Final answer:
John Brown asserts he did not incite slaves to rebellion, possibly to clarify that his aim was a more principled opposition to slavery rather than engendering spontaneous, violent revolts among slaves. This statement differentiates him from being seen as a provocateur of immediate insurrections, which were feared and harshly retaliated against by the slaveholding society.
Step-by-step explanation:
When John Brown states in the last paragraph that he did not "excite slaves to rebel," he is likely attempting to convey that his actions should not be interpreted as an incitement of violent rebellion or uprising among slaves. Instead, Brown's focus was on broader moral opposition to the institution of slavery and possibly a struggle against it from a position of ethical principle, rather than immediate incitement to revolt. By stating this, Brown could be trying to differentiate his motivations and the direct actions he took from the violent and uncontrollable nature of slave rebellions, which could cause mass fear and retaliation from those supporting slavery.
The context surrounding Brown's statements includes his reputation for being a radical abolitionist and his participation in the raid on Harpers Ferry, which was an attempt to initiate a slave uprising. Although this raid did embody a form of rebellion, when Brown claims he did not excite slaves to rebel, he may be trying to communicate that he was not acting with the intention of causing individual slaves to rise up spontaneously and violently against their owners, but rather he was seeking to end the institution of slavery through what he saw as necessary confrontation.