For the Columbus Gazette
You have a correspondent in last week's GAZETTE, who appears to be very indignant at the Ohio State Journal. I do not propose to defend the Journal, though it is easily done; but you, being an "independent" editor, and your correspondent a pious man, neither of you can object to my "speering" a question or two at him. Your correspondent grumbles at those who "extoll" JOHN BROWN. Has he heard any person "extolling" his raid upon Harper's Ferry? I have not. But does not your correspondent, as much as he may censure the illegal and indefensible outbreak, admire the old man's courage and manly bearing after his capture, and at his execution? Has he heard any one do any thing else? Gov. WISE said in his speech at Richmond that John Brown was "honest, truthful, and sincere." Does your lover of "peace and good orderr" think that the right kind of a man to hang?
But your correspondent ought to speak the truth surely. Did Brown "sally forth" to murder those who should oppose his insane purpose?" He said he did not, and the testimony confirmed his statement. He fought only after "insane purpose" was defeated. Did he "rob and plunder the property of others, dragging the owners of confinement and death?" I believe none of the men taken prisoners by him were killed, surely neither of those robbed by him were.
But your correspondent thinks that "much bloodshed and loss of life" was avoided by the "precautionary measures" of Gov. Wise. Does he really believe the crazy governor of Virginia had any excuse for the great parade he made, and great excitement he has created?
Your correspondent thinks the State Journal is "determined to keep up the agitation." Has he heard what the South are doing in Congress? Has he any censure for them? And when did the Journal say "any law they do not like they may break with impunity?" He appears familiar with the commandments; did he ever read all about "bearing false witness?" How does he know, as he seems to imply, that the people of Virginia have had "their property destroyed by incendiaries, and their cattle poisoned." Does he not think it much more than probable it was done by their own, or their neighbor's slaves? I do certainly.
But the Journal must not quote, and criticise the fulsome laudations of the Chicago clergyman in relation to the beauties of slavery in Richmond. Does your correspondent understand the "impelling cause" for this Reverend gentleman's puff? Does he know that the Rev. Mr. Schenck of Chicago, who wrote it, has accepted a call to a church in Baltimore?
The Chicago Press and Tribune shows pretty conclusively that Father Chiniquy is humbuging the public, but your "friend of peace and good order" will not permit the Journal to say so, will he?
Your correspondent thinks he sees "the hand of God, in frustrating the evil designs of those engaged" in the Harper's Ferry emeute. A great many others agree with him. A very large majority of the free people of the North (does your correspondent think we are all "free" here? I do not,) think that if John Brown had succeeded in what he aimed at, running off a score or so of slaves, it would have created a nine day's wonder in that neighborhood, but the nation would not have heard of it; but now, by the aid of Gov. Wise, the thinking portion of our people believe he has given the sternest blow to the system of slavery it has ever received. Does your correspondent see "the hand of God" in that? A great many people think they do.
Again. The only two citizens of the neighborhood killed there were not, as the telegraph had it, among the best citizens. They had a taint of ruffianism about them. The father of one of them had shot one of his own slaves, and the father of the other whipped one of his to death, and now no one knows who killed the two sons. Was there anything of the "hand of God" in that?
Once more. A man in Alexandria, as a particular exhibition of their triumph over Brown, manufactured a rope to hang him, out of pure South Carolina cotton, that State being the embodiment and impersonation of slavery. But upon trial the rope was found too weak. Cotton may be king, but it would not hang John Brown.
Another case. A Mrs. Doyle, who claimed that Brown had murdered her husband and family, sent a rope of Missouri hemp, which also proved too weak on trial. It was not strong enough, so both these attempts at a gratification of malice failed. Was there anything of Providence in that? I beg your "Friend to the Union, peace and good order" to "think of these things," and it may be that he may see "the hand of God" coming from a different direction.
A PEACEFUL AND ORDERLY MAN