Was John Brown a Traitor? (Poll)

Was John Brown a Traitor?

  • Yes

    Votes: 60 61.2%
  • No

    Votes: 35 35.7%
  • Don't Know

    Votes: 3 3.1%

  • Total voters
    98
Yes. But that's not what John Brown did.

The principal of the question is the same in the two cases, as far as I can see.

No, he attempted to steal arms in order to provide for freed slaves to defend themselves.

The plan was to induce and arm an insurrection against the lawful authority of the United States, through the use of violent means in order to resist the U.S. military and the U.S. Marshal Service who would be engaged in upholding the provisions of the Constitution and the legislation of 1793 and 1850.

Regardless of our feelings one way or another, it is pretty clearly treason.
 
Last edited:
The principal of the question is the same in the two cases, as far as I can see.

Provided we misstate what Brown was doing.

The plan was to induce and arm an insurrection against the lawful authority of the United States, through the use of violent means in order to resist the U.S. military and the U.S. Marshal Service who would be engaged in upholding the provisions of the Constitution and the legislation of 1793 and 1850.

No, it wasn't. The authority of the United States was never at issue. The US military was not used to capture fugitive slaves, though there were cases where they were used as security when escaped slaves who had been captured were being returned. The US Marshals would be enforcing the law, but criminals who resist the US Marshals are not committing treason.

Regardless of our feelings one way or another, it is pretty clearly treason.

It is clearly not treason, since it was not levying war on the United States.
 
Provided we misstate what Brown was doing.



No, it wasn't. The authority of the United States was never at issue. The US military was not used to capture fugitive slaves, though there were cases where they were used as security when escaped slaves who had been captured were being returned. The US Marshals would be enforcing the law, but criminals who resist the US Marshals are not committing treason.



It is clearly not treason, since it was not levying war on the United States.

Of course he was.

The U.S. military is always on call, provided the consent of the Executive, if necessary, for the enforcement of the law. Furthermore, we are not only dealing with Fugitive Slave legislation, as I noted.
 
Of course he was.

The U.S. military is always on call, provided the consent of the Executive, if necessary, for the enforcement of the law. Furthermore, we are not only dealing with Fugitive Slave legislation, as I noted.

The military, at that time, could only be used domestically at the request of the state government in the event of an insurrection against a state or in the event of rebellion or invasion. They were not always on call for the enforcement of the law.

Treason would not involve the enforcement of a single law [edit to add: in a single place. It would have to be attempted to be obstructed all over]. Levying war against the United States is treason, and Brown did no such thing.
 
Last edited:
The military, at that time, could only be used domestically at the request of the state government in the event of an insurrection against a state or in the event of rebellion or invasion. They were not always on call for the enforcement of the law.

Treason would not involve the enforcement of a single law. Levying war against the United States is treason, and Brown did no such thing.

The first part of your post is inaccurate as it relates to the defense of Federal property and the protection of U.S. servicemen performing legitimate constitutional functions. Depending on the circumstances, it could require legislative consent. There are some constitutional issues around the edges, but that is a basic synopsis, which is sufficient for this thread. There were also free passage issues and the like, but again, that is really outside of the point.

Of course, in the case of insurrections within the States, the U.S. military could only provide direct assistance with the consent of the State government. Of course, intervening preemptively would also be unconstitutional, in almost all cases.

I do understand all of that.

As for the second point, I think that the historical record points to a different conclusion, so that is that. We are just not going to see eye to eye on this.
 
Last edited:
Was John Brown a Traitor?
Yes. He was charged, found guilty and hanged for treason.
In repudiating Brown's act, Lincoln said that although Brown "agreed with us in thinkng slavery wrong, that cannot excuse violence, bloodshed and treason." <Roy P. Basler, Editor, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), Volume III, pp. 502, 538-542.>
Not only were John Brown and those with him traitors, but so were those who knew of his objective and underwrote his 'expedition' but escaped prosecution. The so-called "Secret Six" were Gerrit Smith, George L. Stearns, Franklin B. Sanborn, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Theodore Parker and Samuel Gridley Howe.
Fearing their participation would be revealed, Gerrit Smith suffered a mental breakdown, Sanborn and Howe fled to Canada, Higginson refused to testify before a congressional committee and Parker died in Europe. Stearns also fled to Canada, but returned and testified following Brown's death.
They themselves described what they were doing as "treason". <Tilden G. Edelstein, Strange Enthusiasm: A Life of Thomas Wentworth Higginson. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1968), pp. 208, 209.>
 
Last edited:
The first part of your post is inaccurate as it relates to the defense of Federal property and the protection of U.S. servicemen performing legitimate constitutional functions.

You didn't assert use of Federal military forces in that case. So now you are shifting the goal posts.

As for the second point, I think that the historical record points to a different conclusion, so that is that.

You're mistaken as to what the historical record shows.

We are just not going to see eye to eye on this.

Probably not.
 
Yes. He was charged, found guilty and hanged for treason.

No one is ever found guilty of a crime they did not commit?

He was convicted of treason against Virginia, a state to which he did not owe any allegiance.

In repudiating Brown's act, Lincoln said that although Brown "agreed with us in thinkng slavery wrong, that cannot excuse violence, bloodshed and treason." <Roy P. Basler, Editor, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), Volume III, pp. 502, 538-542.>
Not only were John Brown and those with him traitors, but so were those who knew of his objective and underwrote his 'expedition' but escaped prosecution. The so-called "Secret Six" were Gerrit Smith, George L. Stearns, Franklin B. Sanborn, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Theodore Parker and Samuel Gridley Howe.
Fearing their participation would be revealed, Gerrit Smith suffered a mental breakdown, Sanborn and Howe fled to Canada, Higginson refused to testify before a congressional committee and Parker died in Europe. Stearns also fled to Canada, but returned and testified following Brown's death.
They themselves described what they were doing as "treason". <Tilden G. Edelstein, Strange Enthusiasm: A Life of Thomas Wentworth Higginson. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1968), pp. 208, 209.>

None of that proves treason. Treason consists only of levying war against the United States or in giving aid and comfort to its enemies. Brown did neither.
 
There are so many definitions of terrorism that now, almost any condemnable act is seen as terrorist. But Wiki says: Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror, or fear, to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim.

I don't think Brown's idea was to create terror. He wanted to lead a slave rebellion. Slave rebellions are terrifying, but I don't see them as being terrorism.

- Alan

Yes, that is a particularly special case that doesn't necessarily relate to what we would now consider terrorism. In the context of those times, Brown's actions at Harpers Ferry where simply a continuation of his previous activities in "Bloody" Kansas, which were themselves part of the larger warfare that was going on between the supporters of slavery and their opponents.
 
None of that proves treason. Treason c Brown did neither.

Would attacking a United States Federal Facility, attempting to confiscate it's weapons, and firing on United States Federal troops, who had been ordered by the United States Government to end the crisis...................Would that not be levying war against the United States Government?


Let me see.................

John Brown and his men attack Harpers Ferry, a United States Federal Facility......................
John Brown and his men fire on United States Federal Troops...................

Not a treasonous act.............................Nor is it an act of war...................

Confederate Forces attack Fort Sumter, a United States Federal Facility................
Confederate Forces fire on United States Federal Troops.............

It isn't a treasonous act..............nor an act of war..................

11 Southern States secede from the United States...............it isn't treason cause treason consists only of levying war against the United States or in giving aid and comfort to its enemies.

Glad to finally clear all that mess up. A 150+ years of incorrect facts...........now corrected !!


Respectfully,
William
7.JPG
 
" Treason consists only of levying war against the United States or in giving aid and comfort to its enemies"

I am reading very different interpretations in the posts that set forth actions that fit this definition. Has there ever been a court case, or other legal interpretation of what exactly constitutes "levying war against the United States"?

*Asked out of ignorance; not intending to add to the polemics*
 
" Treason consists only of levying war against the United States or in giving aid and comfort to its enemies"

I am reading very different interpretations in the posts that set forth actions that fit this definition. Has there ever been a court case, or other legal interpretation of what exactly constitutes "levying war against the United States"?

*Asked out of ignorance; not intending to add to the polemics*

I think that there are a lot of definitions, and some are loose. However there are legal definitions. Ergo:

Treason

Merriam Webster:

the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2381

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)


*Note the date*, this is a modern law

U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


*Note: Treason cannot exist during peace time

Treason is the only crime defined in the US Constitution, because in British Common Law crimes (including treason) could be defined by individual judges.

Gets even more interesting: There were only 13 people convicted for treason in the US. One of them was John Brown who was convicted for treason against the State of Virginia and not against the US. He was charged, found guilty and convicted based on State and not Federal law.

So, John Brown legally was not a traitor against the US, but was a convicted traitor against the State of VA. Cannot find the legal definition of traitor in the State of VA in the 1850s where Brown committed his crime (along with murder and insurrection,) but the Federal definitions are not applicable in this case, because this was a State crime, despite the fact that he attacked a Federal facility. He was not convicted because he attacked Harper's Ferry, but because he wanted to start a rebellion in the State of VA and murdered people there (a State crime).

Thus all the confusion.
 
Last edited:
Would attacking a United States Federal Facility, attempting to confiscate it's weapons, and firing on United States Federal troops, who had been ordered by the United States Government to end the crisis...................Would that not be levying war against the United States Government?


Let me see.................

John Brown and his men attack Harpers Ferry, a United States Federal Facility......................
John Brown and his men fire on United States Federal Troops...................

Not a treasonous act.............................Nor is it an act of war...................

Confederate Forces attack Fort Sumter, a United States Federal Facility................
Confederate Forces fire on United States Federal Troops.............

It isn't a treasonous act..............nor an act of war..................

11 Southern States secede from the United States...............it isn't treason cause treason consists only of levying war against the United States or in giving aid and comfort to its enemies.

Glad to finally clear all that mess up. A 150+ years of incorrect facts...........now corrected !!


Respectfully,
William
View attachment 166990

Brown was charged with the following:
• conspiring with Negroes to produce insurrection
• treason in the Commonwealth
• murder.

The charges of inciting slave insurrection and committing murder were enough to hang the Harpers Ferry raiders. They obviously committed crimes that were considered to be capital offenses.

There is a legal/political debate to be had as to whether the raiders committed treason, but regardless, the raiders were dead men once their raid was put down.

I myself do not consider what they did to be an act of war. Brown's raiders were not part of a separate belligerent nation, nor did they represent to be one. The US definition of treason is this: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Again, Brown was not waging war against the US, nor was he giving aid and comfort to its "enemies." Just because one attacks federal property, that is not an act of treason.

Virginia considered the raiders' acts to be treason. I do not know Virginia law and how it defines treason. I can say that Brown was not tried in federal Court, and as I understand it, only the United States can adjudicate that someone committed treason against the United States. But of course the state of Virginia can make crimes of anything it wants, and call such crimes by whatever name it wants, and it doesn't matter if any of it meets the US Constitution's standard for determining treason. FYI, VA is not the only state that has convicted someone of treason against the state; see the Door Rebellion.

FYI, Lincoln himself did not say that the Confederates were traitors. He said that the Confederates were engaged in an insurrection against the United States. The legal issue of whether the Confederates were traitors was never adjudicated. President Johnson gave a blanket amnesty to the vast majority of Confederates, and gave pardons to most of the others. The situation of the Harpers Ferry raiders and the Confederacy are not comparable.

- Alan
 
No one is ever found guilty of a crime they did not commit?

He was convicted of treason against Virginia, a state to which he did not owe any allegiance.



None of that proves treason. Treason consists only of levying war against the United States or in giving aid and comfort to its enemies. Brown did neither.
Thanks for your response and sharing your opinion....
 
" Treason consists only of levying war against the United States or in giving aid and comfort to its enemies"

I am reading very different interpretations in the posts that set forth actions that fit this definition. Has there ever been a court case, or other legal interpretation of what exactly constitutes "levying war against the United States"?

*Asked out of ignorance; not intending to add to the polemics*

Wiki provides a list of people who have been convicted of treason here. The rulings in those cases would give some answers to your question, but I have not read them myself.

Note that, individual states can create laws for treason against their states. As mentioned earlier, Virginia or any other state can make crimes of anything(*) it wants, and call such crimes by whatever name it wants, and it doesn't matter if any of it meets the US Constitution's standard for determining treason. The thing is, we need to be sure not to say that a conviction of treason against a state is the same thing as treason against the United States.

(*) anything that is not in violation of the US or state constitutions.

- Alan
 
I think that there are a lot of definitions, and some are loose. However there are legal definitions. Ergo:

Treason

Merriam Webster:

the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2381

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)


*Note the date*, this is a modern law

U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


*Note: Treason cannot exist during peace time

Treason is the only crime defined in the US Constitution, because in British Common Law crimes (including treason) could be defined by individual judges.

Gets even more interesting: There were only 13 people convicted for treason in the US. One of them was John Brown who was convicted for treason against the State of Virginia and not against the US. He was charged, found guilty and convicted based on State and not Federal law.

So, John Brown legally was not a traitor against the US, but was a convicted traitor against the State of VA. Cannot find the legal definition of traitor in the State of VA in the 1850s where Brown committed his crime (along with murder and insurrection,) but the Federal definitions are not applicable in this case, because this was a State crime, despite the fact that he attacked a Federal facility. He was not convicted because he attacked Harper's Ferry, but because he wanted to start a rebellion in the State of VA and murdered people there (a State crime).

Thus all the confusion.

Best summation of what I have read on this thread.
 
The legal issue of whether the Confederates were traitors was never adjudicated.

And that is because this one is really hard to adjudicate and the reason has to do with whether State Laws supersede Federal Laws when there is a conflict, in addition to a whole lot of polarized opinions on the topic, which were not resolved even after a war was fought because of them...
 
" Treason consists only of levying war against the United States or in giving aid and comfort to its enemies"

I am reading very different interpretations in the posts that set forth actions that fit this definition. Has there ever been a court case, or other legal interpretation of what exactly constitutes "levying war against the United States"?

*Asked out of ignorance; not intending to add to the polemics*

https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/charge-to-grand-jury-neutrality-laws-and-treason/
 
To charge Brown and his fellow defendants under the state treason statute Virginia styled them as an enemy military force seeking to overthrow the govt of state. From the indictment, bold is mine:

to wit: the said John Brown as Commander-in-Chief of the military threes, the said Aaron C. Stephens, alias Aaron D. Stephens, as Captain; the said Edwin Coppic, as Lieutenant, and the said Shields Green and John Copland as soldiers; and did then and there require and compel obedience to said officers; and then there did hold and profess allegiance and fidelity to said usurped Government; and under color of the usurped authority aforesaid, did then and there resist forcibly and with warlike arms, the execution of the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and with firearms did wound and maim divers other good and loyal citizens of said Commonwealth, to the Jurors unknown, when attempting, with lawful authority, to uphold and maintain said Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and for the purpose, end, and aim of overthrowing and abolishing the Constitution and laws of said Commonwealth, and establishing in the place thereof, another and different government, and constitution and laws hostile thereto, did then and there feloniously and traitorously, and in military array Join in open battle and deadly warfare with the civil officers and soldiers in the lawful service of the said Commonwealth of Virginia.

https://www.americanbar.org/content...ation/all-documents-combined.authcheckdam.pdf
Virginia still retains a treason statute to this day:

2006 Code of Virginia § 18.2-481 - Treason defined; how proved and punished
18.2-481. Treason defined; how proved and punished.

Treason shall consist only in:

(1) Levying war against the Commonwealth;

(2) Adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort;

(3) Establishing, without authority of the legislature, any government within its limits separate from the existing government;

(4) Holding or executing, in such usurped government, any office, or professing allegiance or fidelity to it; or

(5) Resisting the execution of the laws under color of its authority.

Such treason, if proved by the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or by confession in court, shall be punishable as a Class 2 felony.

(Code 1950, 18.1-418; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15.)

https://law.justia.com/codes/virginia/2006/toc1802000/18.2-481.html
 
Brown was charged with the following:
• conspiring with Negroes to produce insurrection
• treason in the Commonwealth
• murder.

The charges of inciting slave insurrection and committing murder were enough to hang the Harpers Ferry raiders. They obviously committed crimes that were considered to be capital offenses.

There is a legal/political debate to be had as to whether the raiders committed treason, but regardless, the raiders were dead men once their raid was put down.

I myself do not consider what they did to be an act of war. Brown's raiders were not part of a separate belligerent nation, nor did they represent to be one. The US definition of treason is this: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Again, Brown was not waging war against the US, nor was he giving aid and comfort to its "enemies." Just because one attacks federal property, that is not an act of treason.

Virginia considered the raiders' acts to be treason. I do not know Virginia law and how it defines treason. I can say that Brown was not tried in federal Court, and as I understand it, only the United States can adjudicate that someone committed treason against the United States. But of course the state of Virginia can make crimes of anything it wants, and call such crimes by whatever name it wants, and it doesn't matter if any of it meets the US Constitution's standard for determining treason. FYI, VA is not the only state that has convicted someone of treason against the state; see the Door Rebellion.

FYI, Lincoln himself did not say that the Confederates were traitors. He said that the Confederates were engaged in an insurrection against the United States. The legal issue of whether the Confederates were traitors was never adjudicated. President Johnson gave a blanket amnesty to the vast majority of Confederates, and gave pardons to most of the others. The situation of the Harpers Ferry raiders and the Confederacy are not comparable.

- Alan


Thank you for your post, some of it, a very small portion of it, I do agree with. Hopefully your post will clear up some issues that others seem to have, especially with the Virginia issue. I, like Lincoln, do not call them traitors either. nor do I consider them committing treason. As to waging war, they did fight a war with the United States, as a separate nation of the Confederate States of America, they also lost that war.

Respectfully,
William
7.JPG
 
Back
Top