Why Abolitionist John Brown Became the First American To Be Executed for Treason

Episode Notes

Transcript

John Brown:

I am yet too young to understand that God is any respecter of persons. I believe that to have interfered as I have done on behalf of his despised poor, it is no wrong, but right now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments, I say let it be done.

J. Craig Williams:

One of the final catalysts for the Civil War. The 1859 trial of abolitionist John Brown in Virginia might not have been much more than a blip in the history books had Brown not turned out to be larger than life, partly due to his own flawed zealousness. John Brown’s death sentence for treason, inciting rebellion and murder became a lightning rod that galvanized the North into action against the South Brown’s Courtroom trial may have started out as a comical farce attended by hundreds of curious court watchers, but it ended with SN observers wondering whether they were doing the right thing. Ralph Waldo Emerson called Brown’s closing remarks as one of the two greatest American speeches alongside Lincoln’s Gettysburg address after Brown spoke his last words under oath in the Courtroom in Virginia, only one spectator clapped when the judge sentenced brown to death and that spectator was quickly silenced. Historians cannot agree whether Brown was in the words President Lincoln, a misguided fanatic, or as Malcolm X said, the only white man possibly deserving to join his organization for Afro-American Unity. It is not the place of this show to categorize John Brown or his place in history, but instead to examine the trial from a lawyer’s perspective so you can judge how he became such a controversial figure and where he resides in your view of our country’s history

John Brown:

The slaves were placed in the watch house with spears in their hands in the first place. I deny everything. I did not go home being afraid some of Browns men might shoot me,

Court Reporter:

Not the slightest sound was heard in the vast crowd who a moment before joined in heaping threats and implications on his head

John Brown:

And I Reject any attempt to interfere in my behalf on that score,

J. Craig Williams:

Please pull up a chair and have a seat with me at the counsel table. They’re going to sit right next to the lawyers while they cross examine witnesses, fight off objections from opposing counsel and deal with anxious defendants facing big fines, long jail terms, and even death sentences. You’ll also have a front row seat in the jury box as you listen to the testimony straight from the witnesses, and then after hearing the final verdict, you can decide whether the rulings were correct or not. Hi everyone, my name is J. Craig Williams and welcome to In Dispute. In this podcast miniseries, we will look back at 10 famous court cases that stand out for their historical importance, their contrast with today’s modern criminal trials and their unusual outcomes.

J. Craig Williams:

Let’s turn first to an abbreviated history of the time to set the stage for John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, West Virginia In 18 54, 5 years before the Raid. Congress passed the Kansas Nebraska Act. That act repealed the Missouri compromise of 1820, which prohibited slavery in the Western territories, but exempted Missouri from the prohibition the Kansas Nebraska Act delegated to the citizens of those two states, the right to determine whether they would allow slavery. Then two years later, on May 22nd, 1856, a posse of about 750 Southerners mounted an attack in Kansas that became known as the sack of Lawrence. In part is a show of force to those who had banned slavery and in response to the shots fired at a local sheriff by anti-slavery settlers in Lawrence just two days later on May 24th and 25th, 1856, John Brown was in the midst of the Pott massacre in Kansas where five pro-slavery settlers were killed together.

J. Craig Williams:

The sack of Lawrence and this massacre became the defining events for a series of continuing revenge battles for the five years following Kansas’ statehood, an era known as bleeding Kansas the following year in 1857 in what may have been the most notorious case in the United States history, the United States Supreme Court in Dr. Scott versus Sanford held that no individual of African descent who had been imported into the country and sold as a slave or who had descended from individuals brought into the country as property could be considered a citizen under the United States Constitution. The Dred Scott Case addressed the claims of Mr. Scott, a slave and his family, who after a prolonged residency in a state where slavery was illegal, sued in federal court to be recognized as pre individuals. But the Supreme Court in a seven two decision sought to finally settle the slavery controversy by drawing a clear delineation between white and black populations and decided that whites were citizens, but blacks were not surprisingly, the decision was supported by only the pro-slavery states and the Dred Scott Case did little to settle the controversy. These events together with strong anti-slavery sentiments in the north and west and equally strong pro-slavery sentiments in the South formed the backdrop for John Brown’s attack at the Federal Armory in Harper’s Ferry. That site is just 45 miles northwest of Washington DC where the confluence of the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers meet in the states of West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland.

J. Craig Williams:

On the night of October 16th, 1859, around 11 that evening, John Brown and a group of 18 armed men, including free slaves, made their way to Harper’s Ferry where they cut telegraph wires and easily captured two bridges, the Federal Armory and an arsenal as well as the US rifle works on Hall’s Island, which was being guarded by just one man. Nearly 100,000 rifles and muskets were stored there. Brown’s original plan was to capture the armory and rifle works and seize the guns to arm his men, then continue through the south, freeing slaves as he went and destroying the south’s economy that depended on those slaves. Brown’s first symbolic act was to capture both Colonel Lewis Washington, the great grand nephew of President George Washington and John AllSat, who he took his hostages and then freed their slaves in the attack. Brown’s group happened to kill Hayward Shepherd, a train conductor and free African-American who was investigating why his train was not allowed to cross a bridge.

J. Craig Williams:

Hearing the gunshots after midnight, Dr. John Starry walked from his nearby home to the Armory only to be captured while trying to treat Shepherd Brown released Starry since he was unable to treat Shepherd due to his severe injuries. But Dr. Starry went to notify the townspeople who gathered their guns and then pinned down brown and his men at the Armory, local citizens and Browns men engaged in various skirmishes. The following day, townsfolk quickly dispatched word of the attack to Washington DC where the officer of the day Lieutenant Israel Green gathered his marines and headed by train to Virginia to meet with other officers and then proceed to Harpers Ferry nearby militias from Virginia also arrived in force with the Armory building surrounded by some 90 Marines and two Howitzers Bre Colonel Robert E. Lee on a single sheet of paper hand wrote his demand to Brown to surrender. When Brown refused Lee and Lieutenant Jbb Stewart ordered 12 Marines to storm the nearby engine house where Brown had retreated.

J. Craig Williams:

Although both sides suffered casualties, Lee won and captured Brown. Lee then took Brown to the Charleston, Virginia jail. Charlestown later was annexed into West Virginia but should not be confused with its capital Charleston. This Charleston is in the eastern panhandle of the present day, West Virginia. For their part in his capture, Dr. Starry and Lieutenant Israel Green would testify against Brown in his trial. In all 17 people were killed in the raid, two slaves, three Townsmen, a slave holder, one marine, and 10 of Brown’s men, including two of his sons. Brown was arraigned on three state charges treason against Virginia inciting slaves to rebellion and murder. In response to the charges, brown said, if you want my blood, you can have it at any moment. Without this mockery of a trial, I have had no lawyer. I have been unable to take the advice of anyone. Brown pleaded not guilty to the three charges and Judge Richard Parker set the trial to start on Wednesday, October 26th, just 10 days after Brown’s attack.

J. Craig Williams:

According to the court clerk’s report, the reason given for hurrying the trial is that the people of the whole country are kept in a state of excitement and a large armed force is required to prevent attempts at rescue. As the trial started, some 600 onlookers filled the Courtroom, including many newspaper reporters who eagerly recited every detail to all corners of a country on the edge of war. As tensions grew from the inflamed headlines, the court put an end to the reporting. Brown’s case may have been one of the first where an American court issued a gag order, although they had been used throughout history and were regularly used in monarchies. According to the transcript of Brown’s trial, it is rumored that Brown is desirous of making a full statement of his motives and intentions through the press, but the court has refused all further access to him by reporters fearing that he may put forth something calculated to influence the public mind and to have a bad effect upon the slaves. The court rushed headlong into the trial intent on bringing it to a rapid end. Brown and his men, however, were in no shape to stand trial. The clerk’s transcript read

Court Reporter:

The prisoners as brought into the court, presented a pittable sight Brown and Stevens being unable to stand without assistance. Brown has three sword stabs in his body and one saber cut over the heart. Stevens has three balls in his head and had two in his breast and one in his arm. He was also cut on the forehead with a rifle bullet, which glanced off leaving a bad wound.

J. Craig Williams:

Nonetheless, Dr. Biggs certified brown fit to stand trial. Brown attended the start of the trial laying on a cot in the Courtroom.

J. Craig Williams:

Trial started out as a farce. According to reports by Northern journalists, the state’s first prosecutor Charles Harding with his feet propped up on the table, frequently fell asleep and once jolted awake, calling out for tobacco when he showed up for trial drunk and with a bruised face from a bar room brawl the night before, judge Parker replaced him with the more capable and dignified Andrew Harper. Much is made in the trial transcript about Brown’s request for a northern lawyer and his several requests for a delay of the trial to both wait for counsel to arrive and recover from his wounds. Judge Parker did not believe counsel was on the way and instead started the trial and appointed Lawson bots. A prominent local southern attorney from Charlestown to represent Brown bots would later serve as a Confederate officer with the second Virginia Infantry regiment. During the Civil War, Lawson bots raised an objection about the state of Virginia’s jurisdictional authority to try Brown due to his capture on federal not state property.

J. Craig Williams:

The court brushed aside council’s objections noting that Virginia citizens had died on the streets of Virginia not on federal property. The defense likewise objected to the charge of treason against Virginia because Brown was not a resident of the state. Judge Parker also swept that objection aside by noting that Brown had established residence by renting the Kennedy farm, even though it was on nearby Maryland soil and held that Brown did not come to vested of his responsibilities as a citizen of the United States and that he had fired upon Virginia troops. Brown almost immediately rejected bots as his counsel and Judge Parker ordered the trial to proceed without a defense lawyer. Judge Parker’s choice to start the trial without counsel for Brown was contrary to the law at the time, but Brown’s refusal of counsel from Southern lawyers whose advice he did not trust is quite like the circumstances of criminal court proceedings today.

J. Craig Williams:

Given the current state of appellate law trial, judges today must advise the defendant against self-representation and attempt to dissuade it if the defendant insists. However, the trial proceeds without counsel for the defendant. Two days into the trial, a young inexperienced lawyer from Boston arrived in Charlestown, 21-year-old George Hoyt. As Brown was seeking to discharge his southern lawyer, Hoyt stepped in and argued that it would be ridiculous for him to carry on with the defense of Brown alone because he had not read the indictment, discussed defense strategy with his client or other lawyers and had no knowledge of the criminal code of Virginia, Hoyt sought a continuance to allow more experienced northern counsel to arrive. In response to Hoyt’s plea, judge Parker granted a one day continuance which allowed two other defense attorneys time to arrive and appear on Brown’s behalf. Virginian Samuel Chilton and Ohioan Hiram Griswold Chilton brought a motion attempting to force the prosecution to elect just one of the three charges against Brown as the theory of their case arguing that it was difficult to defend three different charges. In one case, judge Parker refused the motion and noted the very fact that the offense can be charged in different counts varying the language and circumstances is based upon the idea that distinct offenses may be charged in the same indictment as was generally accepted then Judge Parker’s position continues to be the law today. Chilton then saw to offer insanity as a defense for Brown citing unsupported declarations from Ohio family members of insanity in Brown’s family, but Brown wanted no claim of insanity as his defense Brown railed at that defense and said,

John Brown:

Insane persons so far as my experience goes, have belittle ability to judge of their own sanity. If I’m insane, of course I should know more than all the rest of the world, but I do not think so and I reject any attempt to interfere in my behalf on that score.

J. Craig Williams:

A good prosecutor anticipates the defense is likely to be brought up and tries to defeat those defenses. In the prosecution’s case in chief here, Brown’s stated reason for capturing Harper’s Ferry was to free the slaves and start a revolt against plantation owners because the armory and rifle works had so many arms, brown needed people to use those arms. Brown didn’t bring an army with him but planned instead to arm the slaves as part of his revolt a crime in and of itself in the South district attorney Andrew Hunter knew he had to show Brown as a loner and a madman and that not even the slaves would join his revolt as a local himself. Hunter knew his fellow citizens and could count on their testimony. Hunter called John AllSat for the prosecution, one of the first two plantation owners seized by Brown and who had had his slaves freed. As part of his testimony, Mr. Allstadt said

John Allstadt:

The slaves were placed in the watch house with spears in their hands. The slave showed no disposition to use them. I was afterward transferred to the engine house. Several slaves were there and I saw one making portholes by Brown’s order. The other slaves were doing nothing and had dropped their spears.

J. Craig Williams:

Similar testimony was solicited from other witnesses during the prosecution’s case to show that the slaves wanted no part of Brown’s raid and remained to their owners. A point well received by locals, John Brown started to examine witnesses himself while he lay on his cot. Although this was unusual, no one objected to Brown’s questions and he was allowed to proceed in today’s civil and criminal proceedings. Parties who are represented by counsel are not allowed to participate in questioning witnesses. Only their attorneys can ask those questions In this trial and despite the presence of appointed counsel for Brown, he managed his own defense. Not only did Brown question the next witness, John p Dangerfield, a member of the opposing army and one of Brown’s prisoners, but Brown also offered the court his own explanation for his actions. Combining argument with testimony, he asked whether the witnesses observed him firing in anything other than a defensive mode. Dangerfield testified that he saw Brown’s two sons die, but the Brown also shot members of the surrounding army who approached the engine house with a flag of truce. One of Brown’s sons had also been shot while under a flag of truce. The trial transcript notes

Court Reporter:

A general colloquy ensued between the prisoner lying on his cot and the next witness Mayor Mills, as to the part taken by the prisoner brown and not unnecessarily exposing his hostages to danger. No objection was made to Brown’s asking these questions in his own way and interposing verbal explanations relative to his conduct. The witness generally corroborated Brown’s own version of the circumstances attending the attack on the engine house, but could not testify to all the incidents that Brown enumerated. The witness did not hear Brown say that he surrendered the witness’s wife and daughter were permitted to visit him. Unmolested and free verbal communication was allowed with those outside. They were treated kindly but were compelled to stay where they didn’t want to be. Brown appeared anxious to affect a compromise.

J. Craig Williams:

Admittedly, this process of Brown’s direct involvement in the trial is highly irregular and the record has no evidence that Brown was ever advised of his fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In all fairness to the trial court, however, it appears Brown would have freely waived his right not to testify in his own defense. As far as Brown was concerned, this trial was his opportunity to be heard the United States Constitution be damned. Indeed Brown was interviewed prior to the start of the trial and statements from his interview were admitted into evidence beyond the Fifth Amendment issues. You might think that evidence of out of court statements would be excluded based on the hearsay rule and they typically are, but since Brown could be questioned in court about his out of court statements, the hearsay rule did not apply. Not only did Brown not care about his rights under the United States Constitution, but he also disregarded it so completely that he wrote his own provisional constitution that included a slavery free country which was admitted into evidence through Bret Colonel Robert e Lee’s affidavit that affidavit detailed Brown’s papers and tracks recovered from the rented Kennedy farm in Maryland After Capturing Brown and his men, Colonel Lee also recovered some 200 sharps rifles, revolvers and spears.

J. Craig Williams:

That Brown had stormed on the farm and introduced that evidence into trial as well. Colonel Lewis Washington who testified on the second day of the trial likewise confirmed the existence of Brown’s provisional constitution. Based on his pretrial interview with Brown, wealthy Virginians feared the North’s attempt to interfere with slavery and equally feared an attack on their homes and way of life. The prosecutor played to these fears and solicited Colonel Washington to implicate Brown’s treasonous attempt to free the slaves. Washington testified that Brown said he had enough to arm about 1500 men. The governor asked if he expected that number. He said no doubt that number and 5,000 more if he wanted them. Not only did District Attorney Hunter establish treason, but he struck a chord on the already taught strings of fear barely holding the South. Together with this single line of testimony, Colonel Washington had likely sealed Brown’s fate.

J. Craig Williams:

District Attorney Hunter then went on to prove Brown’s involvement with the provisional constitution, a treasonous document because it sought to establish a separate government. Hunter read portions of the document into evidence and called Sheriff Campbell to verify Brown’s handwriting on the document. Brown interrupted the proceedings and said he would himself identify any of his handwriting and save all that trouble. He was ready to face the music, not one to be upstaged. However, district Attorney Hunter declined Brown’s offer and put on his proof through Sheriff Campbell, but Brown interrupted again and said Either way, as you please, hunter must have Since Brown’s attempted martyrdom and Brown knew well the predetermined outcome of his trial and he was consequently unwilling to respect the court’s protocols. Hunter likewise understood his audience. He played as much to the northern journalists as he did to the jury. By offering Brown’s provisional constitution into evidence, hunter could prove that John Brown was equally a challenge to the north as he was to the South. Moreover, because Brown was on trial for murder and treason, his treason conviction could be seen wholly separate from the reasons he threatened the South to this plan. Hunter sought evidence from Virginia citizens about the individuals killed and offered Alexander Kelly, who according to the court reporter,

Court Reporter:

Described the manner of Thomas Bley being killed. On Monday. Brown’s party fired a witness and witness returned the fire. Bley was with witness and was armed with a gun, saw him soon after he was shot. The shot came from the direction of Shenandoah Street.

J. Craig Williams:

District Attorney Hunter then called Albert Grist, A prisoner taken by Brown. Grist testified favorably toward Brown and said

Albert Grist:

Brown said his object was to free the slaves. I told him there were not many there he replied. The good book says, we are all free and equal and if we were peaceable, we should not be hurt. There was some firing about that time Afterward, about three o’clock, a witness was sent to tell the conductor that the train might pass on molested. They saw Mr. Beckham and delivered the message. Brown then dismissed me. I did not go home being afraid. Some of Brown’s men not knowing this might shoot me. I saw Hayward brought in wounded

J. Craig Williams:

Not to be outdone with favorable testimony and wanting to pile on with more. Hunter still had a card up his sleeve. He recalled Mr. Kelly, who promptly put another nail in Brown’s coffin saying, saw George W. Turner killed on High Street. He was shot while in the act of leveling his gun. The shots came from the corner of Shenandoah and high streets. The men who fired had rifles. One had a shawl on identifying brown. Ending with the strong testimony the prosecution rested. The defense took up the mantle three days into the trial on Friday, October 28th, 1859

J. Craig Williams:

It is difficult to second guess the defense’s tactics because John Brown had admitted most of the actions that were charged against him in this situation. As is the case today, when a defendant admits the crime, the job of the defense is simply to lessen the punishment in today’s capital murder cases. For example, defense counsel considers life imprisonment of victory when compared to a death sentence. In Brown’s case, the defense counsel used the same tactics. They tried to change venue, delay the trial to let passions cool, and they argued insanity as a defense all to no avail. Mr. Hoyt, the young attorney from Boston then Rose to make a request for delay because no defense witnesses were available. The prosecutor, however, knew exactly how to respond using a tactic still in use today, agreed to whatever the defense wanted to prove because it would have no effect against the charges.

J. Craig Williams:

District attorney Hunter responded that he would agree the witnesses would’ve testified Brown had acted leniently. In other words, even if the Commonwealth of Virginia admitted the facts witnesses were expected to testify to, then it mattered not those facts were irrelevant to the charges and given that it was late in the day when this row arose, the court adjourned for the evening. It did not grant the requested continuance of several days, but instead suspended the proceedings only for the evening. The court reconvened at 10:00 AM Saturday, October 29th, 1859. For the fourth day of the trial, attorneys Samuel Chilton of Washington, DC and Henry Griswold of Cleveland, Ohio made their appearances for Brown. The new defense team next called several witnesses seeking in essence to prove what District attorney Hunter had already offered. As a stipulation, captain Brown treated his prisoners with leniency, respect and courtesy. His flags of truth, however, were not respected by the citizens and some of his Ben were shot.

J. Craig Williams:

The prosecution did not cross examinee. A single defense witness Hunter’s tactic was palpable. He had proved the Commonwealth case and he wanted the jury to know it. There was no need to disprove any of the testimony offered by the defendant. The prosecution’s belief became evident when the defense rested later in the afternoon and the court discussed what the attorney’s whether to start closing arguments or put them over until Monday. Mr. Harding, the other prosecutor for the Commonwealth, observed that he was willing to submit the case to the jury without a single word believing they would do the prisoner justice. Nevertheless, Mr. Harding gave a 45 minute closing argument before the court adjourned that Saturday evening. The court took Sunday off and adjourned until Monday morning when the defense counsel would argue Brown side of the case. Harding’s choice is trial lawyering at its best. Whenever counsel for either side has the opportunity. It’s always best to leave the jury with your side of the case during any extended break. There is always much jockeying between counsel about who gets in the last word before the break the following Monday, Mr. Chilton argued his case for four and a half hours while he argued all the points raised during the testimony and the various motions presented to the courts. Mr. Chilton almost if not quite apologized for his role in the case as recorded by the court reporter.

Court Reporter:

Still, Mr. Chilton would say that he had no sympathy with the prisoner, his birth and residence until within a few years had been in Virginia in connection with the institution of slavery. Although now a resident of the District of Columbia, he had returned to his native state to spend the remainder of his days and mingle his dust with her soil. No other motive operated on him than a disinterested one to do his duty faithfully.

J. Craig Williams:

The jury returned just 45 minutes after Judge Parker sent them out to deliberate with a single word. The foreman gave the jury’s verdict guilty. The reporter again noted the mood of the citizens.

Court Reporter:

Now the slightest sound was heard in the vast crowd as this verdict dust returned and read. Not the slightest expression of elation or triumph was uttered from the hundreds present who a moment before outside the court joined in heaping threats and implications on his head. Nor was this strange silence interrupted during the whole of the time occupied by the forms of the court. Old Brown himself said not even a word, but as on any previous day turned to adjust his palate and then supposedly stretched himself upon it.

J. Craig Williams:

Counsel noted their exhaustion and the court put the matter over to the following day. Wednesday, November 2nd, the sixth day of the trial. When the trial resumed, the clerk asked Mr. Brown whether he had anything to say about why the sentence should not be pronounced upon him. Mr. Brown immediately rose and in a clear, distinct voice spoke.

John Brown:

I have. May it please the court a few words to say in the first place, I deny everything but what I have. All along admitted of a design on my part to free slaves. I intended certainly to have made a clean thing of the matter as I did last winter. What I went to Missouri and there took slaves without the snapping of a gun on either side, moving them through the country and finally leaving them in Canada. I designed to have done the same thing again on a larger scale. That was all I intended to do. I never did intend murder or treason or the destruction of property or to excite or incite the slaves to rebellion or to make insurrection. I have another objection, and that is that it is unjust that I should suffer such a penalty. This court acknowledges too, as I suppose the validity of the law of God.

John Brown:

I see a book kissed, which I suppose to be the Bible or at least the New Testament, which teaches me that all things whatsoever I would, that men should do to me, I should do even so to them. It teaches me further to remember them that are in bonds as bound with them, I endeavored to act up to that instruction. I am yet too young to understand that God is any respecter of persons. I believe that to have interfered as I have done, as I have always freely admitted I have done on behalf of his despised poor. It is no wrong, but right now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life or the furtherance of the ends of justice and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel and unjust enactments, I say let it be done.

John Brown:

Let me say also in regard to the statements made by some of those who were connected with me. I fear it has been stated by some of them that I have induced them to join me, but the contrary is true. I do not say this to injure them, but as regretting their weakness, not one, but join me of his own accord and the greater part of their own expense. A number of them I never saw, I never had a word of conversation with till the day they came to me, and that was for the purpose. I have stated now I am done.

J. Craig Williams:

After Brown’s speech, the clerk’s transcript read,

Court Reporter:

The only demonstration made was by the clapping of the hands of one man in the crowd who is not a resident of Jefferson County. This was promptly suppressed and much regret is expressed by the citizens at its occurrence.

J. Craig Williams:

On the morning of December 2nd, 1859, John Brown was escorted to the gallows in a field just outside of Charleston. Before leaving the jail, brown handed the jailer his silver watch, a thank you for the care he had received while incarcerated there. He also left a handwritten note, his final written words,

John Brown:

I John Brown. I’m now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land never be purged away, but with blood. I had, as I now think Vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed, it might be done,

J. Craig Williams:

A year and four months later. On April 12th, 1861, the Civil War began when Confederate forces attacked Fort Sumpter.

J. Craig Williams:

The 1850s were an extremely contentious time in American history, marred by stark political divisions and violence with battlegrounds, both literal like those of the bleeding Kansas crisis and legal like those embodied in the Dred Scott decision, our civil war may have been an inevitable conclusion. Perhaps John Brown’s actions at Harper’s Ferry did little in themselves to change the course of history, but John Brown proved himself to be a more capable symbol than a militant extensive press coverage and high profile commentaries by notable figures both domestic and international made him one of the most recognizable men of his day in his trial, sentencing and death turned him into as much of a rallying cry for the north as a boogeyman for the South.

J. Craig Williams:

There is no question that John Brown’s trial had many notable irregularities from the judge’s refusal to honor Brown’s request for independent counsel to brown’s eccentric actions in the Courtroom, and perhaps there’s little doubt even in a friendlier venue that John Brown would’ve been convicted, especially given his own admissions in the trial. But although the outcome may have been different, the court did ignore or at least bypass procedural protections that we take for granted. Now. Brown didn’t appeal his death sentence, which likely would’ve been overturned given the procedural anomalies in the trial, but on retrial his prior admissions in the first trial would’ve assured his conviction and may have been treated by a court of appeal as reason enough to disregard the procedural irregularities. John Brown assured his role in history because of his choices and his apparent intent to become a martyr for his cause. Brown’s trial undoubtedly pushed America closer to abolishing slavery while also being one of the final pieces of kindling that led to the Civil War. But the trial may have also fostered some unintended consequences because watching John Brown’s execution was a young military cadet who borrowed a uniform to gain entrance. John Wilkes Booth,

J. Craig Williams:

Thank you for joining us today. I hope you enjoyed this story. This episode was adapted from a chapter in my book. How Would You Decide 10 famous Trials That Changed History? So if you want the full story of John Brown’s trial and the other nine trials covered in my book, please pick up a copy and learn all the details, testimony, and juicy bits that didn’t make these episodes. You can buy copies on Amazon and all major book sellers. The book is published by Crimson Cloak Publishing, and I’m its author, J. Craig Williams. Thanks. Also, go to our script writer, sound designer and sound mixer, Nathan Todhunter, Evan Dicharry for additional writing. Our producer Kate Kenny Nutting. Lisa Kirkman, our director of partnerships, and the publisher of my book, Carly McCracken of Crimson Cloak Publishing, who granted permission for the Legal Talk Networks adaptation. And a very special thanks to our voiceover actors, Troy Starr, who played the role of John Brown, Doug Bryson, who played the role of the court reporter John Doe, who played the role of John Alta and Evan Dicharry, who played the role of Albert Grist.

J. Craig Williams:

And one final special thanks to the Antioch Mass Choir for their music included in this episode. On the next episode, we will head west to Tombstone, Arizona in 1881 for the murder trial that followed the most famous shootout in the history of the Wild West. Did you know that Wyatt IP and Doc Holiday were tried for murder for killing the Clanton gang at the OK Corral? Thanks for the privilege of your time today. We look forward to seeing you again. I’m Craig Williams. Please stay tuned for our next episode of In Dispute on the Legal Talk Network.

Continue Reading