Celia, a Slave Page 13
Thus, the jury instructions requested by the defense threatened some elemental assumptions within southern society. These threatened assumptions were essential both to the routine operations of slavery and to the intellectual defense of the institution that southerners had constructed. They were also essential to the slaveholders’ economic interest in the sexual activity of their slaves, and even to the relationship between white men and women. Because of the serious potential threats they posed to slavery, and to that society’s essentially patriarchal organization, it was inevitable that Judge William Hall would sustain the state’s objections and refuse to deliver them to the jury.
The instructions that Judge Hall delivered to the jury rendered irrelevant any personal doubts about Celia’s guilt that individual jurors might have held because of moral or ethical considerations. Denied the ability to acquit on grounds of self-defense, or to find that Celia was justified in using force to repel her master’s sexual demands, the jury had no choice but to arrive at one verdict. William Hall’s instructions negated Jameson’s courtroom presentation skills, and the jury returned a guilty verdict. Judge Hall then remanded Celia to jail to await sentencing.23
On the following day, October 11, Celia’s three attorneys appeared in court on her behalf and moved “the court to set aside the verdict of the jury … and grant a new trial.” The defense justified its motion for a new trial on several grounds, all highly critical of Judge Hall’s conducting of the trial. The court, according to defense motions, had allowed illegal and incompetent testimony on behalf of the state, excluded legal defense testimony from the jury, refused crucial jury instructions requested by the defense, allowed illegal instructions on behalf of the state, and “refused to give the jury legal instructions as to the law of the case prayed for by the defendant.” Judge Hall’s rulings, according to the defense, resulted in a verdict that was “against the weight of the evidence, and contrary to the law and evidence,” and thus a verdict that was ”defective, irregular and informal.”24
For reasons not indicated in the trial record, Judge Hall did not rule immediately on the defense’s request for a new trial, nor did he sentence Celia. Instead there was a delay of one day in both sentencing and ruling on the retrial motion. Perhaps the delay was used to confer with the defense attorneys, or to gauge the political implications of his actions, especially since slavery continued to be a topic of public concern because of continuing events in Kansas. It is also possible that the delay had nothing to do with Celia’s trial. Whatever his reason, Judge Hall waited until October 13 to pronounce sentence upon Celia, sentencing her to be “hanged by the neck until dead on the sixteenth day of November 1855.” Judge Hall also ordered that Celia “be remanded to jail and kept in close confinement until her execution.” Judge Hall then overruled the defense’s motion for a retrial, a decision to which the “defendant objected and excepted.” The defense immediately countered by requesting an appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court, which was granted.25
Tried, convicted, and sentenced to death, Celia was returned to her cell to await her execution. Pregnancy would have delayed Celia’s execution date, for under Missouri law a pregnant woman could not be executed, but it is not certain that Celia was pregnant at the time of the trial. The testimony indicates that she was not, for Jameson specifically questioned William Powell about her appearance that June, just after she had killed Newsom. Powell replied that at the time he questioned Celia he did not know that she was pregnant, but that he judged from her appearance that she was. Powell’s testimony indicates that Celia was not pregnant at the time of the trial. Also, the trial testimony of Virginia Waynescot fixed February as the date Celia “took sick.” Assuming that sickness resulted from her third pregnancy, she must have conceived sometime in January. If this was the case, even if she were pregnant at the time of the trial she should have delivered by mid-November, the date set for her execution. The relationship of her pregnancy to the date of her execution becomes a moot point, however, for some time during her incarceration, whether before or after her trial is not recorded, Celia delivered a stillborn infant while attended by a Dr. Cotten, whose fee the court paid.26
Delivered of her dead child, the condemned Celia could only hope that the Missouri Supreme Court would intervene on her behalf. Yet the possibility existed that she would be executed before the supreme court could hear her appeal. According to Missouri law, it was within the trial judge’s jurisdiction to issue a stay order to prevent Celia’s execution before the supreme court considered her appeal. In a move that must have astonished the defense, Judge Hall refused to issue the requested order for a stay of execution. Evidence presented during the trial perhaps convinced Hall that Celia was deserving of immediate death. It is more likely, however, that once a verdict was rendered the judge wished to dispose of the case as quickly as possible because of political tensions within the state resulting from the ongoing debates over slavery and Kansas. Whatever his reasons, at this juncture in the case of Celia versus Missouri, Judge William Hall again faced a ruling fraught with moral overtones. With his refusal to issue a stay of execution order only the Missouri Supreme Court could intervene on Celia’s behalf, and it had to do so before the circuit court’s sentence was executed on November 16.27
Chapter Seven
FINAL DISPOSITION
THE exact nature of Celia’s appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court is unknown, for no copy of the appeals document exists. The list of what the defense perceived as irregularities in the conduct of Celia’s trial, however, provides a good indication of the language of the appeal. In whatever language the appeal was couched, Judge Hall’s failure to issue a stay of execution order rendered it of no avail unless the supreme court acted quickly. As the defense waited for an answer from the supreme court, Celia’s execution date drew nearer. By early November it was apparent to Jameson and his colleagues that a very real probability existed that Celia would be executed before the supreme court considered her appeal.
At this juncture, Celia’s case took an unexpected turn, one that underscores the moral dilemma her case had thrust upon the people of Fulton and Callaway County. As her date of execution approached, the injustice not only of the trial and its verdict, but also of Hall’s refusal to grant a stay of execution, convinced her defense that drastic action must be taken if Celia was to avoid being hanged on November 16.
On the night of November 11, Celia and another black named Matt, also under sentence of death, escaped from the Callaway County jail. Evidence in Celia’s file indicates that the escape was planned, that Celia was removed from the jail to prevent her death before a ruling from the supreme court, and that her attorneys, if not involved in her actual escape, were at least aware that she had been freed for that purpose. Writing to the supreme court weeks after Celia’s “escape,” Jameson, Boulware, and Kouns explained that she did not accomplish her escape unaided. They acknowledged that she “was taken out by some one,” although they gave no indication of who that someone might have been. In this extraordinary document, addressed to Abiel Leonard, a circuit court attorney of exceptional ability who had that same year been elected to the supreme court, the three defense attorneys admitted to strong personal feelings about the case. “We feel more than ordinary interest in behalf of the girl Celia,” they explained, “believing that she did the act (of slaying Newsom) to prevent a forced sexual assault on the part of Newsom.” In a surprisingly blatant effort to bring political pressure, or at least the weight of public opinion, to bear upon the court, the defense also revealed that Celia’s case had divided the white community. They informed the supreme court justices that “the greater portion of the community here are much interested in her behalf,” clearly implying that the majority of Callaway’s citizens opposed Hall’s refusal to issue a stay order, if not Celia’s conviction.1
The defense’s admission that Celia was deliberately broken out of jail to prevent her execution before a supreme court ruling is indirectly supported b
y a newspaper account of the “escape.” The press account, gleaned from the columns of the Fulton Telegraph and carried by Columbia’s Dollar Missouri Journal, notes that Matt, the other slave who escaped, “was returned the next morning,” or November 12. Celia, on the other hand, remained at large on November 15, the date on which the report was filed. That Matt “was returned” indicates that he was removed from jail by a party or parties and then purposely and immediately returned by them. The newspaper writer did not say that Matt “was captured,” a term that would not have indicated that he was surrendered by a third party.2 That both Matt and Celia were convicted of murder and yet only Matt “was returned” further suggests that Celia’s escape was planned, and that she remained free because certain individuals desired that she do so.
Precisely how long Celia remained at large is not known, but she was not “recaptured,” as her defense attorneys explained to the supreme court, until after her original execution date had passed. The evidence in her file strongly suggests that Celia was hidden by those who engineered her escape until after her original execution date had passed, then returned to her captors. This series of events is strongly implied in defense counsel’s letter to the supreme court, which states that Celia was “not taken until after the 16th of Nov.,” and that the circuit court had set another date, December 21, for her execution. The defense counsel begged the court to examine the record, which they enclosed, expressing satisfaction that the court would find that Judge Hall gave illegal instructions to the jury, while refusing to issue legal ones. The letter concluded with a direct indictment of Hall’s judicial conduct, charging that he “indeed cut out all means of defense.”3
Since defense counsel’s letter to Judge Leonard was dated December 6, we know that Celia had been returned to custody sometime between November 16, the original execution date, and December 6. This fact, and the additional information about her “escape” contained in defense counsel’s letter to Justice Leonard and the newspaper account, strongly suggest the manner in which one group of Fulton and Callaway County citizens, including perhaps one or more of Celia’s attorneys, responded to Celia’s dilemma and the moral quandary with which her situation presented them. To prevent her execution before every legal means of appeal was exhausted, they conspired to, and did, remove her from the county jail. However, the evidence suggests that Celia’s benefactors were not prepared to ignore Missouri law totally, so once her original execution date had passed and it appeared that the supreme court would have an opportunity to hear her appeal, Celia was returned to jail.
There is no indication in the record, either in press accounts or defense counsel’s correspondence, that those who aided Celia planned to free her, to see that she reached a free state where she would be immune from further prosecution. The absence of any reference to efforts to remove Celia to free territory presents further circumstantial evidence that one or more of her attorneys were involved in her escape, for such halfway measures would have appealed to lawyers torn between respect for the law and contempt for what they considered Judge Hall’s morally inappropriate rulings in Celia’s trial. This supposition is further supported by the fact that once Celia was returned to confinement, defense counsel again became concerned that the supreme court act on her appeal before her newly assigned execution date was to arrive. It was this concern that prompted defense counsel’s letter to Judge Leonard, in which they urged the supreme court to issue a stay of execution order “until the case can be tried in the Supreme Court in January next.” The attorneys implored the court to “please give the matter your earliest attention.”4
Although the timing of defense counsel’s appeal to Judge Leonard was determined by Celia’s scheduled date of execution, other factors led them to express their personal concerns about the moral issues raised by the case. Thus it is significant that at the time the appeal was filed Missourians were engaged in yet another period of intense debates over slavery, debates prompted once more by events in Kansas. On October 23, Free Soil party delegates met in Topeka for their constitutional convention, which was presided over by James Lane. Between then and its adjournment on November 11, the convention drafted a constitution that prohibited slavery in Kansas, called for a popular referendum on the status of free blacks in the territory, and scheduled a popular vote on the proposed constitution for December 15. The convention also formally applied to Congress for the admission of Kansas into the Union under the proposed constitution, and created a Free State Executive Committee chaired by Lane and charged with organizing a state government once the proposed constitution was ratified.5
The actions of the Topeka convention were widely reported by the Missouri press and drew an instant response from proslavery forces in Missouri and Kansas.6 Slavery’s advocates correctly viewed the Topeka convention as a direct challenge to the authority of Governor Shannon and the territorial legislature. To meet that challenge, on November 14, proslavery representatives met in Leavenworth to form a “Law and Order party.” The convention, chaired by Governor Shannon, endorsed the legality of the Shawnee legislature, condemned ex-governor Reeder’s election to Congress by the Free Soil party, and passed resolutions warning of civil war should Congress endorse the Topeka constitution and admit Kansas to the Union as a free state. The proslavery Missouri Republican saw the Law and Order convention as “well timed and appropriate,” although it noted: “There has been too much violence of Language in Kansas on both sides, and trust that the Party of Law and Order will refrain from it.” After all, the Republican observed, the new Law and Order party was in the right, supporting the duly elected government. The Kansas correspondent for the anti-slavery Daily Democrat, on the other hand, saw the Law and Order convention as an effort by Shannon to combat a rapid drop in his popularity among the citizens of Kansas. The paper also saw the hand of David Atchinson in these events.7
By the end of November, the same time at which Celia was returned to the Callaway County jail to await a new execution date, the mounting tensions between pro- and antislavery forces in Kansas threatened to erupt into a full-fledged civil war. Because of the continuing campaign of Atchinson, Stringfellow, and other Missouri proslavery leaders, it was apparent that an outbreak of violence in Kansas inevitably would result in the active participation of thousands of Missourians. Weapons continued to flow into Kansas as both sides struggled to control the territorial government. The political hostilities and constant ideological warfare finally provoked the threat of mass violence, and for more than a week heavily armed forces from both camps faced one another at Lawrence as politicians from Missouri and Kansas sought to prevent open warfare. This major crisis, in progress at the time Celia’s defense counsel wrote urging the supreme court to act on her appeal, received detailed coverage in the Missouri press, and was certainly known to the residents of Callaway County.
The crisis began on November 21, when Celia may have remained at large, since the exact date on which she was returned to custody cannot be determined. It began when pro-slavery settler Franklin Coleman shot and killed free state settler Charles W. Dow at Hickory Point in Douglas County, near Lawrence, a Free Soil stronghold. Coleman fled to Westport, where he turned himself in to the county sheriff, Samuel Jones. Jones, the acting postmaster of Westport, Missouri, owed his appointment to the proslavery territorial legislature. The following day, Free Soil men gathered in Hickory Point to protest Dow’s shooting, where they met some opposition from proslavery advocates. An altercation occurred, and a proslavery man swore out a warrant for the arrest of one Jacob Branson, with whom Dow had lived. Evidently anticipating trouble, Sheriff Jones arrived in Hickory Point with a fifteen-man posse on November 27 and arrested Branson. On its way to Lecompton, however, the posse was intercepted by a large party of armed free state men and forced to surrender Branson. Jones proceeded to the pro-slavery town of Franklin, where he wired Governor Shannon that “an open rebellion” had begun in Lawrence, and called for three thousand men with whom to surpress it. Shann
on obliged, issuing a proclamation urging the citizens of Kansas to rally to the aid of the sheriff in carrying out the laws enacted by the territorial legislature.8
Meanwhile, David Atchinson and his lieutenants began to organize Missouri’s border ruffians to rally to the aid of Sheriff Jones and crush the free state rebellion. Rumors of an impending invasion by the ruffians swept through Lawrence, and armed free state men began to pour into the small community from surrounding free state towns. Within days, under the direction of Charles Robinson, James Lane, and General W. P. Richardson, Lawrence was transformed into a fortified garrison. A Missouri reporter described the forces defending Lawrence in the first week of December as composed of four hundred men, among them John Brown and his sons, armed with Sharps rifles, and another four hundred “indifferently armed.” “Bold, resolute, and willing to fight,” Lawrence’s defenders and their two field pieces were entrenched behind “some half dozen earth works” hastily thrown up to repel the rumored attack by the Missouri border ruffians. Under Lane’s direction, the men of Lawrence had also appealed to the Congress, the president, and the commandant at Ft. Leavenworth for aid to “quell the riot and prevent further invasion of our peace and security.” In an appeal addressed to the people of the nation, the Lawrence defenders charged that a body of troops from a “foreign state,” acting directly under the orders of Governor Shannon, threatened to destroy the town and murder its inhabitants.9