Beaubien, Brian

History 201, Section 20193

11/29/99

Samuel Green

On April 4, 1857, a man by the name of Samuel Green, a free black and a lay minister in the Methodist Episcopal Church, was taken from his home and incarcerated. Charges were levied against him by the state of Maryland under two indictments. The first indictment charged that he knowingly had in his possession "[an] abolition pamphlet...of an inflammatory character..." The second indictment charged that he knowingly had in his possession "abolition papers and pictorial representation of an inflammatory character..." What could he possibly have had in his possession to warrant incarceration under those two indictments? The answer: a copy of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin and a map of Canada.

There is no way of ascertaining for certain how it was known that Green was in possession of a copy of the novel, though there are many possibilities. The first is that it was merely common knowledge among the population that he owned a copy. Second, he could have openly spoken of the book or its contents, not knowing that the State of Maryland considered the book an abolition pamphlet. A third possibility is that a jealous slave, who envied Green’s position in society as a free man, could have made a false report to the authorities. The authorities could then have searched Green’s home and found the book. Regardless of how it was known, the first volume of the book was found in his possession. The first part of the book was never located, and it is theorized that he lent the first volume to someone as he read the second. This also seems like a viable source for the knowledge that Green possessed the novel.

The way in which the authorities were apprised of Green’s mischievous reading habits is somewhat trivial in comparison to the charges levied against him. Before delving into the trial however, an examination of the true motives of the State of Maryland would be beneficial. In order to understand those motives, one must also understand the state of the country as a whole at the time. In 1857 the country was on the brink of another revolution. That revolution was brought about, at least in part, by the institution of slavery. Each issue has two sides, and for the many in the south who believed that slavery was beyond reproach and was an institution whose existence was necessary for the economic survival of the south, there were those in the north who believed the exact opposite. Maryland was in a unique position, and not at all an enviable one, in that it was one of the states that separated the north from the south. Thus, both sides of this issue were represented in the state.

One way in which those who called for the abolition of slavery could rise against it was to assist slaves in escaping to the north, and to freedom. At one point, slaves in Samuel Green’s area began to attempt escapes with ever increasing frequency, and on their way to Delaware, they happened to pass by Green’s residence. It could have been a coincidence, as his home was situated on the only road that led to Delaware from that area, but the slave holders in the area failed to believe in coincidences. Therefore, they placed the majority of the blame for the loss of their labor on Green. Unfortunately for them, there was absolutely no way to prove that Green had any hand in the escapes. Therefore, they looked to a law which had been used only one time before, and charged Green with possessing abolitionist literature.

Green’s first trial, on the second indictment, began on April 24, 1857, with arguments heard not by a jury, but by Judge Thomas A. Spence (Green first requested a jury trial, but later withdrew that motion). In the second indictment, Green was charged with "knowingly having in his possession certain abolition papers and pictorial representation of an inflammatory character calculated to create discontent amongst the colored population of this state." The documents found in his home to allegedly support the charge were a letter from his son (who resided in Canada at the time), a railroad schedule to Canada, and a map of Canada. The prosecution in this trial argued that any literature that would entice slaves to run away fell under the umbrella of the Act of 1841, Chapter 272, which reads, in part:

[I]f any free negro or mulatto shall knowingly receive or have in his or her possession any abolition handbill, pamphlet, newspaper, pictorial representation or other paper of an inflammatory character, having a tendency to create discontent amongst or stir up to insurrection the people of color in this State, he or she shall be deemed guilty of felony, and upon conviction shall be sentenced to undergo a confinement in the Penitentiary of this State for a period of not less than ten nor more than twenty years, from the time of sentence pronounced on such offender.

The defense, however, contended that the law pertained only to "...discontent of an insurrectionary character." He argued that the map and railroad schedule could not be construed as attempting to elicit feelings of discontent that would manifest themselves in insurrection. Judge Spence agreed with the defense in this trial, and acquitted Green.

Green’s second trial came immediately on the heels of his first, and the outcome was quite different. He was tried under the same law as the first trial and the indictment was much like the one in the previous trial, and referred to the "...abolition pamphlet called ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin...’" Judge Spence found Uncle Tom’s Cabin "was an abolition pamphlet such as is contemplated by the law, and that its possession by Green, under the circumstances, was a clear violation of the Act of 1841, chapter 272." There were questions as to the possibility of acts of collusion among the prosecution, defense and the judge. It is theorized that the defense attorneys in both cases and the prosecution worked together to secure an acquittal in the first trial that would, in turn, secure a conviction in the second. The legal verbiage used in the ruling of the first case ensured that Green would be found guilty in the second trial. Further fueling the conspiracy theory were the circumstances surrounding the personal lives of both of Green’s court appointed attorneys. The attorney in the first trial was Daniel M. Henry, who not only spoke out against abolitionists, but also against the rights of both slaves and free blacks. The second attorney, James Wallace, was a slave owner. However, he was also a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and might have looked upon that tie with Green as a reason to provide him with the best possible defense. Despite all rumors, accusations and conjectures, Samuel Green was sentenced to 10 years in the state penitentiary.

It was not long after his sentencing that word of the guilty verdict spread across the nation. It elicited surprise and indignation from the northern states who could not believe that a man was put in prison for possessing a book. Even in the south, South Carolina to be exact, a feeling existed in one of the local papers that something more had to have been behind the conviction. Petitions were passed around the area in an attempt to garner a pardon from Governor Thomas Watkins Ligon. One particular petition was denounced in a letter to the Governor by eight planters who lived in the same area as Green. The petition in question was signed by twenty-four members of the community. The number of individuals who signed the petition is indicative of the amount of support he had from the community. By the time the letter made it to the Governor, there had been an election, and a new governor had been elected. The new Governor, Thomas Holliday Hicks, hailed from the same area as the planters, who were calling for Green’s continued incarceration. Not only were they from the same area, but the planters were politically active. Self preservation being a constant in the mind of every politician, Hicks would not even consider the option of granting Green a pardon. Political self preservation was not the only type of self preservation on his mind. He felt that his personal safety would be in question if he pardoned Green. In fact, he stated that if he pardoned Green, he would be lynched.

Petitions calling for the pardoning of Green were not only local, but national as well. He was a lay minister in the Methodist Episcopal Church, and many members of that church supported him. One hundred fourteen ministers from the Black River Conference in New York sent a petition to Governor Hicks requesting a pardon, but one was not forthcoming. Then, in 1859, his local church organized a move to request a pardon, but that was also rejected by the governor. One might wonder why it took so long for the church to intercede on his behalf, and the answer to that question is not a simple one to answer. Ingrained in the reasoning, however, is the omnipresence of slavery as an issue in Maryland at the time. Slavery was also ingrained in the society of some churchgoers, much to the chagrin of the leaders of the church. When the church was created, it was created with an open "...abhorrence to the practice of slavery..." Further, the church vowed that it would "..not cease to seek its destruction by all wise and prudent means." Over the years, the church’s view on slavery amongst its members softened slightly. The softening was not enough for some slave owning states, and in 1846, there was a split within the church. The slave owning states formed the Methodist Episcopal Church South, and this gave the Northern Church less reason to hold back its views against slavery. However, some members of the Northern Church did not share the strong views against slavery, but chose not to ally with the Southern Church. Thus, the rift was not only among factions of the Church, but also among members of the Northern Church as well.

After the news of the letter from the Black River Conference, Governor Hicks was inundated with letters and petitions demanding the release of Green. Some called for anybody taking exception to the conviction to write and express their views to Judge Spence. Still, all requests and petitions went unheeded, and when Hicks ended his term of office in 1862, Samuel Green was still in prison. The man who took over for Hicks, Augustus Williamson Bradford, changed that.

One of Bradford’s first official acts as Governor was to pardon Green, specifically at the request of a prominent Baltimore Quaker, Francis Thompson King, and another unnamed Quaker. King was not the only influence in his pardon, however. Green’s religion, which was the same as the newly elected governor, played a large part in his pardon, as did the Northern control in Maryland, which also ended much of the popularity of pro-slavery sentiment in the state. On April 21, 1862, almost a full month after his official pardon, Green was released from prison. There was one condition pertaining to his pardon. He was to leave the State of Maryland no less than sixty days following his release. This was not a problem for Green, or his wife, Kitty, who were planning to move to Canada just prior to his arrest.

Green was pardoned, with the help from many in his church, who fought for his freedom, as well as from Quakers in the area. As the account of the pardon spread throughout the nation, Governor Bradford was praised in many papers for his noble action. The following is an excerpt from the May 10, 1862 issue of the National Anti-Slavery Standard:

Last week Gov. Bradford granted Mr. Green a pardon, and released him from his unjust captivity, on condition of his expatriation, which was required by the County Court of Dorchester and the State’s Attorney, and which was readily conceded by the prisoner, because he had determined to remove to Canada just previous to his arrest and condemnation...All hail to Gov. Bradford for this just exercise of executive clemency! When the authors of the infamous law that consigned Green to a dungeon for having "Uncle Tom’s Cabin" in his possession, and the judiciary that executed its iniquitous provinces against this helpless black man, who in intellect and morals is the superior of his persecutors shall be remembered only to be scorned, Gov. Bradford’s righteous pardon of the patient victim will stand out as an act of compassion that will shine brighter and brighter to the end, and will be blessed by the millions of colored freemen who are destined yet to a higher civilization that which their once white masters boasted of.

While Bradford was being praised, people were continuing to question the verdict that placed Green in prison to begin with. Bradford had hoped that a pardon would silence those questions, but that did not happen. Samuel Green began his trek northward as soon as he possibly could after his release from prison. He stopped along his way to preach at different churches and congregations. Along the way, he met Harriet Beecher Stowe, who penned the novel that caused Green’s incarceration. It is believed that she may have persuaded Theodore Tilton, a reporter for The Independent, a paper from New York, to help raise money for Green on his way to Canada. With the help of those funds, Green made it to Canada, and closed out his life near Salford, Ontario, close to his son, and in presumed happiness.