The John Reed murder trials, which took place in 1821, offer clear support for Gibbon's wry assessment that "History..., is indeed, little more than a register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind." But not for the reasons you may think.
John Reed, an African American, had been a slave in Maryland before he came to live in Kennet Square. According to Reed, he was freed from slavery by the will of his master, and he came to Chester County around 1817 to start a new life as a free man.
On the night of December 14th, 1820, a group of men arrived at Reed's home. One of the men, Samuel G. Griffith, claimed that Reed was a runaway slave, and that Reed was his property. Reed was asked to come outside. He refused, and the men tried to force their way into his house. Reed shot Griffith as he tried to enter, and bludgeoned another man, Peter Shipley, with a club. Both men eventually died from their wounds. They had in their possession handcuffs and a length of rope.
Reed was arrested and put on trial for two counts of murder. He was acquitted in the murder of Griffith, but found guilty for the manslaughter of Peter Shipley. As punishment, Reed was sentenced to spend nine years in the Penitentiary house of Philadelphia.
Though Reed was convicted of manslaughter, the real crime in this case was slavery, the folly was putting a man on trial because he used force to protect his life and liberty, and though two men lost their lives as a result of what transpired the night of December 14th, 1820, one could argue they got what they deserved, and the real misfortune was Reed's, who ended up losing his freedom because he fought to keep it.
I'm sure the dogs he killed were men of good standing and high repute. Not!
ReplyDelete