dared to "do a bold thing and temper justice with mercy? Have you nerve enough to send Brown to State's Prison instead of hanging him?" He thought Brown should not be hung, "though Seward should, and would be if he could catch him." The Governor replied that he had nerve enough to send him to prison and would do so if he didn't think he ought to be hung and that he would be inexcusable for mitigating his punishment. "I could do it," he said, "without flinching, without a quiver of a muscle against a universal clamor for his life." Continuing he said: "He shall be executed as the law sentences him, and his body shall be delivered over to surgeons, and await the resurrection without a grave in our soil. I have shown him all the mercy which humanity can claim."[474]

Immediately after Brown's incarceration, a movement was started by Mr. Higginson to have Mrs. Brown go to Harper's Ferry to visit her husband. But when the information reached Brown, he peremptorily forbade her coming; wiring Mr. Higginson: "For God's sake don't let Mrs. Brown come. Send her word by telegraph wherever she is."[475]

This arbitrary action should not excite surprise. There was no atonement that Brown could make for the ruin which he had wrought: for the dead who would never return. There were no words that he could say which would carry consolation to this woman's stricken heart, nor was it possible for him to make any rift in the clouds of her unutterable woe. He shrank, instinctively, from a presence of the bleeding heart of the woman whom he had wronged. November 9th, he wrote to Mr. Higginson:

In a letter addressed to his wife and children, dated November 8th, he said:[477]

The thirty days ensuing November 2d, were days of great anxiety for the Virginia authorities. It was natural that they should suspect that schemes would be formed to rescue Brown from his impending fate. In this they were not mistaken. In fact the planning to effect his rescue was begun as soon as it became known that he was not seriously wounded; and it is probable that something in this direction might have been attempted, if the schemers had received any encouragement from the prisoner. But to the man who had planned and dreamed of conquest, as Brown had planned, and dreamed, their scheming was the merest of trifling; they had no conception of daring and striving, as he had dared and striven. As to heroics, he was blasÉ. In the collapse of his great undertaking he had had a surfeit of tragedies and disappointments. The heart of the man of iron was subdued. And there can be no doubt that, at this supreme hour in his life, the world looked small to John Brown. He had toyed with it as with a bauble, and was ready to throw it away. Besides, he had too often measured situations, and calculated the chances for success against formidable odds, to waste any time with adventures such as, in his opinion, his rescuers were capable of executing. Hence, when Mr. Hoyt informed Brown, October 28th, that a plan was being formed to storm the jail and set the prisoners free, he promptly refused to encourage the attempt. Conveying Brown's reply to Mr. Le Barnes, October 30th, Mr. Hoyt wrote:

The planning for his rescue, however, did not cease because Brown disapproved of any attempt being made to execute such plans. Mr. Villard, on pages 511 to 528, gives a full and very interesting account of various schemes that were proposed to accomplish something, by force, in Brown's behalf; as well as of the precautionary measures that were taken by the Virginians to prevent the possibility of a rescue.

Mr. Stearns, thinking that Charles Jennison was a co-philanthropist, sought to enlist him and James Stewart in one of these schemes. Naturally he received no reply. The plan for another Kansas rescue measure was to be communicated to Brown by a young Kansas woman—Miss Mary Partridge. She was to visit Brown in his cell at Charlestown; embrace him affectionately and, incidentally, put a paper containing the plan of the rescue into his mouth.[478]

Mr. Lysander Spooner, of Boston, proposed to kidnap Governor Wise, carry him out to sea on a fast-going boat, and hold him as a hostage for Brown. Mr. Le Barnes worked out the scheme. He found the man who would undertake to execute the job; and a boat that would steam fifteen to eighteen knots an hour could be had for $5,000 to $7,000. The expedition would cost $10,000 to $15,000. But the necessary funds were not forthcoming and the scheme failed. Another plan was for an open invasion of Jefferson County, Virginia. The volunteer forces that were coming from Kansas under Colonel Hinton, as reported by rumor, were to be consolidated with smaller forces that were being organized in Ohio, under John Brown, Jr., and to these were to be added the "volunteers from New York City and Boston." They were all to unite near Charlestown; "make a cross country rush on that town and, after freeing the prisoners, they were to seize the horses of the cavalry companies and escape." "Dr. Howe," it is said, "suggested that they be armed with 'Orisini' bombs and hand-grenades, in lieu of artillery." Money was wanted for this campaign, "fifteen hundred or two thousand dollars by Tuesday morning the 29th, and five hundred or a thousand dollars the day after." Mr. Le Barnes, Mr. James Redpath, and Mr. Sanborn seem to have been at the front, in the promotion of these visionary schemes. Mr. Hoyt, in the meantime, returned from a fruitless mission to Ohio, to raise funds, and reported that no money could be had in that quarter. Upon receiving this report Mr. Sanborn "gave up the undertaking and wired Le Barnes to return."

October 31st, Brown wrote the following letter to his family:[479]

This letter is written in the soft language and in the apparently consecrated spirit that is characteristic of Brown's domestic and social correspondence. But the beauty of his lines is marred, and the sincerity of his purpose in putting them forth, as well as his claims to a Christian character, are discredited by the falsehoods contained in the opening paragraph. Brown was not seriously hurt at Harper's Ferry. He received two wounds, a light dress-sword cut, on the neck and head, and a sword thrust in the body[480] and these he received, not after he had been taken prisoner, but while he was yet bravely fighting. Evidence of what he was doing, when he was struck down, appears in a letter which he wrote November 29th, to Mr. J. G. Anderson concerning one of his captains. He said:[481]

Brown may have written "the truth concerning his own spirit and composure, in this his first letter from the jail to his family,"[482] but he did not write the truth concerning the character of his wounds, and the conditions under which he received them.

With the freedom of correspondence that was granted to him came Brown's great opportunity, and the masterful manner in which he quickly turned it to his advantage is one of the marvels of this history. Equipped with a vocabulary of devotional phrases and an ample magazine of biblical quotations, this caged soldier of fortune, the would-be Catiline of his generation, stormed the heights of public opinion; and disarming righteousness of its opposition to wrong, won a moral victory as marvelous as it was triumphant. These beautifully devotional letters, that stand as monuments, certifying to an humble Christian character, like flights in oratory, were written with regard for the effect which he desired to accomplish, but without regard for the truth of what he uttered.

The opinion that the letters, which crowned Brown's character with a dignity akin to sanctity, were artfully written, and were not characteristic of him, is not based merely upon a vulgar suspicion. It finds ample justification in the reckless disregard for the truth which prevails throughout the entire series; and in direct evidence. The invasion had failed. Wounded, and a prisoner in irons, with the gallows for his portion, Brown had the opportunity which solitude affords, to contemplate the terrible disaster which had befallen him: the wreck of his hopes; the ruin of his family; their utter wretchedness, and the shame and humiliation which they suffered because of him. In his extremity, he planned how best to meet the problems of his environment; and, substituting the mightier pen for the sword of the great Frederick, which had been stricken from his hand, he began a systematic campaign for a martyr's crown, and for pecuniary assistance for his family, whenever a favorable opportunity presented itself.

November 10th, he disclosed to his wife the plan of this, his final conception: "I have been whipped as the saying is," he said, "but I am sure I can recover all the lost capital occasioned by the disaster; by only hanging a few moments by the neck; & I feel determined to make the utmost possible out of a defeat. I am dayly & hourly striving to gather up what little I may from the wreck."[483]

In reply to a letter from a kinsman, the Rev. Dr. Humphrey of Pottsfield, Massachusetts, he wrote November 25th:[484]

October 27th, a Quaker lady wrote to Brown from Newport, Rhode Island:[485]

Posing as if in the shadow of the sheltering wings of the Almighty, answering this letter, Brown asserted that he had been the special instrument on earth of a militant Christ, to execute the divine will in Kansas; and incidentally solicited a contribution for his family. He said:[486]

It may be said of this unsophisticated woman, whose heart was touched by a sympathy undeserved, that if she had known what took place at the humble cabin of the Doyles on the night of May 24, 1856, when the murderous sword, which Brown says Christ placed in his hands, was run through Doyle's breast, (while others of the party secured the helpless widow's and orphans' horses) she would not have made her contribution to this history. Also, Brown's letter to this woman may be taken as an exhibit or sample of the sacrilege and artful dissimulation that is characteristic of his prison correspondence. And, since his claims to sincerity of purpose, and a devotion to humanity depend largely upon this correspondence, it discloses the fiction, wherewith his fame has been promoted. November 29th he wrote to his friend, Mrs. George L. Stearns:[487]

My Dear Friend,—No letter I have received since my imprisonment here, has given me more satisfaction, or comfort, than yours of the 8, instant. I am quite cheerful; & was never more happy. Have only time to write a word. May God forever reward you & all yours. My love to All who love their neighbors. I have asked to be spared from having any mock; or hypocritical prayers made over me, when I am publicly murdered: & that my only religious attendants be poor little, dirty, ragged, bareheaded & barefooted Slave Boys; & Girls led by some old gray-headed Slave Mother. Farewell. Farewell.