A well-intentioned but sadly misguided effort. Yet by the logic of Concord, Lexington and Bunker Hill, and of this nation's boasted Declaration, Brown was a hero. And by the same logic, every slaveholder has forfeited his right to live, if that is what it takes to break the yoke.
Next post: Henry David Thoreau, Oct 30, 1859 →
The post above is condensed. From the original, word for word
"the well-intentioned but sadly misguided effort of Capt. John Brown and his score of confederates [...] As to Capt. Brown, all who know him personally are united in the conviction that a more honest, conscientious, truthful, brave, disinterested man, (however misguided or unfortunate,) does not exist [...] For, by the logic of Concord, Lexington, and Bunker Hill, and by the principles enforced by this nation in its boasted Declaration of Independence, Capt. Brown was a hero, struggling against fearful odds, not for his own advantage, but to redeem others from a horrible bondage, to be justified in all that he aimed to achieve, however lacking in sound discretion. And by the same logic and the same principles, every slave-holder has forfeited his right to live, if his destruction be necessary to enable his victims to break the yoke of bondage; and they, and all who are disposed to aid them by force and arms, are fully warranted in carrying rebellion to any extent, and securing freedom at whatever cost."
Between the posts · the narrator, not the paper
In Charles Town, Brown's trial is under way — still wounded, he attends on a cot. Northern editors condemn the raid almost with one voice. In the churches and lecture halls, something different is beginning.
Garrison was a pacifist; the editorial calls the effort 'well-intentioned but sadly misguided' and the enterprise 'wild and futile', while defending Brown's character. The 'forfeited his right to live' sentence is the second half of an argument from 'the logic of Concord, Lexington, and Bunker Hill' and the Declaration of Independence, stated in the sentence before it. Corrected 2026-10-03: an earlier version of this card left that sentence out, which removed the premises and risked presenting the conclusion as an unqualified call; the same day, the post's opening line regained his 'well-intentioned', which it had dropped. Fragments joined with [...].