country at that time were in the United States, and our country had
also but lately come into possession of a large French element by the
Louisiana purchase, there was no fear of a servile insurrection in
this country. The free colored men of New Orleans, under the
proclamation of the narrow-minded Jackson, rallied to the defence of
that city and bore themselves with commendable valor in that useless
battle. The war closed, however, and the glory of the Negro soldier
who fought in it soon expired in the dismal gloom of a race-slavery
becoming daily more wide-spread and hopeless.

John Brown's movement was military in character and contemplated the
creation of an army of liberated slaves; but its early suppression
prevented any display of Negro valor or genius. Its leader must ever
receive the homage due those who are so moved by the woes of others as
to overlook all considerations of policy and personal risk. As a plot
for the destruction of life it fell far short of the Nat Turner
insurrection which swept off fifty-seven persons within a few hours.
In purpose the two episodes agree. They both aim at the liberation of
the slave; both were led by fanatics, the reflex production of the
cruelty of slavery, and both ended in the melancholy death of their
heroic leaders. Turner's was the insurrection of the slave and was not
free from the mad violence of revenge; Brown's was the insurrection of
the friend of the slave, and was governed by the high and noble
purpose of freedom. The insurrections of Denmark Vesey in South
Carolina, in 1822, and of Nat Turner, in Virginia, in 1831, show
conclusively that the Negro slave possessed the courage, the cunning,
the secretiveness and the intelligence to fight for his freedom.
These two attempts were sufficiently broad and intelligent, when taken
into consideration with the enforced ignorance of the slave, to prove
the Negro even in his forlorn condition capable of daring great