USA > Iowa > Jackson County > Annals of Jackson county, Iowa, Vol 1-2 > Part 18
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21
-66-
debts. Burleson, undertaking to collect, found himself up against a pro- blem. If he commenced suit against one of Brown's debtors, the debtor would demand a jury and in nearly every case, as the old court dockets of that period show, the jury were mostly composed of men who were in War- ren's posse, and the result, in nearly all cases, was a verdict for defendant. On page 180, April term, 1840, S. Burleson, as Brown's administrator, got a judgment against James C. Mitchell, John Peterson and John Stuckey for $106.70. (James C. Mitchell was not with the posse, although he wanted to be allowed to go with it. He was in jail indicted for manslaughter. ) On page 182, same term, the case of S. Burleson. administrator,- against Elisha Barrett and John Jonas was appealed and afterwards defendants got a ver- dict against plaintiff. On page 182, James C. Mitchel confessed judgment in favor of administrator. In December, 1840. Joseph Charlyville brought suit against Burleson, administrator, for $67.50. Burleson brought a count- er claim for $79.00. A jury was empaneled and brought in a verdict for Charlyville for $38.00. On another occasion, Burleson, as administrator, brought suit against Lyman Wells for debts due the estate of Brown. In 1842, Burleson, as administrator, brought suit against James White and W. A. Warren and these parties came into court and confessed judgment. On page 94, Burleson brought suit against Charlie Harris, the man who issued the warrant for Brown's arrest, for debts due estate of Brown, but, as in nearly all cases. a jury composed of men who fought against Brown brought in a verdict, for defendant.
We have here named a portion of those the territorial docket proves were on Brown's books as debtors at the time Brown was killed. It does not prove the accounts were in all cases genuine. as in several instances the jury rendered a verdict in favor of defendant; nor does it prove "Old Set- ler's statement as to all being Brown's debtors was true, but, it does prove some of them were, as Burleson got a judgment against Mitchel. Peterson and Stuckey, and that Mitchel confessed judgment, as did W. A. Warren and James White. In the fall before Brown was killed, he sued John Cox, a member of Warren's posse, and got a judgment for $48.00
As afore said, this does not prove "Old Settler's" statement in regard to all those who participated in Brown's removal, were Brown's debtors, and it does not prove they were not, as there would be no record of those who came forward and settled with the administrator without legal action at law. When "Old Settler" stated all the mob were pleased at the oppor- tunity to wipe out their debts by mobbing Brown, he evidently went a long way too far, for no one can well believe eighty men could be found, all of whom were anxious to pay their debts in that way, and it is doubtful as to "Old Settler's" intention to.convey that idea as to all of them. His charge to their being a drunken mob is contradicted by Sheriff Warren's statement that no liquor was drank that day or the next: If that is true, Col. Cox must have been dry by the third day. The charge of mob, however, takes on a semblance of truth inasmuch as the plea of Cox, at least, was not for help to place Brown and others under legal arres! to answer to the law for certain crimes specified in a warrant, but (according to statements of old settlers of this vicinity) to drive Brown and his friends out of the country.
–––––67––
We can't find as he was successful in raising a man in these parts, among whom were the Wilcoxs, Mallards, Pences, Burlesons, Vosburgs. Teeple, Scott, Beers, Perkins, Redden, Thomas Wood and others, who were always since, known as law abiding citziens; nor could they, so far as we could ever learn, raise one in the Maquoketa region, among whom were Goodenow, Lyman Bates, the Wrights, Currents, Wilson and others, who were life long residents of this country and foremost and exemplary citizens. According to W. A. Warren's own pen he could only prevail on one or two to go from Sabula. With the exception of those from Sabula, there is nothing to show us a single man south of the Maquoketa river who could be prevailed upon to help exterminate Brown and his so-called band of desparadoes, and that too in face of the fact that Warren claimed in his write-up the western part of the county suffered severely from the depradations of Brown's men.
From what we can learn from written history and from old residents, the posse got no recruits in the western and southern parts of the county. except a very few of Cox's relatives and neighbors in the country between Fulton, Bridgeport and Andrew, was made up from around Bellevue, and according to Warren's write-up. a party from the Illinois side of the river, who came over to help support the law of Iowa (if we can take that view) and also a captain and a crew on a steamboat plying the neutral waters of the Mississippi, who tied up and came ashore to take part in the melce, but did not get there in time to have a hand in the tight, which must have been a sad disappointment to river men of those days, when, as a source of amusement, a fight beat a circus ten to one.
By the light of history as furnished us by the write-up of W. A. Warren of the Bellevue war, there is no doubt but what he and many others of the posse were endeavoring to act in a humane and legal way. We find after Brown was killed and his so-called bandits were taken prisoners, and the cry went up from the mob element for the blood of every single one of the prisoners and ropes had been placed around the neck of some of them. Das- id G. Bates, H. K. Magoon, Parks, Allex Reed and others addressed the mob and pleaded with them to consider the cause of mercy, but to no avail, and it was found necessary to hedge for time, hoping something would turn up to stay the cry for blood. Warren asked them to listen to what Col. Cox might have to say. We find, according to Warren's writings, Cox, though not pleading for the law or mercy, asked in the cause of hu- man decency, not to let their desire for vengeance cause them to neglect the care of the dead and wounded, and the women, who around their fallen friends were wringing their hands and wailing in their sorrow, that to abide the morrow and then what might be the verdict of the majority he and the rest would abide by.
That night a meeting, consisting of the most influential citizens gath- ered at the residence of James L. Kirkpatrick to agree upon what disposi- tion should be made of the prisoners. Gathered there were Col. Cox, Alex Reed, T. U. Parks, Ansen Harrington, J. K. Moss, HI. k. Magoon, Col. Collins, Lew Hilyard, David G. Bates, John T. Sublets and cthers. W. .. Warren's writings says "the meeting was organized by calling J. L. Kirk . patrick to the chair, when I addressed the meeting asking and urging that
-68 ----
it should be sustained in maintaining the authority of the law, in bringing these men to answer to the charge set forth in the warrant. In this I was ably sustained by David G. Bates, Alexander Reed, T. H. Parks and H. K. Magoon."
Upon further reading of Warren's account of the affair we find Anson Harrington, one of the committee who bled the information for a warrant for the arrest of W. W. Brown, Aaron Long, Wm. Fox and twenty others, and placed it in Sheriff W. A. Warren's hands for service, and also Col. Thomas Cox, who had represented Iowa Territory as legislator and speaker of the house, and who if any one should be found on the sheriff's side pleading for legal proceedings, the more so as he was said to have been deputized by the sheriff to help organize the posse to effect a legal arrest of Brown and his men, were opposed to letting the law take its course and using their influence (which Warren said was great) to bring about a wholesale hanging. Without further fuss or feathers, declaring nothing short would satisfy the people, we so find them using their influence toward that end so long as there was an opportunity left. Warren further said, "to oppose such men as Cox and Harrington was uphill business for they not only held the esteem of the people, but were capable of impressing their views on those whom they wished to influence in this or any other matter. To hedge was now our policy, to obtain, if possible, a lighter sentence than death. D. G. Bates comprehending the situation and seeing the utter impossibility to carry out the proposition to hold them subject to law, offered the follow-
ing resolution : "That we shall meet at 10. o'clock a. m. tomorrow. and the prisoners shall be sentenced as a majority of the citizens shall then des- ignate, and we pledge ourselves one to another, whatever that sentence hsall be, we will see faithfully carried out." Mr. Bates sustained his resol- ution by an able speaech. saying they were not all guilty alike, they ought to be punished according to their crimes. The resolution was accepted and adopted unanimously and the committee retired at 4 a. m. for a few hours rest." We learn further from Warren, at ten o'clock the prisoners were brought in haggard of countenance and looking as though they anticipated the worst. Col. Cox, who occupied the chair, addressed them, stating they had been given a chance to peacefully surrender and had not accepted it, and on that account several of the best citizens had been sacrificed. and he was authorzed to inform them the citizens would then proceed to relieve the sher- iff.of his duties, and whatever the verdict of the majority was would be strictly carried out.
According to Cox's statement, the sheriff had been set aside and the prisoners taken in charge by his posse. That posse became as near being a mob as "Old Settler" claimed they were, whether it was a mob before the fight or not. "Old Settler's" claim that they were drunk at the time of the attack isn't proven, Warren's statement that there was no liquor drank that day, offsets "Old Settler's" claim. Warren's writings says Col. Cox had closed all the saloons and provided boilers of hot coffee for the men. ] have heard other old settlers say there was plenty of whiskey in Mosses' store in coffee pots, but as those old settlers all die without leaving a writ-
-- 69 ---
ten testimony, so far as I know, hearsay cannot be considered, so the pre- ponderance of the evidence is with the boilers of hot coffee."
To return to the prisoners and their fate. we find Chichester had been granted a chance to speak in behalf of his fellow prisoners and by his elo- quence had made some impression upon many of the citizens, whereupon Mr. Crawford, one of the advocates of mercy, seized the opportunity to lend strength to the humane cause and plead in the interest of the law. He well knew from the character of the men present what he might have to say would have no weight, but would ask that no greater punishment would be inflicted than the law provided for in such cases. At this junction we find Anson Harrington energetically pressing his demand for their lives, as War- ren said he made an able argument in favor of hanging every one of them." But for all the argument and influence of Harrington, Cox and others, there was a majority of three ballots cast in favor of whipping and banishment from the country, instead of hanging, which was done, and the prisoners, after being whipped, put into canoes and ordered to paddle out of the coun- try and never return upon pain of death.
In order to make clear what the charges were against each particular one of those prisoners Cox, Harrington and others worked so hard to hang, and came within three of doing it, we will see what W. A. Warren said about the proceedings in his reply to "Old Settler."
"Now what are the facts as to the charge of "mob?" I have hereto- fore stated the courts of justice in Jackson County were powerless. It mat- tered not what the charge was, an alibi could be proven, and the criminal went scot free. Baffled and beaten in every instance to bring these outlaws to justice. a commttee was appointed to see prosecuting Attorney Craw- ford and Judge Wilson, then one of the associating judges of the territory- and ask for orders. I was one of the committee. After laying our grieve, ances before the judges, Judge Wilson protested against anything like mob violence, and said the arm of the law would protect the people. Ile then advised an information to be filed, charging Brown and his associates with conspiracy to commit depredations, as alleged by the committee. Such course would prevent them from testifying in each others behalf. This was accepted by the committee and on or about March 25th, 1840, James Crawford, then prosecuting attorney, drew an information, charging Brown and twenty two others as above stated, which information was sworn to by Anson Harrington, and the warrant issued by Chas. Harris and Geo. Watkins. justices of the peace of Jackson County, and placed in the hands of the sherff of Jackson County for service. "
This warrant didn't charge any of these men with committing any dep- redations, only conspiring to commit depredation, so they couldn't testify one for another. It was a sort of a guardian angel to prevent them from being tempted to perjure themselves in case some charge should be prefer- red against some of their friends. It is evident from the statement of Judge Wilson that the wholesale arrest was only to place Brown's friends in a position so they could not testify in each others behalf. There is nothing in the warrant, or in all of Warren's writings, to show each and all of these men. or even a majority, had been guilty of any particular crime, only being
.
-70-
friends of those who had. It was claimed they would prove an alibi in case some of their friends should be tried for crime as it was said it had been done in several instances.
Brown was a sort of a lawyer, and according to history, well up in the art of defending his clients, and as it is the case with all our criminal law. yers. resorted to alibis, where possible to win his case. No one charges our lawyers with being criminals on that account, though it is no doubt true that if some of them were hung instead of their clients, the ends of justice would be better served. So far as I know Brown and all his men might have been guilty of all the crimes in the criminal calendar, and we are not defending them, only as the case seems to warrant. It will relieve "Old Settler" and other from the stigma placed upon them for their faith in Brown and their condemnation of the means taken to be rid of him. Ac. cording to Warren's write-up, Brown questioned the legality of the whole- sale arrest and in the light of Warren's evidence almost any one would doubt the legality of the warrant, that according to written history, was only intended to deprive Brown and all his friends of the power of defense in case future indictments should be preferred against any of them.
We have it from pioneers' lips that are now stilled, and it can be pror- en by W. A. Warren's writings, that yet live, that Brown expressed him- self that he and his confederates would willingly surrender to the sheriff if they believed they would suffer no violence at the hands of Cox and his men, but they did not believe it. They likely thought, as many did, Cox's violent opposition to Brown and all who support him at a foresaid caucus. and his expressed determination to drive Brown out of the country, was his motive for action, and had banded togethier the good, bad and indifferent -to protect Brown and themselves, as most people would, and surely a parcel of frontier men more or less free from the fettering influence of civilzation. Cox himself, had never been rocked in the cradle of civilization, but was born on the frontier of Kentucky Territory, spent his whole life on the frontiers of five different territories. never lived in any state, and was bur- ried in lowa territory while it was yet more or less wild.
According to Warren's written statement. Cox was of violent temper and addicted to intemperance, and according to a statement of the 1879 his- tory of Jackson County, was bigoted and arrogant as his reply to the preacher who modestly inquired of him, who he was, seems to prove. His reply was. "I am Col. Thomas Cox, supposed to be the smartest man in this part of the country." We have never found anything in the history to prove he didn't actually believe it. Nevertheless, Cox was an unusual and remarkable man. Ambitions, courageous, energetic and persevering and a noted pioneer and did much service in blazing the trail for lowa's future statehood, and his life's work adds much of interest and value to history. He seemed to have been much such a man as David Crockett-Half wild, yet so built by nature he was a leading civilizer according to pioneer methods. But is there any excuse for urging the wholesale hanging of Brown's men, after they were prisoners and barred from defeating the ends of the law by trstrying Il their own behalf. While it is true Jackson County had no jail to contide them in, they were state prisoners and the governor had several companies
-71 -----
of militia at his command to guard them, in case the civil authorities could not. until they could have been brought to justice, which could have been sure enough and quick enough, judging from the temper of their accusers and the fact that the board of commissioners had power to call an extra court at any time ..
We must believe (if we can) it was the sheriff's intent and desire to go according to law in arresting and dealing with Brown and his men, but was up against the influence of Cox and Harrington. But the history written up for the Jackson County History of 1879, as found in two accounts of the Belle- vue war. the historian's general write-up and the other, his reply to "Old Settler" conflicts, one with the other, in several instances. We do not charge that it was intentionally done, but the writer in his attact on "Old Settler" might have forgotten just what he said before. Still, writings as history bave no value as such, if they conflict on individual points, and that is what the history of 1879 does do. For instance, (to save space, we will only qoute phrases and passages that illustrates the points we refer to). Warren says: "Before I proceed to deal further with this viper, who is a tool of others pushed forward to express sentiments they themselves dare not do, permit me to again give my readers a few incidents of our early history. I cannot remember all the criminal charges preferred against Brown and his outlaws, such as robbing the Collins, stealing Brigham's horses, which were found in Brown's stable and the sending of James Thompson and A. Montgomery to assassinate Mitchell-Montgomery afterwards killed Brown near Maquoketa. " This Brown's father-in-law, Dr. Rodes, had entered from under Montgom- ery, contrary to the Old Settler's claim laws, a parcel of land held as a claim by Montgomery, who during an alteration over it in which history says Brown used hard and insulting language toward Montgomery, he raised his riffe and shot Brown.
As to the stealing of Brigham's horses and the finding of them in Brown's stable, it can't be proven by the same writer's previous account of the affair as found under the title of "A Sheriff Foiled." His account of that affair condenced to save space is this. One, Godfrey, was seen by the sheriff entering Bellevue with a span of nice horses the sheriff thinking God- frey had stolen them placed him under arrest an'd took him to W. W. Brown · ( Brown was a magistrate at that time), who after bearing Godfrey's claim of purchasing them in Missouri told Godfrey he was lying and remarked to the sheriff that there was no doubt the horses were stolen and advised the striking of hand bills describing the horses which was done. Brown assisted . in their distribution. The horses were placed in Brown's care, who became surety for them and Godfrey's whereabouts. In about, five days a man by the name of Jenkins came to Bellevue, seen the sheriff telling him he had a span of horses stolen. Hle described the horess, told the sheriff the bay horse had a scar on the inside of the right leg just below the flank and the sorrel mare had a slit in the left ear and if not so marked they were not his. The sheriff went with him to Brown's stable and the horses were found as Jeuk. ins described them and were given up to him. Jenkins then asked to be shown the man, declaring he would fix him so he would not steal any more horses, the sheriff hesitated. Brown showed him Godfrey, who was piling
--- 72
wood near the river bank. On seeing Brown and Jenkins approaching God- frey became suspicious and started to run over the ice toward the island and Jenkins after him shooting at Godfrey as he went. At the third shot Godfrey screamed and fell, but sprang up and ran on and Jenkins returned. There is no account that Godfrey was ever seen again. Jinkins took the horses giv- en up to him and departed for his home on Rock River, Ill., so Warren said, and he also said Brown's actions in this case won him many friends, who were convinced he had been persecuted and was not the villain he had been represented to be. As we have previously stated, just after the caucus had been held and Brown's majority of two to one had opened Cox's eyes to Brown's villainy and true character. Brigham, a friend of Cox, was looking for the stolen horses also and gave a minute description of these same horses, which was not "found by him in Brown's stable" by any means, but had been given up by the sheriff as we have before shown. By the sheriff's account Brigham had to leave town between sunset and sunrise and there is nothing to show any move was made to bring Jinkins to ac- count or that Brigham ever went to Rock River to look for his horses and if Jinkins and those horses yet live they may be bosom friends and "epluribus unum."
If our historian's statement as to Brown and his men sending James Thompson and Abslom Montgomery to assassinate James C. Mitchel, who turned the tables and killed Thompson, is placed side by side with his pre- vious account under the title, "Killing of James Thompson," the two ac- counts will be found to differ very much. In the general write up of the killing of Thompson, while a part of the people were attending a ball, to which, by Mitchel's influence none of Brown's tribe should be allowed to attend, Thompson and some of his confederates robbed Mitchel's house and Thompson tried to violate the person of Miss Hadley, who was alone in Mitchel's house. She broke away and fled to the ball room. After the affair become understood Mitchel borrowed & pistol and started out to search for Thompson. Thompson had returned to Brown's saloon and fill- ing up with whiskey declared bis intentions of going out to find Mitchell and kill him. Instead of Brown and his men sending him, according to Warren's other account, they tried to persuade bim from going, telling him one or the other would likely be killed and perhaps both and be had better leave town, but to no purpose. Thompson was crazed with drink and started out with a pistol in one hand and a bowie knife in the other, meeting Montgomery on the street Thompson told him what had happened and that Mitchell would surely be looking for him and if he (Montgomery ) wanted to see fun to come on. Montgomery tried to prevail upon him to go back and keep out of sight. At this moment Mitchel was seen coming down the street and Thompson started to meet him followed by Montgomery. who called to Mitchel to look out. Mitchell and Thompson advanced toward each other and Thompson snapped his pistol at Mitchel's breast, bat it failed to go off, whereupon Mitchel shot Thompson through the heart, killing him instantly and then returned to the ball room. (If Montgomery bad buen "sent, with Thompson to assassinate Mitchel." he had the opportuni- ty after Mitchel's pistol was empty). whereupon, as the writings of War-
-73-
ren state, Montgomery hunted up the sheriff and told him what had hap. pened and Warren says he and Montgomery were the first ones to reach the corpse. There is no place in this account of Warren's that charges Mont- gomery with having anything to do with killing Mitchel or being with any of Thompson's friends that night. So far as Montgomery is concerned it is well that much can be said in his favor, for according to the universal verdict, he was of little principle. He was well known in these parts where Maquoketa now is.
It is not our present intent to give detailed account of that night of horrors, when Thompson was killed and his friends besieged Mitchel and his friends in the chamber of the dance hall, as Warren has told us, ( with- out any conflicting testimony) how cursing and swearing they threatened to burn the house with Mitchel and his friends in it and was pacified by the sheriff, when he told them he would answer for Mitchell's forthcoming in the morning and would see he was dealt with according to law. They told the sheriff if Mitchel was not forthcoming they would hold him (War- ren) responsible for it and departed, leaving Mitchel in the sheriff's care. Brown afterwards came to Warren and told him he had better place a heavy guard over Mitchel as the boys were drinking a good deal and no telling what might happen, but the night passed off without any further trouble and the next morning a coroner's jury passed a verdict that Thompson came to his death by a pistol shot fired by James C. Mitchel. Brown and his men were all there and the citizens were addressed by Wm. Morden, who Warren says was respected by all and shared the friendship of Brown to that. extent that what Morden said was law with Brown. Morden condemned any show of mob law and advocated letting the law deal with Mitchell. Accordingly be was ironed and placed under guard. Warren says, while Morden was addressing the people in favor of the civil law and against the evil influence of mob law he was cheered by both sides. Morden should have been there and addressed Cox, Harrintgon and others, after Brown was kill- ed if he could command the attention of such "desperadoes" as Brown and his men. We are neither for nor against. For no man who the evidence condemns or against any man entitled to the benefit of the doubt, but am now writing to show where history contradicts itself. In the reply to "Old Settler" we again find the following paragraph speaking 'of the attack on Brown's house. "We immediately marched toward Brown's house, but be- fore reaching it, one of my men, Henderson Palmer, was shot down by a volley fired from the windows of the upper story of Brown's house. An or- der to charge was given when a general engagement took place. Brown's friends outside fled as soon as they realized there was peril ahead of them and deserted their friend and chieftain in the hour of his need and danger." The other version of our historian as given under the title of "the assault on Brown's hotel" is in part as follows: "Our squad moved in double file and not a word was spoken until we came within thirty rods of the house when the word "charge" was given and in a second the whole squad was as close to the house as they could get .. " (We thought it was said Palner was killed before the word charge was given. ) "Brown was standing atmat the center of the room with his rifle raised to his shoulder, Col. Cox And myself
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.