Harper's Ferry Investigation

[JohnTaylor]

Here is the testimony of Senator Henry Wilson before the Mason Committee in 1860:
“I was sitting in my seat in the Senate early in May, 1858, the first week I think of May, 1858, and Mr. Forbes came to my seat and introduced himself, … he said that some of the arms that had been contributed by these people in the East for the defense of Kansas had got into Brown’s hands and were somewhere in the West, in Ohio or in Iowa. I do not remember whether he said these arms were at Tabor or not, but I am confident be said they were at Iowa; and he said that Brown was not a fit man to have arms, and that they ought to be got out of his bands. He said very decidedly that they ought to be got out of his bonds, that he was not a fit man to have these arms, or something to that effect. That was the idea he conveyed to my mind. He said that he was a revolutionist by opinion; and he had no objection to going into anything of that nature. He then left me and I have never seen him since. He remained in the city, as I understood, some days afterwards, but I do not know how long. I think that was the latter part of the week when the Senate was not in session. Afterwards I saw Dr. Bailey, … the editor of the “Era.” … Dr. Bailey said to me that Forbes had said to him that John Brown had got some arms in his possession that were contributed for Kansas. Dr. Bailey then said to me that these people ought to get these arms out of Brown’s bands, and that I had better write to some of them to that effect. I told him I had the same impression. I sat down that evening and wrote a letter to Dr. Howe, of Boston, which is the letter referred to here. When I was here the other day, I told you I had sent to Dr. Howe for the letter. Dr. Howe has written me that he has searched everywhere but cannot find the letter. He states, however, that he recollects substantially the contents. I have stated the circumstances under which I wrote and the knowledge I had. I had no knowledge whatever of anything like an organized invasion, or anything of the kind. I had the impression that Brown belonged to the class of men who had been in Kansas who entertained the idea that when any attacks were made on Kansas in any way, they ought to be retaliated by going over the line into Missouri, and I supposed this had reference to imprudent acts that might be perpetrated on the frontiers between that State and the Territory of Kansas. Nothing else ever entered my mind; and believing that policy was wrong, and that the only proper policy was a defensive one, I wrote the letter under those circumstances. The letter, as near as I can recollect—I am very sorry it cannot be produced, because I should like to have the identical words—was very brief, and to this effect: that I wrote to him for the purpose of saying it was rumored that same of the arms that had been contributed by gentlemen in the East for the defense of Kansas had passed into the hands of John Brown, and were held somewhere in his hands, and that they ought to get them out of his hands and put them in the hands of some reliable men in Kansas, who would use them only far the purpose of defense, for which they were contributed; that if these arms should be used for any illegal purpose, they would involve the men who contributed for the other purpose in difficulties. That was the substance of the letter; that if they should be used for any illegal purpose whatever, they would, be involved in difficulty, and they should get them out of his hands at once. I received a letter, three or four days after I wrote mine, from Dr. Howe, to this effect : that they had sent to Brown to deliver the arms into the hands of somebody in Kansas; at any rate, they had sent to him to take the arms into Kansas, or deliver them up in some way; and I supposed, at the time, the arms were those referred to as being in Iowa, which were sent out there and stationed on this way. I received this letter a day or two after I wrote. That was the substance of it. The whole matter, I supposed then, was a quarrel between Brown and Forbes, and I paid but little attention to it; and never, until the outbreak took place, dreamed or heard from any quarter whatever anything in regard to it. I heard nothing from Forbes or Brown or any other source. When, some months afterwards, I think it was in the autumn or the first of the winter the following, Brown made a raid into Missouri, after the troubles in the south part of Kansas—the capture and murder of some free-State men—I thought that was probably what Forbes referred to in saying that the arms ought to be out of his hands. That is my whole knowledge of the matter.”
(Mason Committee Report, pg. 140-142)

[JohnTaylor]

Question. Did you at any time before the transaction at Harper’s Ferry, in any way, directly or indirectly, understand that there was any purpose on the part of Brown to make any inroad upon the subject of slavery in any of the States?
Answer. No, sir; not except that Brown was opposed to slavery, and as he had in Kansas he would work again. I did not suppose that he had any organized plan.
Question. My idea is, making any forcible entry upon Virginia, or any other State?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Had yon ever any intimation of that kind, any idea of it?
Answer. No, sir. Perhaps I do not understand you. I did suppose he would go into Virginia or some other State and relieve slaves.
Question. In what way?
Answer. In any way he could give them liberty.
Question. Did you understand that he contemplated doing it by force?
Answer. Yes, sir; by force, if necessary.
Question. Will you explain in what manner, by force, you understood he contemplated doing it?
Answer. I cannot explain any manner, because, as I say to you, I never talked with him on the subject.
Question. Had you any idea that these arms were to be need for any such purpose as making an inroad into any State?
Answer. I think I do not understand you.
Question. John Brown has made an inroad into Virginia, with force and arms, to relieve slaves; you understand that?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Now, did you ever, before that took place, have any intimation that that was contemplated to be done, intended to be done by him?
Answer. No, sir; I never supposed that be contemplated anything like what occurred at Harper’s Ferry.
Question. What was your general information, then, if you did not know specifically what he intended to do?
Answer. I supposed that if he had an opportunity, and it came in his way to do what he did in Missouri, where he went in and took several slaves and ran them off, he would do that.
By Mr. DAVIS:
Question. And, if resisted, what then?
Answer. That is not for me to say.
Mr. Davis. He would have use for the arms that you furnished, if he were resisted; that was the idea, I presume. I intended to ask whether that was your idea.
Mr. Fitch. Was the supposition that Brown would resort to force a supposition of others as well as yourself?
The Witness. Let me explain what I mean by this?
The CHAIRMAN. Do so, fully; you have a right.
The Witness. I understood that John Brown —
Mr. CHAIRMAN. State the time when you understood it?
The Witness. From first to last, I understood John Brown to be a man who was opposed to slavery, and, as such, that he would take every opportunity to free slaves where he could; I did not know in what way; I only know that from the fact of his having done it in Missouri in the instance referred to; I furnished him with money because I considered him as one who would be of use in case such troubles arose as had arisen previously in Kansas; that was my object in furnishing the money; I did not ask him what he was to do with it, nor did I suppose that he would do anything that I should disapprove of.
Mr. Collamer. Then I ask you, do you disapprove of such a transaction as that at Harper’s Ferry?
Answer. I should have disapproved of it if I had known of it; but I have since changed my opinion; I believe John Brown to be the representative man of this century, as Washington was of the last— the Harper’s Ferry affair, and the capacity shown by the Italians for self-government, the great events of this age. One will free Europe and the other America.
(Mason Committee Report, pg. 241-242).

[unionblue]

JohnTaylor,

Found a site with a bit more on the investigation, along with some background on the Mason Committee.

Thaddeus Hyatt.

http://www.kancoll.org/khq/1940/40_3_langsdorf.htm

John, I notice that you draw your posts from the Mason Committee report. Do you have a copy of this report? If so, did you order it from a publisher or did you find it on-line on the internet? If so, would you direct me to the site or tell me where I might order a copy of the report?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by unionblue

JohnTaylor,

Found a site with a bit more on the investigation, along with some background on the Mason Committee.

Thaddeus Hyatt.

http://www.kancoll.org/khq/1940/40_3_langsdorf.htm

John, I notice that you draw your posts from the Mason Committee report. Do you have a copy of this report? If so, did you order it from a publisher or did you find it on-line on the internet? If so, would you direct me to the site or tell me where I might order a copy of the report?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Neill,
Thanks for the link. Of course, Congress has the power to compel people to come before it and answer questions, so the legislature can make the most informed decisions. Hyatt was being stubborn. By the way, a deputy of the US Senate Sereant-at-Arms attempted to arrest Frank Sanborn, one of the Secret Six, in Concord, and the local people took Sanborn away. The next day, at a habeas corpus hearing in Boston, Massachusetts State Justice Lemuel Shaw ruled that the Senate Sereant-at-Arms had no authority to deputize anybody to arrest people and compel them to come to Congress to testify. The Senate Sereant-at-Arms must do that job himself. (I'm not sure what grounds a State Supreme Court Justice can rule on procedural matter in the US Congress, but Sanborn was released and was quite smug about it. Other members of the Secret Six testified and then went home unmolested.
As for the report itself, I actually went to the local library and they had a microfiche copy of the whole Mason Committee report. They also have a microfiche reader that is hooked up to a computer, so you can save the scanned images as "tagged image files (or ".tif" files). I scanned the whole document (240+ pages). It took me an hour or so.

As for providing you a copy, I believe you could order a copy of the Mason Committee Report on microfiche from the US Government Printing Office, or, instant message me an address and I can mail you a CD copy of the image files.

[unionblue]

John Taylor,

A short while ago, I bought the book, Lincoln At Cooper Union; The Speech That Made Abraham Lincoln President, by Harold Holzer. In that book is a reproduction of the speech and notes the following "heavily annotated thrity-two page edition that was subsequently prepared by Charles C. Nott and Cephas Brainerd of the Young Men's Republican Union of New York, Lincoln's Cooper Union hosts. It was published in September 1860, as a Lincoln presidential campaign document, by George F. Nesbitt Printers and Stationers of New York, and enjoyed wide distribution."

What interested me when I read the speech in it's entirety, was the section concerning John Brown and his raid on Harper's Ferry. This section of the speech was annotated with the following:

"A Committee of five, consisting of Messrs. Mason, Davis and Fitch, (Democrats,) and Collamer and Doolittle, (Republicans,) was appointed Dec. 14, 1859, by the U.S. Senate, to investigate the Harper's Ferry affair. That Committee was directed, among other things, to inquire: (1.) "Whether such invasion and seizure was made under color of any organization intended to subvert the government of any of the States of the Union." (2.) "What was the character and extent of such organization." (3.) "And whether any citizen of the United States, not present, were implicated therein, or accessory thereto, by contributions of money, arms, munitions, or otherwise."

The majority of the Committee, Messrs. Mason, Davis, and Fitch, reply to the inquiries as follows:

1. "There will be found in the Appendix, a copy of the proceedings of a Convention held at Chatham, Canada, of the Provisional Form of Government there pretended to have been instituted, the object of which clearly was to subvert the government of one or more States, and of course, to that extent, the government of the United States." By reference to the copy of Proceedings it appears that nineteen persons were present at the Convention, eight of whom were killed or executed at Charlestown, and one examined before the Committee.

2. "The character of the military organization appears, by the commissions issued to certain of the armed party as captains, lieutenants, &c., a specimen of which will be found in the Appendix."
(These Commissions are signed by John Brown as Commander-in-Chief, under the Provisional Government, and by J. H. Kagi as Secretary.)
"It clearly appeared that the scheme of Brown was to take with him comparatively but few men; but those had been carefully trained by military instruction previously, and were to act as officers. For his military force he relied, very clearly, on inciting insurrection amongst the Slaves."

3. "It does not appear that the contributions were made with actual knowledge of the use for which they were designed by Brown, although it does appear that money was freely contributed by those styling themselves the friends of this man Brown, and friends alike of what they styled the cause of freedom. (of which they claimed him to be an especial apostle,) without inquiring as to the way in which the money would be used by him to advance such pretended cause."
In concluding the report the majority of the Committee thus characterize the "invasion:" "It was simply the act of lawless ruffians, under the sanction of no public or political authority--distinguishable only from ordinary felons by the ulterior ends in contemplation by them," &c.

This annotation appears in the section of Lincoln's speech where he said,

"You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! [Great laughter.] John Brown!! [Renewed laughter.] John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. [Loud applause.] If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof. [Great applause.] You need to be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander."

Holtzer writes in his book on this portion of Lincoln's address, "Southerners say Republicans have made the slavery issue more prominent. But Lincoln insists that Southerners, not Republicans, have done so. Southerners blame Republicans for formenting slave insurerrections such as John Brown's. But Lincoln dares them to prove the "malicious slander." And then, unleashing another display of historical research, he shows that slave insurrections are "no more common now than they were before the Republican party was organized," citing as an example the 1831 Southampton County, Virginia, which was far bloodier than John Brown's raid at Harper's Ferry.

Taking pains to distance himself from John Brown's brand of radicalism--not only for the benefit of the imagined Southern audience, but also for a Republican electorate wary of extremism--Lincoln pivots his argument further and charges that Southerners are attempting to use John Brown's "peculiar" escapade, and the appearance of Southerner Hinton Rowan Helper's scathing book on slavery, to blame, tarnish, and destroy an innocent Republican party."

(Lincoln At Cooper Union; The Speech That Made Abraham Lincoln President, chapter six, "The Strength of Absolute Simplicity," page 135.)

This is what got me interested in the Mason Committe report, as it seems from this annotation, there seems to be no evidence of an organized abolition plot nor any other organized party in the North who advocated the raid.

It also seemed to me, based on this annotation, that the South repeatedly ignored the evidence of the Mason Committee and used the Harper's Ferry raid to stoke up feelings for secession, even in light of the facts presented.

That is why I would very much like to view the entire report of the Mason Committee.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

John Taylor,

Found another good web site on Harper's Ferry.

Famous Trials: The Trial of John Brown, 1859.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...brownhome.html

Excellent site as it has transcripts of the trial, Mason report, articles, letters, etc. This would be a good site to get an overview of the investigation from.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by unionblue

...
This is what got me interested in the Mason Committe report, as it seems from this annotation, there seems to be no evidence of an organized abolition plot nor any other organized party in the North who advocated the raid.

It also seemed to me, based on this annotation, that the South repeatedly ignored the evidence of the Mason Committee and used the Harper's Ferry raid to stoke up feelings for secession, even in light of the facts presented.
...

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Timeline:
October 1859 – Frank Sanborn, George Luther Stearns run to Canada (Reneham, Secret Six, pg.

October 1859 – Gerrit Smith burns his correspondence (Reneham, pg. 223)

October 1859 – Frank Sanborn orders his correspondence burned. (Reneham, pg. 208)

January 24, 1860 – John Brown, Jr. writes to the US Marshall in Cleveland and tells him he refuses to appear before Congress. (Boston Liberator, 10 Feb 1860. pg. 3)

January 1860 – Subpoenaed witness Frank Sanborn and Thomas Wentworth Higginson refuse subpoenas to appear before the Senate Committee. (Rossbach, Ambivalent Conspirators, pg. 244

April 1860 – Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice Lemuel Shaw issues a writ of habeas corpus, releasing Sanborn from custody.

June 15th 1860 – Mason Committee Report issued.

June 18th 1860 – Democratic Convention Reconvenes in Baltimore. (Charleston Mercury, 19 Jun 1860)

In Ambivalent Conspirators, author Jeffrey Rossbach describes Mason’s attitude in the Committee Majority Report as follows: “Mason’s misgivings are particularly noticeable in the majority report of the investigation. Mason concluded that Brown’s purpose in Kansas was to keep the public mind inflamed on the subject of slavery ‘with a view to effecting such organization as might enable him to bring about servile insurrection in the slave states.’ Mason stressed that testimony before his committee indicated the ‘utter insecurity of peace and safety, in some States of the Union, in the existing condition of the public mind and its purposes in the non-slaveholding States.’ He was convinced that northern public opinion had become a tinderbox that could easily be set off by the committee hearings, and this view is pervasive in the majority report.” (Ambivalent Conspirators, pg. 259)

Plus, the Mason Committee consisted of one Northern Democrat (Fitch), one Southern moderate Democrat (Davis), one more radical Democrat (Mason). The committee's report came one week before the Baltimore Convention, and I would suggest that, being unable to prove criminal culpability (because northerners suppressed evidence and refused to even testify), the majority was more focused on patching up the Democratic party than stirring a dangerous and ultimately fruitless pot. Just because the Mason Committee couldn't prove criminal culpability, and candidate Lincoln denied any conspiracy doesn't mean that there was no conspiracy and, more importantly from the Southern perspective, that there would not have been more Harper's Ferry-like raids in the future. And it was this consideration that led most Southerners to look for real proof of Northerners rejecting such anti-slavery agitation. Lincoln's election was taken as evidence that Northerners did not reject this anti-slavery fanaticism, but, indeed, supported it. That was probably unfair to Lincoln personally, but amongst his fellow-Republicans were some shady characters.

The Taliban's response to the US demand for Osama bin Laden's extradition was "Bin Laden says that, while he approves of the World Trade Center attacks, he had nothing to do with them. Bug off."
The US refused to accept that answer, and rightfully so.

In the case of the North in 1860, many people, prominent Republicans (e.g. John Andrew) among them said, "We may not approve of the raid, but we like the man and what he was trying to do." Republican John Andrew raised money for Brown's legal defense (by way of comparison, has any political party rushed to defend Massoui?). Republicans Kirkwood and Dennison used their elected offices to protect wanted murderers from prosecution. Lemuel Shaw set Sanborn free from even testifying (what was he afraid Sandborn might say?). These acts made many formerly union-loving Southerners question the value of a Union with such people.
Respectfully,
John Taylor

[unionblue]

John Taylor,

Sorry for the delay in responding to your most recent post.

Davis was a moderate Democrat? I'll have to ponder that one for a while.

Here is the minority senate report at the following link:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...atereport.html

I submit there might have been just a tad of an agenda with the majority report it wished to advance.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by unionblue

John Taylor,

Sorry for the delay in responding to your most recent post.

Davis was a moderate Democrat? I'll have to ponder that one for a while.

Here is the minority senate report at the following link:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...atereport.html

I submit there might have been just a tad of an agenda with the majority report it wished to advance.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Neil,
I believe that Davis was a moderate Democrat, that is why he was selected as the President of the Confederacy. He was certainly more moderate than folks like Yancey, Rhett, and Toombs.

And I would agree with you characterization of the majority rerport. The same applies to the minority report. The majority had initially wanted to fix responsibility for Harper's Ferry on the Republicans. With Republican stonewalling and obstruction making that impossible, they switched strategies to downplaying slavery, so as to stop antagonizing Northerners and to try and rebuild the Democratic Party. (Perhaps Mason realized that, having beat the secession drum before, the people of the South might actually do it this time, and it spooked him. So he tried to repair the Democracy to avoid a Republican victory in November.).
The Minority were desperate to avoid any appearance of criminal involvement, yet to appear to maintain their anti-slavery credentials. The minority report reflects that goal.
Just as the Taliban said that UBL approved of the attacks of Sept. 11, but he was uninvolved, the Republicans said that they approved of anti-slavery action, but were uninvolved in this particular one.

[unionblue]

JohnTaylor,

You are saying Davis was much like a moderate in the same way Lincoln was viewed as a moderate on slavery when he was put forth as an alternate for President instead of Chase or Seward in the 1860 election.

It's just a shame those in the South did not have the same viewpoint on Lincoln. Just as it was a shame those in the North did not view Davis as a moderate anything when he led one third of the nation into rebellion.

I guess what I am trying to say is calling a man a moderate depends on your point of view.

Sincerely,
Unionblue