A Protest Lost to History: The Saved Execution of John L. Brown
In the fall of 1843, a man named John L. Brown was arrested and eventually sentenced to death for helping an enslaved woman escape slavery in Fairfield County, South Carolina (Speers 130). Although news of Brown's arrest and execution would not immediately make waves within the American or international news circuit, an article from a New York newspaper would eventually be sent overseas to Europe ("The Land of the Free" 12), sparking a wildfire of outrage and horror throughout the United Kingdom. Despite Brown's case making headlines just three months prior to the day Brown was scheduled to be executed, after a plethora of protests, petitions, and letters published by well-known abolitionists, Brown would be pardoned two months after news reached Europe, showing the power in collective action. Brown's story acts as an essential reminder to current generations of the importance of standing up for one's beliefs, the power of collective action, and the humanity of seeking justice for those in need.
Despite Brown's trial and execution being a massive headline in United Kingdom, not much factual information regarding Brown's history or the circumstances surrounding his case survived into the twenty-first century. British newspapers, as well as a handful of American newspapers, memorialized Brown's story; however, many of these newspapers contain misinformation, such as the case occurring in New Orleans, or information that cannot be verified, such as Brown and the enslaved woman planning to marry after their escape. Nevertheless, legal documents show that Brown tried to appeal his conviction in December 1843. These appeal documents state that prior to his arrest, Brown was a native of Fairfield County, and the woman he tried to help escape was named Hetty. Hetty was reportedly owned by a woman named Charlotte Hinton, who lived in Colombia, South Carolina, but was working for a man named John Taylor in Fairfield County, where she received more freedom than usual, creating the perfect environment for Brown and Hetty to plan an escape. In the appeal document, Brown's judge, John Belton O'Neall, and the prosecution argue that Brown and Hetty were in love, although no viable sources can substantiate this claim. Judge O'Neall, however, argued that Hetty manipulated Brown, whom he described as young and naïve (Speers 130-137). Brown's appeal was denied, and on January 21st, he was sentenced by O'Neall to death by hanging, which was planned to occur on April 26th, 1844 ("The Land of the Free" 12).
News of Brown's scheduled execution reached the United Kingdom on February 9th, 1844, by a New York newspaper. Entitled "Land of the Free" (Fig. 1), this first printing of Brown's story related basic information of the case, such as Brown's accused crime and deadly fate ("The Land of the Free" 12). Copies of this article spread throughout the United Kingdom almost daily, sparking interest and dismay for America's legal system overseas. Occasionally, editors included short, biting messages to America, locked within brackets, such as the editor from the Kendal Mercury, who wrote, "[From this, it would appear that the Americans consider the services of their slaves more valuable than the lives of free men]" ("Publishment" 3).
Brown's case gained even more notoriety in the United Kingdom after a New Orleans newspaper, The New Orleans Bee (“Slavery at New Orleans” 1), sent a copy of Judge O'Neall's sentencing speech from January 21st, which was published in the United Kingdom on February 24th, 1844 (Fig. 2). O'Neall's speech garnered wide-spread attention due to O'Neall's inhumane language, telling Brown, "You are to die!— die a shameful, ignominious death, the death upon the gallows," and "If you had remembered your Creator in your past days, you would not be in a felon's place to receive a felon's judgment," ("Sentence of Death” 4). These particular lines within O'Neall speech would infuriate devoted abolitionists and sympathetic Christians alike, causing a sea of opinion pieces and open letters dedicated to America to be published in the following weeks, denouncing O'Neall both as a Christian and a man of the law (Fig. 3).
On March 14th, 1844, just slightly over a month from when the first article detailing Brown's case was published in the European press, the Members and Friends of Glasgow Emancipation Society held a public meeting at Relief Chapel to condemn America and O'Neall (Fig 4). The meeting was chaired by Baillie Hastie and consisted of at least six speakers, many of whom were reverends, such as Reverend William Reid from Edinburgh, Reverend George Jeffery from Glasgow, and Reverend William Anderson. According to reporters, every space in the chapel was full an hour before the meeting started. The meeting concluded that going forward, in order to protest Brown's execution and slavery in America, the group's Treasury would boycott American goods that were created under the system of slavery ("Glasgow Emancipation” 2).
Brown's case became increasingly prolific within the European press and consciousness with every passing day in March. On March 16th, a reporter stated in an article summarizing the events during a circus show at the Royal Theatre that Brown's case was mentioned between acts. The host reportedly asked audience members if they had heard of Brown's case and O'Neall's horrific language (“The Glorious Feed” 11), showing that Brown's case was no longer just a story in a newspaper but had become so massive within the United Kingdom's consciousness that it became was a topic of discussion during times that were meant to be an escape from the outside world.
On March 18th, the Patriot published an open letter written by abolitionist Thomas Clarkson, addressed to Joseph Soul. In his letter, Clarkson stated that he grieves for Brown and the legal system that America lives under. He also gave a better understanding of the American public's reaction to Brown's case, stating that on the same day news of Brown's execution was publicized in Britain, the American newspaper, The Free Labor Advocate, made a religious appeal to American Christians and promoted a public meeting to condemn Brown's sentencing. Clarkson concluded his letter by stating that an American friend of his is hopeful that O'Neall is not serious in his decision to execute Brown due to the execution being scheduled three months after Brown's sentencing rather than immediately following his sentencing hearing ("American Slavery— Humanity” 5).
During this same week, the Annual Anti-Slavery Society held a meeting in London in order to discuss three proceedings, one of which pertained to condemning Brown's sentence. Five thousand people reportedly attended this public meeting. Lord Brougham was expected to take the chair and discuss Brown's case, but to many members' dismay, he was absent from the event. Daniel O'Connell, instead, responded to O'Neall's speech, denouncing O'Neall's use of religion to justify Brown's execution. O'Connell also indicated that a rumor had been circulating in Britain that Brown had been pardoned but clarified that this rumor was not true ("Anti-Slavery Society" 2). Despite Lord Brougham's lack of attendance at the Annual Anti-Slavery Society meeting, Lord Chief Justice Denman mentioned Brown's case in front of the House of Lords the next day, on March 18th, 1844 ("Parliamentary” 2), showing that Brown's case not only garnered the attention of activists and entertainers, but prolific politicians as well.
As Brown's case continued to spread throughout the United Kingd in late March of 1844, more and more people wanted their horrified voices to be heard. Petitions started to be published in the newspapers, some of which asked churches to spread Brown's story to their congregation (“American Slavery” Patriot 3). On March 23rd, the Members and Friends of the Glasgow Emancipation Society held another meeting, this time with the goal of convincing Glasgow’s Chief Magistrate, Baillie Urquhart, to pass a resolution in condemnation of Brown's case ("Public Meeting— Sentencing" 3). On this same day, Elizur Wright wrote a public letter addressed to the editor of The Morning Advertiser, in which case he thanked the United Kingdom for their work to save Brown's life. In this letter, Wright explained that Brown's case had not caused the same reaction in America due to some Americans fearing that public outcry would encourage O'Neall to speed up Brown's execution, other Americans being apathetic to injustice ("American Slavery and Repudation" 3).
Within just the last week of March, three more meetings were held in the United Kingdom, and one open letter was published. On March 26th, 1844, the Committee of the Congressional Union of Scotland ("American Slavery" Witness (Edinburgh) 1), and the Liverpool Anti-Slavery Committee ("Case of J. L. Brown" 16) both held meetings to discuss and protest Brown's case. The next day, a letter from Reverend Joshua Levitt was published ("Slavery in America,” 1). On March 29th, Brown's case was brought to the government's attention again during a public meeting convened by the magistrates in Edinburgh (“At Public Meeting” 1). It was also during this week that another petition was published, asking people to sign a circular that would be sent to American churches in order to rally their support ("Miscellaneous,” 12).
As March quickly faded into April and Brown's execution date drew closer and closer, the United Kingdom's collective action only grew. On April 1st, 1844, which was also Easter Monday, Brown's case was mentioned at the Aggregate Meeting of Teetotalers, which was reported as having over five thousand attendees ("At an Aggregate” 1). On this same day, the Patriot published a letter addressing churches in South Carolina, trying to appeal to their religious values and encourage them to fight for Brown's liberation (American Slavery. The Case” 4). The Patriot also published a petition for people to sign ("American Slavery— The Memorial” 6). On April 2nd, another public meeting was held at Cupar (“Public Meeting” 2), and on April 3rd, the Birmingham Anti-Slavery Committee (“The Case of John” 4), and the National Complete Suffrage Union both held meetings (“"The Complete Suffrage” 4). On April 5th, another public meeting organized by local magistrates was held in Belfast (The American Conviction” 2).
Finally, on April 9th, the United Kingdom learned that their hard work was not fruitless, as Aurora published an article stating that, according to American newspapers, Brown received a partial pardon. Rather than being executed on April 26th, Brown would be publicly lashed ("Tuesday, April 9” 2). News of Brown's partial pardon garnered excitement and frustration throughout the United Kingdom. While many people were happy Brown's life was saved, many were upset that he was ordered to receive lashes, believing his accused crime was not a crime at all and did not warrant any punishment. More information surrounding Brown's partial pardon was revealed on April 19th in an article from the Morning Herald (London) that published a letter O'Neall wrote, addressed to an editor in Pittsburg. In a note preceding O'Neall's letter, the editor from the Morning Herald stated that O'Neall's letter appeared to have been written in response to a meeting that occurred in Pittsburg, where word of the speaker's biting remarks regarding O'Neall's character spread to South Carolina ("Safety of John” 6).
A few weeks following the publication of O'Neall's letter to an editor in Pittsburg, another letter from O'Neall was published on June 5th but dated to having been written on May 1st. This letter was addressed to Baillie Hastie, the chairman of the Members and Friends of Glasgow Emancipation Society, who had organized two meetings in response to Brown's case. In this letter, O'Neall stated that he was astonished and horrified that even Scotland now knows his name and stated that Brown is not the martyr that Britain believes him to be. O'Neall also angrily stated that despite him only granting Brown a partial pardon, Brown received zero lashings on April 26th. Throughout the letter, O'Neall largely tried to defend himself, stating he was a man of the law and that it was not his job to agree with legislation but to enforce it. He also defended himself by stating that Brown was prosecuted under a law that was implemented in 1750 when America was under British rule ("Case of John" 3).
O'Neall's letter garnered varying reactions throughout the United Kingdom, although most of the European press appeared to ignore O'Neall's claims regarding Brown's character, instead focusing on abolitionist's success in garnering Brown's pardon, as well as O'Neall's claims that the law Brown was prosecuted under was implemented under British rule. Alex Hastie, a relative to Baillie Hastie, responded to O'Neall's letter, stating, "The abolitionists of Glasgow could hardly desire stronger confirmation of the propriety of continuing their exertions in the cause of humanity," ("Case of John" 3). Despite Brown's case losing its limelight in the twenty-first century, Brown's case acted as an important lesson to the European public concerning the power of collective voice in response to injustice and is a lesson that is still vital for current and future generations across the world.