January 8 marked the 200th anniversary of the last of a series of engagements that marked the Battle of New Orleans. This battle marked the last one of the conflict between the United States and Great Britain, known as the War of 1812.
The Battle of New Orleans consisted of a series of engagements fought between December 24, 1814 and January 8, 1815. The two countries had been at war since June 1812 - for two-and-a-half years. With the end of the Napoleonic War (before it was briefly renewed, thanks to Napoleon Bonaparte's escape in early 1815), Great Britain was finally able to focus its full attention upon the war against the United States. The British military decided to focus its strategy upon capturing the port of New Orleans, Louisiana, which had been under American control for eleven years. Capture of the city would give the British control of the Mississippi River and sever the Americans' vital commerce route to the Gulf of Mexico and beyond. Capture of the city would also allow full control of the agriculture industries that dominated the lower Mississippi River Valley region - namely sugar and especially cotton.
The British Army began gathering its invasion force in the summer of 1814. The army's defeat at Fort Bowyer prevented it from capturing Mobile, Alabama in September 1814. Alerted, the U.S. government dispatched a frantic message to General Andrew Jackson to immediately proceed to New Orleans and defend it. Jackson marched his army from present-day Alabama to New Orleans and arrived in the city on December 2, 1814. Ten days later, a large British fleet under the command of Sir Alexander Cochrane with more than 8,000 soldiers and sailors aboard, anchored in the Gulf of Mexico to the east of Lake Pontchartrain and Lake Borgne. At Lake Borgne, the U.S. Navy and the Royal Navy engaged in a battle on December 14, 1814 that left the British victors, but heavily battered. Although the British won control of the two lakes, the battle gave Jackson enough time to strengthen his defenses around New Orleans.
By December 23, 1814; a British Army vanguard of 1,800 troops under Lieutenant-General John Keane reached the east bank of the Mississippi River, nine miles south of New Orleans. When Jackson learn of Keane's presence, who was awaiting reinforcements at Lacoste's Plantation, he led a brief three-pronged assault on the unsuspecting British troops, who were resting in their camp. Then Jackson pulled his forces back to the Rodriguez Canal, about four miles south of the city. The unexpected attack made Keane even more cautious and he made no effort to advance. As a consequence, the Americans were given time to begin the transformation of the canal into a heavily fortified earthwork. The main body of the British Army under Major-General Edward Pakenham arrived on January 1, 1815. The army attacked the earthworks using their artillery. An exchange of artillery fire lasted for three hours. Several of the American guns were destroyed or knocked out and some damage was done to the earthworks. The British guns ran out of ammunition, which led Pakenham to cancel the attack. Unknown at the moment to Pakenham, the Americans on the left of Line Jackson near the swamp had broken and run from the position. Pakenham decided to wait for his entire force of over 8,000 men to assemble before launching his attack on the city.
Pakenham finally ordered a two-pronged assault against Jackson's position during the early morning hours of January 8, 1814. The attack began under darkness and a heavy fog, but as the British neared the main enemy line the fog lifted, exposing them to withering artillery fire and musket fire. Poor leadership of the British forces, confusion on the battlefield, the swampy terrain and American tenacity combined to create a debacle for the British, as they tried to overcome the parapet that served as the Americans' defense position. Two large assaults on the Americans were made. Only a handful of British troops made it to the top, but they were either killed or captured. The only British success was on the west bank of the Mississippi River, where a brigade under William Thornton, which comprised of the 85th Regiment and detachments from the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, attacked and overwhelmed the American line. Since Pakenham was dead and both Keane and Major-General Samuel Gibbs were wounded, command of the British forces fell upon Major-General John Lambert. Lambert decided not to renew the attack and withdrew his forces.
In the battle's aftermath, the Royal Navy attacked Fort St. Philip on the following day, January 9, 1815. The British laid siege to the fort for ten days before its ships withdrew on January 18, 1815. On February 4, 1815, the British fleet, with troops aboard, set sail toward Mobile Bay, Alabama. The British army then attacked and captured Fort Bowyer at the mouth of Mobile Bay on February 12, 1815. The following day, the British army began making preparations to attack Mobile, when news arrived of the Treaty of Ghent. The treaty, which officially ended the War of 1812, had been signed on December 24, 1814; in the city of Ghent, Belgium. The British abandoned Fort Bowyer and sailed toward the West Indies. Although the Battle of New Orleans had no influence on the terms of the Treaty of Ghent, the defeat at New Orleans did compel Britain to abide by the treaty.
For more detailed information on the Battle of New Orleans, I recommend the following books:
Over the years there have been many complaints about the inconsistency regarding characters and stories in STAR TREK series, "STAR TREK VOYAGER" (1995-2001). I will not deny that the series has been guilty of the occasional inconsistency. To be frank, all of the five TREK series and many of the franchise's movies are guilty of the same. However, I was shocked and surprised to learn that some of the websites that provide information on the entire franchise turned out to be just as inconsistent.
While perusing the MEMORY ALPHA WIKI website several years ago, I was surprised to discover a major discrepancy featuring one of the major characters on "VOYAGER", namely that of the Chief Engineer, B’Elanna Torres. According to the site, B’Elanna was born in 2349, the same year as Voyager's Operations Chief, Harry Kim. It also included that B’Elanna had joined Starfleet Academy in 2366, right after her last meeting with her mother, Miral Torres. Two years later in 2368, B’Elanna allegedly resigned from Starfleet Academy and not long afterwards, joined Chakotay’s cell in the Maquis. There is another source that confirms this – namely Jeri Taylor’s 1998 Voyager novel, "Pathways". Personally, I had major problems with this summation.
One, I found it hard to believe that B’Elanna had joined the Maquis sometime between 2368 (the year that Chakotay had resigned from Starfleet and joined the Maquis) and 2369. If this is true, then she would have first met the ship's Chief Pilot, Tom Paris, in the Maquis. But the television series had never hinted that B’Elanna and Tom knew each other before Voyager was hurled into the Delta Quadrant in early 2371. The early Season Two episode, (2.05) "Non-Sequitur" made it clear that Tom had served his full sentence of eighteen months in a Federation prison – in an alternate timeline that Harry Kim found himself in. According to the episode and the stardate, Tom had been released from prison in September 2371. Which means that Tom had been captured and imprisoned by the Federation in March 2370. And another Season Two episode, (2.17) "Dreadnought", made it clear that Voyager’s encounter with Cardassian missile occurred nearly on the second anniversary of B’Elanna’s first encounter with the missile – not long after she had joined Chakotay’s cell. According to the stardate, "Dreadnought" occurred in the summer of 2372, which means that B’Elanna had joined Chakotay’s cell sometime during the late spring of 2370.
Also, it is not possible that B’Elanna had joined Starfleet Academy in 2366, after seeing her mother for the last time. According to the late Season Five episode, (5.26) "The Equinox, Part I", B’Elanna had not seen her old Academy boyfriend, Maxwell Burke, in ten years. "The Equinox" was probably set around the end of 2375 or the beginning of 2366, which means that she and Burke had last seen each other in 2365. I am also convinced that it is possible B’Elanna had last met with her mother after resigning from Starfleet Academy and not before joining it, as was indicated in Taylor's novel. Although there is no episode that claimed B’Elanna had last spoken to her mother after leaving Starfleet, the Season Six episode, (6.03) "Barge of the Dead" certainly did not make it clear that she had joined Starfleet Academy after her last meeting with Miral – despite what Wikipedia and Jeri Taylor had claimed.
There is one last reason why I found it difficult to accept that B’Elanna was born in 2349. It happened to be the same birth year as her close friend, Harry Kim. If the two friends had been born in the same year, this meant that both had entered Starfleet Academy around the same time. And both would have immediately been placed on the Engineering track. Their chances of meeting for the first time at the Academy would have been pretty good. Yet, the series premiere episode, (1.01-1.02) "Caretaker" made it pretty clear that B’Elanna and Harry had met for the first time, while in the Ocampan settlement in 2371.
It is the series itself that still makes it easy for me to refute the claim that B’Elanna Torres had joined the Maquis in 2368 or that she had been born in 2349. In regard to the first claim, the stardates provided in episodes like "Non-Sequitur" and "Dreadnought" seemed to contradict Wikipedia or Jeri Taylor that B’Elanna had joined the Maquis in 2368. And episodes like "Caretaker", "The Equinox" and "Barge of the Dead" gave enough evidence to refute the claim that B’Elanna had been born in 2349.
About an hour ago, I had examined the Wikipedia page for B'Elanna's character. Changes had been made. The site no longer claimed that B’Elanna had been born in 2349. Instead, it claimed that she had been born in 2346. I do not know if this is true, but it seems a lot more plausible than its earlier claim. But I would not be surprised if these changes were removed by the site’s webmaster. No matter. I am now satisfied.
Below are images from "PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES", the 2017 entry in the PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN movie franchise. Directed by Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, the movie stars Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow:
"PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MEN TELL NO TELLS" (2017) Photo Gallery
Between the late 1980s and the first few years of the 21st century, communications mogul Ted Turner had produced or oversaw a series of period dramas in the forms of movies and miniseries. Aside from two or three productions, most of them were aired as television movies on the cable network TNT, which is owned by the Turner Broadcasting System. One of those productions was the 1991 movie, "IRONCLADS".
Set during the first year of the U.S. Civil War, "IRONCLADS" is a fictional account of the creations of the first two American ironclads, C.S.S. Virginia (also known as the U.S.S. Merrimack) and the U.S.S. Monitor, and their clash during the Battle of Hampton Roads in March 1862. The movie began in April 1861 with the U.S. Navy personnel being forced to evacuate the Gosport Navy Yard at Norfolk, Virginia, following the state of Virginia's secession from the United States. During the evacuation, Quartermaster's Mate Leslie Harmon deliberately interfered with the militarily necessary demolition of the Navy Yard's dry dock at Hampton Roads Naval Base in order to prevent collateral damage and civilian casualties in the city, as Confederates overran the base. While stationed in Norfolk, Leslie had made friends. Unfortunately, his actions were noticed and he found himself facing court-martial. It seemed the newly formed Confederate Navy used the undamaged naval yard to raise the sunken U.S.S. Merrimack and refit it into an ironclad ship.
Union officer Commodore Joseph Smith gave him the choice between facing court-martial or serving as a Union spy. Leslie was assigned to work with a Virginia belle from Norfolk named Betty Stuart, who had become an abolitionist and Unionist during her years at a boarding school in Baltimore. Betty had also recruited her mother's maid named Opal and the latter's husband, Cletus, as part of her spy ring. Using Leslie's past actions during the Union evacuation as an excuse to label him a Confederate sympathizer, Betty introduced him to Norfolk society. This allowed the pair to spy upon the activities surrounding the development of the Confederate Navy's new ironclad ship. At the same time, the Union Navy recruited John Ericsson to design their own ironclad ship.
Many years - and I do mean many of them - had passed since I last saw "IRONCLADS". It is a miracle that I was able to watch it, considering that it has yet to be released on DVD. When I first saw "IRONCLADS" over twenty years ago, I had been impressed, despite it being a low-budget television movie that aired on a Basic cable station. But seeing it again after twenty-five years or so . . . I am still impressed. I honestly did not think this movie would hold up after a quarter of a century. Mind you, "IRONCLADS" had its flaws. I think this movie could have been longer . . . at least thirty (30) to forty-five (45) minutes longer. After all, it is about the first two ironclads in both U.S. and world history and I believe that Leslie and Betty's activities as spies in Norfolk could have been expanded a bit.
But my one real problem with the movie is the romance between Betty Stuart and Lieutenant Catesby ap Roger Jonesof the Confederate Navy. It was bad enough that Lieutenant Jones, who was roughly 39 to 40 years old during the movie's setting was portrayed by actor Alex Hyde-White, who must have been at least roughly 31 years old during the movie's production. Worse, Betty Stuart was a fictional character. Lieutenant Jones . . . was not. The movie did an excellent job in portraying historical characters such as John Ericsson, Commodore Joseph Smith, Captain Franklin Buchanan of the C.S.S. Virginia, Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles and yes, President Abraham Lincoln. But the movie made a major misstep in creating a romance between the fictional Betty and the historical Lieutenant Jones. I hate it when writers do that. I still have bad memories of George MacDonald Fraser allowing a historical character to be the illegitimate son of his fictional character, Harry Flashman. And the real Catesby ap Jones was already a married man with children during that first year of the Civil War. For the likes of me, I could not understand why screenwriter Harold Gast could not allow Betty to have a romance with another fictional character, who happened to serve aboard the C.S.S. Virginia under Buchanan and Jones.
Despite the above problems, I can honestly say that I still managed to enjoy "IRONCLADS". Thanks to Delmar Mann's direction and Harold Gast's screenplay, the movie proved to be a heady mixture of espionage, military conflict and history. Step-by-step, the movie took television viewers on a road mixed with fiction and fact to that famous sea battle that stunned the rest of the world. What I found even more interesting - and I am sure that many might find this a reason to criticize - is that in an odd way, the production provided well-rounded characters from both the North and the South.
The Betty Stuart character proved to be rather ambiguous. She was a product of the Virginia upper-class, who became an abolitionist and pro-Union . . . without informing her friends and family about her change of allegiance. And yet, her love for Lieutenant Jones led her to betray her allegiance and beliefs. Her situation proved to be so complicated that the only advice I can give is to watch the film, if you can find it. Another complicated character proved to be the Northern-born navy quartermaster-turned-spy, Leslie Harmon. He got into trouble in the first place, because he thought more of the Norfolk civilians than destroying that dry dock. And while one can admire him for his humanity, I found it interesting that he never really considered the slaves who served the upper-and-middle-class citizens of that city. Until he became a spy and witnessed a Confederate Naval intelligence officer named Lieutenant Gilford harshly ordered Cletus to provide another glass of champagne for him. Leslie eventually confessed that he had never paid attention to Norfolk's slaves before the war.
As anyone can see, the topic of slavery managed to play a strong role in this production. After all, Betty's embrace of the abolitionist movement led her to become a pro-Union spy against her fellow Virginians. And she had recruited two of her mother's slaves as part of her slave ring. What I found interesting about this movie is that it presented two incidents in which Opal and Cletus had individually faced the price of being slaves. I have already mentioned Leslie witnessing Lieutenant Gilford's harsh and racist attitude toward Cletus. But for me, I was really put off by Mrs. Stuart's decision to limit Opal's "visit" to her sister to once a year. It was the manner in which she made this order. I found it cool, subtle, indifferent and self-involved. Naturally, Opal serving Mrs. Stuart's needs was more important than the latter having the opportunity to see a relative.
However, this story is about the Monitor and the Merrimack. As I had earlier stated, the movie did a pretty damn good job in leading up to the events of the Battle of Hampton Roads. But let us be honest . . . the actual battle proved to be the movie's pièce de résistance - from that first day when the Merrimack nearly made the Union blockade near Norfolk and Newport News obsolete; to the second in which the two ironclads faced each other. In fact, the battle took up the entire second half. Here, I think Mann, along with film editor Millie Moore, visual effects artist Doug Ferris and the special effects team led by Joel P. Blanchard did an exceptional job of re-creating the Battle of Hampton Roads.
However, the Battle of Hampton Roads sequence was not the only aspect of "IRONCLADS" that I enjoyed. Moore, Ferris and the visual and special effects teams did an admirable job in recreating Washington D.C. and Northern Virginia circa 1861-62. Their work was ably supported by Joseph R. Jennings' production designs; the sound effects created by the sound editing team led by Burton Weinstein; the sound mixing team led by Kenneth B. Ross; Joseph R. Jennings' production designs. By the way, the two sound teams both earned Emmy nominations for their work. I was surprised to discover that another Emmy nomination was given to Noel Taylor for his costume designs. Do not get me wrong. I enjoyed looking at them, especially those costumes worn by Virginia Masden, as shown below:
I found Taylor's costumes colorful and yes . . . beautiful to look at. But if I must be honest, his costumes seemed to have a touch of late 20th century glamour - namely those worn by the Virginian elite - that I found unrealistic.
Looking back at "IRONCLADS", I can honestly say that there was not a performance that blew my mind. The television movie did not feature a performance I would consider worthy of an Emmy nomination. Solid performances came from the likes of E.G. Marshall, Kevin O'Rourke, Leon B. Stevens, Carl Jackson, Andy Park, Burt Edwards and Marty Terry. I thought James Getty was pretty serviceable as President Abraham Lincoln. However, I think he managed to really evoke the memory of "Old Abe" with one particular line - "All I can say is what the girl said when she put her foot in the stocking. It (the U.S.S. Monitor) strikes me there's something in it."
But there were performances that I found very noticeable and effective. One would think that Philip Casnoff's portrayal of naval intelligence officer, Lieutenant Guilford, to be a remake of the villainous character he had portrayed in the television adaptations of John Jakes' "North and South" novels. However, Casnoff's Guilford was no copycat of Elkhannah Bent. The actor effectively portrayed a cool and ruthless spymaster willing to do what it took to protect his new nation. Joanne Dorian gave a very interesting and varied performance as Betty Stuart's shallow and self-involved mother, Blossom Stuart. At times, I found her portrayal of Mrs. Stuart hilarious or amusing. And yet . . . there was that scene in which the actress conveyed the ugliness of her character's selfishness and racism.
Another performance that caught my eye came from Beatrice Bush, who portrayed Mrs. Stuart's enslaved maid, Opal and Betty's fellow spy. During the teleplay's first half, Bush gave a solid performance. But I was truly impressed by how the actress had expressed Opal's shock and suppressed anger over Betty's decision to inform Catesby about their findings regarding the C.S.S. Virginia's plating. I wsa impressed by how Bush effortlessly expressed Opal's anger without allowing the character to lose control. I also enjoyed Fritz Weaver's portrayal of John Ericsson, the Swedish-born immigrant, who became one of the best naval engineers of the 19th century and designer of the U.S.S. Monitor. Weaver gave a very entertaining performance as the tart-tongued engineer who was constantly irritated by U.S. Navy and the Lincoln Administration's doubts over his work or the use of iron clad ships.
Alex Hyde-White gave a charismatic portrayal of Confederate Naval officer, Lieutenant Catsby ap Jones. The actor did a good job in conveying his character charm, professionalism. He also effectively conveyed Jones' anger and confusion upon discovering his love's role as a Union spy. I really enjoyed Reed Diamond's engaging portrayal of the earnest Union Navy quartermaster, Leslie Harmon. I enjoyed how his character had learned a lesson about himself and what this war was about. He also gave, what I believe to be one of the best lines in the movies. Both Hyde-White and Reed managed to create solid chemistry with leading actress, Virginia Madsen.
Speaking of Madsen, and managed to create a solid screen chemistry with lead Virginia Madsen. Superficially, Madsen's Betty Stuart seemed like the typical lead in a period drama - a beautiful and noble woman of high birth who has become dedicated to a cause. What made Betty interesting is that she was a Southern-born woman from a slave-owning family who became a dedicated abolitionist. And this led her to become an effective and yes, manipulative spy. But what I found interesting about Madsen's skillful portrayal is that her character proved to be surprisingly a bit complicated . . . especially when her role as a spy and her feelings for Catsby Jones produced a conflict within her.
I am not going to push the idea that TNT's "IRONCLADS" was a television hallmark or masterpiece. It was a solid 94-minute account of the circumstances that led to the creations of the world's first two ironclads - the C.S.S. Virginia (Merrimack) and the U.S.S. Monitor - and their historic clash in Virginia waters. A part of me wished that this movie - especially the details leading to the Battle of Hampton Roads - had been a bit longer. And I am not that thrilled over screenwriter Harold Gast using a historical figure like Catesby ap Jones as the love interest of the fictional Betty Stuart. But I believe that both Gast and director Delmar Mann had created an interesting, complex and exciting narrative that was enhanced by excellent performances from a cast led by Virginia Madsen.
TIME MACHINE: JOHN BROWN'S CHRISTMAS RAID INTO MISSOURI
When people think of 19th century abolitionist John Brown, they would usually bring up his activities against pro-slavery factions in the Kansas Territory in the mid 1850s, especially the lethal attack he had led against five pro-slavery settlers near Pottawatomie Creek in May 1856. Or they would especially bring up the famous raid on the federal armory at Harpers Ferry, Virginia (West Virginia), with the intent to start a slave liberation movement. However, toward the end of the 1850s, Brown became known for another raid that led him from Missouri to the Canadian border.
On December 19, 1858; a biracial Missouri slave named Jim Daniels had encountered one George Gill, a free black man who happened to be one of Brown's lieutenants near the Missouri-Kansas border. Daniels complained to Gill that his owner Harvey Hicklan planned to sell his wife and children, along with another slave. This sale threatened to break up his family. Gill informed Brown, who saw Daniels' situation as an opportunity for a raid to liberate slaves and strike a blow for abolitionism. Earlier, he had conveyed his plans for an anti-slavery raid into the South, via the Appalachian Mountains to his Northern-born abolitionist supporters. But they had dismissed the idea as unrealistic and advised Brown to return to Kansas and lie low. However, Brown saw Daniels' plea to help prevent his family from being sold as an opportunity. He believed this raid and the 1,100 mile exodus to Canada would provide a good deal of press attention for his cause.
Brown's previous activities, especially the Pottawatomie Creek killings had made him persona non grata with many Americans - including a good number of abolitionists - by late 1858. Many Southerners wanted him captured or dead. His return to Missouri soil had infuriated many citizens of that state. By December 20, Brown had managed to gather twenty (20) riders to lead this latest raid into Western Missouri. He split his followers into three groups in order to free neighboring blacks on the same trip. Brown's group held up Harvey Hicklan at gunpoint, extracted Jim Daniels and the latter's family and took some of Hicklan's possessions to support the freed slaves. Brown sent a second group to John Larue's nearby farm t liberate four slaves and kidnap Larue as a hostage. A third group, led by Aaron Stevens (another Brown lieutenant), surprised David Cruise at his farmhouse and liberated a female slave. Believing that Cruise was reaching for a weapon, Stevens shot him dead.
Cruise's death transformed the raid from a rescue into an act that infuriated Kansans, Missourians and Southerners. The act, the slave escapes and Larue's kidnapping led to a great deal of negative press by the newspapers in those regions. Missouri's governor, Robert Marcellus Stewart, offered a reward of $3,000 for Brown's capture. Because of the publicity, Brown's efforts to lead the fugitive slaves and his men through Kansas and up north became increasingly difficult. Brown and his men were forced to keep the fugitives hidden inside the homes of anti-slavery supporters in the area near Osawatomie, Kansas for a month. One of the fugitives, a woman who happened to be pregnant around the time of her rescue, gave birth to a baby boy, who was named after Brown. However, the abolitionist, his men and the fugitives realized that none of them were safe, especially after nearly being spotted by pro-slavers on two separate occasions. On January 20, 1859; Brown, his men and fugitives resumed their journey north by heading for the Kansas-Nebraska Territory border.
Despite the negative press that covered Brown's journey; Brown, his men and the fugitives continued to receive aid from local anti-slavery supporters. On the night of January 24, 1859; Brown, Gill, eleven fugitives and the newborn baby had arrived at the farm of Major James Abbott near Lawrence, Kansas. Abbott provided them with food, clothing and fresh horses before they resumed their journey. Brown and his companions were nearly captured, following their arrival in Topeka, during a severe snowstorm. They were forced to spend the night at a nearby village called Holton. The following day, the party - including the remaining raiders - reached Spring Creek. Unfortunately, the water was too high for crossing by wagon or horseback. Brown was nearly in a state of panic, for he had learned both a local posse and one sent by Missouri's governor were waiting for them. Brown and his party managed to slip away to Fuller's Crossing . . . where a large posse of around one hundred men awaited them.
Brown remained calm and led his party across the raging creek. Following the crossing, the raiders and the fugitive slaves became engaged in a gun battle with eighty members of the posse. In a bold move, Brown and his party charged the posse members and drove the latter out of the area. The posse members were so intent upon retreating that two men rode some of their horses, digging their boot spurs into the animals. Ironically, there were no fatalities during the incident. Not only was it reported by the press, but also dubbed in newspapers as "the Battle of the Spurs".
After traveling through the eastern half of the Nebraska Territory, Brown and his party reached the free state of Iowa. Brown had used the state as a hideout during his anti-slavery activities in 1855 and 1856. Although they were allowed shelter in some of the Iowans' homes, they were not allowed to remain longer than one night, due to David Cruise's death. However, Brown and his party received friendlier receptions in communities like Des Moines, Grinnell and Springdale. Brown and fellow raider John Henry Kagi were nearly captured when they made an overnight visit to Iowa City. On March 9, Springdale's citizens accompanied Brown's party to West Liberty, where the latter boarded a railroad box car to Chicago, Illinois. They arrived in the latter city on March 11, at 3:30 a.m.
The party remained at the home of private detective and future Secret Service leader and Presidential bodyguard, Allan Pinkerton. The detective hid them at his home and at two other houses for several days, as he tried to raise funds for the raiders. Ironically, Pinkerton managed to raise a good deal of cash from fellow members of the Chicago Judiciary Convention, when he blurted out John Brown's presence in the city.
After raising $600 dollars, Pinkerton and his son conveyed Brown, the fugitives and the raiders to the Chicago railroad station. They boarded a boxcar for Detroit, Michigan. Upon their arrival in Detroit, the fugitive slaves and most of the raiders boarded a ferry that conveyed them across the Detroit River into Canada and freedom. Only Brown remained in the United States. After bidding them farewell, he headed for Oberlin, Ohio in order to visit the imprisoned rescuers involved in the Oberlin-Wellington Rescue.
The Christmas 1858 Raid of 1858 led to a 1,100 mile journey from Missouri, through Kansas Territory, Nebraska Territory, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan and finally Canada. The raid provided a great deal of national press coverage for John Brown. President James Buchanan offered a reward of $250 for Brown's capture. Missouri Governor Robert Marcellus Stewart continued to offer a reward of $3,000. The raid convinced Brown's Northern abolition supporters that his plan for a raid into the South via the Appalachian Mountains in order to lead the slaves into a major rebellion might work. Seven months later, John Brown led his famous raid to Harper's Ferry, Virginia.
