Town hall Meeting Reaction

On this day the walls of the town echoed with the voices of several important abolitionists. Despite a common purpose, each leader originated from an exceptionally unique background and brought a plethora of original perspectives to the debate. Certain members of the assembly utilized their personal experience as a slaves to construct a convincing argument against the evil institution. Notably, Methodist and former slave Richard Allan implored the audience to consider a simple truth; the institution of slavery juxtaposed the biblical assertion that all men were created equal in the image of God. Allen would continue to criticize slavery through a biblical lens and enhance his argument against slavery through references to scripture and parables. 

Although not an African American, John Brown's rationale for the eradication of slavery closely paralleled that of Allen. Unlike Allen and many of the other members of the assembly, however, John Brown advocated for violence as a means to put an immediate end to slavery; Captain Brown's remarks stunned the congregation, including William Lloyd Garrison who was considered one of the most radical abolitionists of his time. The author and founder of The Liberator, Garrison presented his ideologies in a characteristically outspoken manner. Although William Garrison shared Captain John Brown's desire for the immediate abolition of slavery, the author condoned violence; a devout Christian, Garrison perceived violence as morally reprehensible and ineffective. Instead, the the author and journalist proposed the use of peaceful alternatives which he believed could effectively convince the white population of the evils of slavery. 

Moreover, many of the abolitionists present at the town hall meeting quantified their antislavery efforts. Harriet Tubman and Leonard Grimes recounted their experiences on the Underground Railroad whereby they smuggled slaves to freedom in the North. Other activists focused their energy on the development of organizations that challenged the authority of slavery, such as the New England Anti-Slavery Society and the League of Gileadites. Additionally, several authors, poets, and journalists used their pens as a weapon against the evils of slavery. Francis Ellen Watkins Harper was especially talented with her literary work and conveyed powerful messages through her penmanship. Similarly, William Lloyd Garrison and Horace Greeley delivered their messages through the press in the form of The Liberator and the New York Tribune. 

It is also worth mentioning that several members in attendance also had close ties to the women's suffrage movement. Lucretia Mott founded the Philadelphia Anti-Slavery Society while simultaneously demanding women's rights. With the help of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mott would organize the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention. 

Such a theme of involvement in suffrage and civil rights movements was not limited to Lucretia Mott; several other civil rights activists, including Susan B. Anthony and  Sojourner Truth, were also committed to the women's rights movement. To recapitulate, the town hall meeting was a successful discussion of great variety; a diverse group of activists proposed unique and complex arguments against the issue of slavery. If anything should be remembered, it is that a great national change is imminent. 

The John Brown Experience

Although there are many prevalent names throughout history, few have stirred up as much controversy as my own, John Brown. I was born in the spring of 1800 as the fourth child of Ruth Mills and Owen Brown, both of whom were strict Calvinists. Consequently, my parents ardently despised slavery, claiming that the institution of slavery juxtaposed the beneficent will of God. As I grew up in the small town of Torrington, Connecticut, these values were imposed upon me and I began to share their disdain for slavery. This sentiment was reinforced in Michigan during a cattle drive when I was twelve years old.

Towards the completion of my journey, I was fortunate enough to encounter the hospitality of a farmer who provided me with food and a lodge. Despite my young age, he treated me with respect and dignity; however, the farmer's slave did not receive the same level of regard. Right before my eyes, the farmer violently hammered the enslaved boy with a metal shovel, a memory I could never forget; such an event furthered my hatred for slavery and inspired an ardent desire to bring an end to the evil institution.

 However, my abolitionist aspirations were incompatible with my youth, so I left my native state of Ohio and pursued ministry in Massachusetts. There, I studied under Reverend Hallock until I developed an unexplained case of Uveitis, leading to the early termination of my studies. As a result, I was forced to make a premature return to Ohio. This unexpected happening altered the course of my life; perhaps, with the completion of ministry school, I would have lived a peaceful life, propagating the word of my Lord and Savior. Instead, I remained in Ohio and married the lovely Dianthe Lusk who would become the mother of my many children in 1820. Over the next two decades, I frequently traveled to pursue business ventures, including speculation and tanning. Unfortunately, my enterprise never led to financial success and I had to file for bankruptcy in the 1840s.

Even still, I found ways to contribute to the abolitionist cause. Among other supportive actions, I donated funds in support of activists, such as David Walker and Henry Highland. At the same time, the second great revival precipitated a religious fever that further opened my eyes to the unpalatable truth: slavery was incompatible with God's kingdom and required immediate elimination. Soon after this revelation, I began my crusade against slavery as a conductor in the Underground Railroad. During my time with the railroad, I established the League of Gileadites which aspired to provide assistance and protection to escaped slaves. Through the aforementioned organization, I hoped to reduce the number of freedmen who fell back into the evil clutches of slavery.

Years later, the Kansas-Nebraska Act would send the nation into turmoil. Proposed by Stephan A. Douglas, the legislation asserted that the legality of slavery in Kansas and Nebraska was to be determined by the popular sentiment held by the citizens of the particular state, a concept known as popular sovereignty. Unwilling to allow the sinful institution of slavery to expand any further than it already had, I collected my belongings and headed west with five of my sons to the Kansas territory. There, I took an active role in the fight against slavery, becoming involved with a paramilitary group known as the Pottawatomie Company. 

Not long after my arrival Lawrence, the capital of the anti-slavery movement, was looted and burned by pro-slavery settlers on May 21st, 1856. Immediately after I received news about the sacking of Lawrence, I resolved to carry out my revenge against the anti-abolitionists in Kansas. A few days later on May 24th, I traveled to several pro-slavery residences as the judge, jury, and executioner; with the help of five my sons and James Townsly, I dragged five slave owners from their homes and killed them in cold blood, freeing a total of eighteen slaves. This massacre in Pottawatomie sent a shockwave of fear and panic through the entire country, precipitating an outbreak of unorganized violence, a period known as "bleeding Kansas." 

Before long, I became controversial in American politics due to my unprecedented violence. Some supported my cause while others condoned my actions. Nonetheless, I continued to carry on the fight against slavery in the Battle of Black Jack and the Battle of Osawatomie. Unsatisfied with my progress, I withdrew from the front line and began scheming an attack on the establishment of slavery that I believed would undoubtedly lead to its eradication. My strategy for liberation involved a seizure of the Harper's Ferry armory and was contingent on the assumption that enslaved Americans would join my cause. 

On October 16th, 1859, I would set my fateful plan into motion around eight o'clock in the evening. Although the raid on Harper's Ferry proceeded as expected during the early hours, it quickly began to fall apart; the nearby slaves never committed their efforts, and the citizens of West Virginia resisted my advances vehemently. By the midnight of the next day, my attack had been thwarted by the misplaced talents of General Robert E. Lee, leading to my arrest. 

Immediately after being taken into custody, I was tried for murder, incitement, and treason against the State of Virginia. As I stood before the court, sure of my fate, I passionately exclaimed, " I have done, . . . in behalf of His despised poor, was not wrong, but right!" With abounding enthusiasm, I continued, "if it be 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 submit: so let it be done!" After only forty-five minutes of deliberation, the court decided I was to be hung on December 2, 1859. As I reflected on my life during the final moments, I found no regret; I was a man of God fighting for His cause as I understood it. In the end, my actions were in accordance with the biblical proposition that all men were created equal. As I walked up the steps of the gallows, I handed the jailor a note that read, "I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will 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."

Although I failed to abolish slavery, my attempted insurrections terrified white Southerners, cultivating a belief that the issue of slavery could not be remedied. Slave owners associated my name with terrorism and reasoned that it was unsafe to remain a part of the United States, a logic that led to secession on December 20th, 1860. Conversely, abolitionists perceived my actions as those of a martyr. Notably, the Union soldiers crafted a song in memorandum of my legacy by the name of John Brown's Body which gained widespread popularity during the Civil War. In all, my dedication to the abolitionist cause undeniably shaped American history. However, my actions are perceived, their mark on history cannot be erased.

The Bible Challenge: Religious Implications of Slavery

It is no secret that Christianity was the most powerful driving force behind the seismic wave that was American abolitionism, but ironically, it was also one of the biggest supporting forces for its arch enemy: the institution of American slavery. Slaveholders, who referred to themselves as Christian, argued that the Bible from cover to cover endorsed slavery. The most accessible original sources were the collection of essays in the book Cotton is King and Pro-Slavery Arguments. 

Their five pronged argument was as follows: the Curse of Ham was the divine initiation of slavery; all the patriarchs had slaves and were considered blessed by God; the moral Law sanctioned and regulated slavery; Jesus accepted slavery; the Apostles accepted slavery. The Curse of Ham comes from the Biblical story in which Ham, the youngest son of Noah, is cursed by his father to have a bloodline of servants that will serve his brothers. Slaveholders described Ham as black and his descendants as Africans to justify chattel slavery as divinely inspired. Southerners would then go on to argue that God must endorse slavery if the patriarchs of his people owned slaves and if slavery was sanctioned in his own moral law, often quoting Leviticus 25:44-46. Though they could not find much say from Jesus on the matter, they interpreted his silence on the issue as support. Finally, they used passages like Ephesians 6:5-7 to argue that apostles supported the institution of slavery as well.

As evidenced in the previous paragraph, proponents of slavery frequently cited scripture to support their arguments. Such an approach was widely popular among proponents of slavery due to the status of the bible as the word of God. Consequently, the biblical counter argument to slavery required a greater degree of complexity, extending interpretation of the bible beyond individual verses. Thus, many abolitionist preachers, theologians, and pastors, adopted a holistic interpretation of the bible, emphasizing the overall message of the text. Jonathan Blanchard–a popular abolitionist during the antebellum era– argued for abolition and condemned the institution of slavery as intrinsically “anti-Christian.” At the basis of Blanchard's position was the biblical idea of “one blood-ism” which he felt alluded to the inherent equality of mankind. 

Other more radical Christians, such as William Lloyd Garrison, elected to entirely disregard biblical scriptures that expressed a permissible attitude toward slavery. Although Garrison still expressed his belief in God, he refused to acknowledge the bible as a direct reflection of God’s values; those that shared such an argument reasoned that God represented morality, symbolism that would juxtapose a pro-slavery ideology. 

From a separate angle, many anti-slavery Christians argued that slavery in the antebellum period varied from biblical slavery in a myriad of significant ways. The two most popular competitive arguments asserted that southern slavery broke up families–a violation of the commandments– and prohibited the possibility of freedom–a transgression against the old testament. While the complexity of the Christian anti-slavery argument far exceeded that of the anti-slavery argument, all Christian abolitionists expressed a gestalt interpretation of the bible. 

In all, the bible served as a repository of religious rationale that was manipulated to serve slavery and anti-slavery sentiments alike. In a similar fashion to the Compromise of 1850, the holy bible failed to decisively settle American debate over slavery. As a result, the nation experienced a “theological crisis” which played an important role in the escalation of tension which would lead to the civil war in 1863.

The Evolution of the Supreme Court

On June 21, 1788, nine of the thirteen newly independent American states ratified the constitution which would take effect in March of the following year. Of the many provisions that were expressed in that document, few have been as ambiguous yet important as the establishment of the supreme court. In Article III, section I of the constitution, the creation of a federal judiciary power was permitted, but specifications concerning the structure and logistics of the court were omitted. Consequently, the responsibility to organize the judiciary system fell to congress, leading the the Judiciary Act of 1789 which appointed one chief justice and five additional justices. Two years later, the court decided its first case, settling a dispute between a debtor and creditor in West v Barnes, an otherwise unimportant ruling. Following the Barnes ruling, the supreme court would tackle a plethora of important cases, each of which would result in a significant and irreversible impact on the course American history. 

Of the most important cases that were heard by the high court, none carry as much weight as the Marbury v. Maddison decision. After the election of the Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson in 1800, John Adams would issue the Judiciary Act and the Organic Act in the final hours of his tenure, increasing the number of judgeships in a desperate action to preserve federalist influence. Of the newly appoint judges, William Marbury of Maryland was selected to serve in the courts on the basis of his federalist loyalties. However, the newly appointed judge would never receive a commission due to the the instatement of Thomas Jefferson in March of 1800; under orders of the president, Secretary of State James Madison prohibited Marbury's instalment.  

Such an event led Marbury, to seek a writ of mandamus of the Judiciary Act of 1801. After hearing the case, Chief Justice John Marshal and the majority party ruled in favor of Madison, reasoning that the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional and therefor invalid; largely regarded as one of the most important rulings in the history of the supreme court, Marshal's decision established the doctrine of judicial review. Such a principle elevated the power of supreme court to that of the executive and legislative branches; the court suddenly held the power to interpret the constitution and could strike down legislative and executive actions of the federal government on that basis. 

Another equally, crucial moment for the federal judiciary came in 1857 with the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. For context, Scott, an enslaved man, sued for his freedom after moving to Wisconsin on the basis that slavery was outlawed in the northern state. 

Although the lawsuit should have proceeded in a simple manner, the outcome took an unexpected turn. Tensions over the role of slavery in the United States complicated the legal processes, leading to a eleven year deliberation. In the end, the supreme court ruled against Scott on the grounds that congress did not posses the authority to permit or outlaw slavery, adding that slaves could not expect to be legally protected by the government. The implications of such a decision, in retrospect, are often considered as the "greatest self inflicted wound." After the supreme court relinquished its authority over the issue of slavery, the riff between northern and southern attitudes evolved into a national crisis and eventually a war in 1863. It was not until the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 during the reconstruction era that the federal government would regain authority over the institution of slavery. 

Since the initial conception of the Supreme Court in 1789, the judicial branch has been shaped by several key moments in history, including the two aforementioned cases. This adaptative nature of the court continues to persist today, exemplified by the recent ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson which overturned the assertion in Roe v. Wade that abortion was a constitutionally protected right. However, other aspects of the court remain unchanged, such as the principle of judicial review. It is precisely this mix of tradition and progressivism that makes the United States supreme court a uniquely powerful government entity.