00000375 |
Previous | 375 of 866 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
344 HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
of his capture and trial was seized upon and perverted so as to serve the
purpose of magnifying his sufferings, and vilifying his captors and judges.
The wounds on his body were counted, and the idea studiously put forward
that like savages the Virginians amused themselves with torturing the prisoner,
when he was powerless in their hands. The proceedings of the court which
triedJiim were charged to have been characterized by unusual and indecent
haste, and the learned and humane judge, who presided on the occasion, was
declared to be worse than a second Jeffries. One orator (Wendell Phillips),
did not scruple to tell the people of the South, that when the news of
Brown's capture reached Boston, there was but one sentiment in the community—that of universal regret—that men walked the streets sadly, as though
they had lost a friend, and that the exclamation was on the lips of every
second person you met—" What a pity he did not succeed ! " A correspondent of the New York Tribune declared, that if the people of the United
States permitted Brown to be hung they need no longer delude themselves
with the idea that they would not have suffered their Saviour to be crucified
1800 years ago.
Such utterances widened the breach which already existed between
the North and the South, and added fuel to the flame which already
burned too fiercely for the peace and security of the Union. These
sentiments also demonstrated conclusively, that in spite of their disavowal of any participation or complicity in Brown's treason, it was his
failure and not the attempt which met with the regret of the republicans.
How, indeed, could it be otherwise? Did not the whole republican party, as
one man, believe that the relation of master and slave was sinful, and contrary
to natural justice and divine right? Did not the members of this party
believe that every slave was entitled to his freedom—that he could lawfully
run away from his master, and that he could rightfully resist, even unto
death, any attempt to restrain or re-capture him ? Did they not solemnly
protest against the Fugitive Slave Law, as being equally opposed to
the Constitution and the conscience of a Christian man, and did they
not in every State, where they had the power, interpose legislative obstacles
in the way of the execution of that law, and of the reclamation and
sedition of slaves ? Did they not approve and justify the harboring and sheltering of fugitive slaves, and the furnishing them with
money and arms, to enable them to effect their escape, and did they not, in
many places, forcibly rescue them from the hands of their masters and the
custody of the law—invading, for the purpose, even the precincts of the
court house, and the presence of the judges ? How, then, could any republican pretend to say that he did not approve, in principle at least, the plan of
John Brown and his confederates ? If it was lawful to help one slave to his
liberty, why not a thousand ? If it was right to place a weapon in the hands
of one negro, to enable him to resist and slay the slave-catcher, why not arm
the slave population of a county or a State ?
| Title | History of Maryland - 3 |
| Creator | Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas) |
| Publisher | J. B. Piet |
| Place of Publication | Baltimore |
| Date | 1879 |
| Language | eng |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Title | 00000375 |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Transcript | 344 HISTORY OF MARYLAND. of his capture and trial was seized upon and perverted so as to serve the purpose of magnifying his sufferings, and vilifying his captors and judges. The wounds on his body were counted, and the idea studiously put forward that like savages the Virginians amused themselves with torturing the prisoner, when he was powerless in their hands. The proceedings of the court which triedJiim were charged to have been characterized by unusual and indecent haste, and the learned and humane judge, who presided on the occasion, was declared to be worse than a second Jeffries. One orator (Wendell Phillips), did not scruple to tell the people of the South, that when the news of Brown's capture reached Boston, there was but one sentiment in the community—that of universal regret—that men walked the streets sadly, as though they had lost a friend, and that the exclamation was on the lips of every second person you met—" What a pity he did not succeed ! " A correspondent of the New York Tribune declared, that if the people of the United States permitted Brown to be hung they need no longer delude themselves with the idea that they would not have suffered their Saviour to be crucified 1800 years ago. Such utterances widened the breach which already existed between the North and the South, and added fuel to the flame which already burned too fiercely for the peace and security of the Union. These sentiments also demonstrated conclusively, that in spite of their disavowal of any participation or complicity in Brown's treason, it was his failure and not the attempt which met with the regret of the republicans. How, indeed, could it be otherwise? Did not the whole republican party, as one man, believe that the relation of master and slave was sinful, and contrary to natural justice and divine right? Did not the members of this party believe that every slave was entitled to his freedom—that he could lawfully run away from his master, and that he could rightfully resist, even unto death, any attempt to restrain or re-capture him ? Did they not solemnly protest against the Fugitive Slave Law, as being equally opposed to the Constitution and the conscience of a Christian man, and did they not in every State, where they had the power, interpose legislative obstacles in the way of the execution of that law, and of the reclamation and sedition of slaves ? Did they not approve and justify the harboring and sheltering of fugitive slaves, and the furnishing them with money and arms, to enable them to effect their escape, and did they not, in many places, forcibly rescue them from the hands of their masters and the custody of the law—invading, for the purpose, even the precincts of the court house, and the presence of the judges ? How, then, could any republican pretend to say that he did not approve, in principle at least, the plan of John Brown and his confederates ? If it was lawful to help one slave to his liberty, why not a thousand ? If it was right to place a weapon in the hands of one negro, to enable him to resist and slay the slave-catcher, why not arm the slave population of a county or a State ? |
