when Mr. Sanborn published his book, Life and Letters of John Brown, Liberator of Kansas, and Martyr of Virginia, Mr. John F. Morse, Jr., voiced the disappointment felt by discriminating persons, in an article published in February, 1886.[3] He said:

Referring to the opinions expressed by these writers, Mr. Villard, in the preface to his book, John Brown, A Biography Fifty Years After, says: "Since 1886 there have appeared five other lives of Brown,[4] the most important being that of Richard J. Hinton, who, in his preface gloried in holding a brief for Brown and his men." Concerning his book he says:

Under this broad pledge of personal fidelity to the subject, this historian introduced his volume, and has asked the public to give him its full confidence and to accept his work as a faithful and complete record of the ascertainable truths of history relating to the subject. For the ardor which he has exhibited, and for the great labor which he has expended in his compilation, and for much material of minor importance, which he has uncovered, the student of history will not fail to acknowledge to Mr. Villard the sense of his obligation. In these respects, and in the scholarly features characteristic of the writings, it is an interesting and dramatic contribution to this literature. But, he will not be stampeded by protestations of zeal, and by professions of integrity, to accept it as a presentation of the ascertainable truth. The work is more conspicuous for the absence from its pages of important historical truths, and for the contradiction of others which have been authenticated, than it is for the great volume of trivial facts which it presents. A line of derelictions conspicuously prevailing throughout the pages of the book, amply justify the charge that it was not written, primarily, for an historical purpose—"to put forth the truths of history as far as ascertainable, and to judge Brown and his followers in the light thereof." The true purpose seems to be ulterior to that which is effusively proclaimed in the prefatory declarations. He has written into the history of our country a concept of the character of John Brown which is incongruous with the actions and circumstances of Brown's life. He has created a semi-supernatural person—"a complex character"—embodying the virtues of the "Hebrew prophets" and "Cromwellian Roundheads" with the depraved instincts and practices of thieves and murderers. He presents a man who, for righteous purposes, "violated the statute and moral laws"; whose conduct was vile, but whose aims were pure; whose actions were brutal and criminal, but whose motives were unselfish.

If this author had redeemed the pledge which he solemnly gave to the public, to put forth the truths of history as far as ascertainable, and, judging Brown and his followers in the light of them, had justified his "terrible violation of the statute and moral laws," the nature of this criticism would be different; it would be directed against his discrimination or, perhaps, against his intelligence. But that is not the case. The author referred to has sifted the truths of this history, and from the fragments has framed an hypothetical case; and has judged Brown and his followers in the light of that creation. "How may the killings on the Pottawatomie, this terrible violation of the statute and the moral law be justified? This is the question that has confronted every student of John Brown's life since it was definitely established that Brown was, if not actually a principal in the crime, an accessory and an instigator,"[5] is not the language of an impartial historian; but it is consistently the language of an advocate who writes for a specious, for an ulterior purpose. Why should an historian seek to justify a crime? Why should this author, if he intended to write impartially, seek for evidence to justify this horror? It was the desire to justify the crime that impelled the author to seek for pretexts for justification of it among the surviving criminals, and to garble the historical facts concerning it.

The crime was the theft of a large number of horses; to accomplish it, and to safeguard the loot, it was necessary to kill the owners thereof. It was a premeditation. The plans for it were laid several weeks before it was executed, and during a time of profound peace. The principals were John Brown; his unmarried sons; Henry Thompson, his son-in-law; Theodore Weiner, and four confederates: Jacob Benjamin, B. L. Cochrane, John E. Cook and Charles Lenhart, whose names are herein associated with this crime for the first time in history. These confederates received from Brown's party the horses which belonged to the men whom they murdered, and ran them out of the country; leaving with Brown a number of horses, "fast running horses," which they had stolen in the northern part of the Territory. That is the crime which this author seeks to justify; he has concealed these truths, and has suppressed the evidence concerning them. Pretending to put forth the "exact facts as to the happenings on the Pottawatomie," he has suppressed the evidence concerning the most important of the happenings, and has added no material fact concerning them which James Townsley had not, years before, put forth in his confession.

The public should know that as early as April 16, 1856, John Brown