In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

[ 191 ] A s Prudence Crandall’s allies in New York City suffered and retreated in the face of violence, she lost an important ally in the press. One year earlier SamuelMayandArthurTappanhadsecuredalocal printing press in Brooklyn and commenced publication of the Unionist. In July 1834 the lease of the facilities expired . In addition, the editor of the Unionist, Charles Burleigh , wished to be free of the weekly obligations required in editing the Unionist; he was increasingly involved in the abolitionist movement in Boston. May asked William Lloyd Garrison for help and advice. “A young man, such as you need at Brooklyn to take charge of the Unionist, cannot be easily found,” Garrison said. “I shall be sorry—very sorry to see the Unionist go down—for many reasons, but especially on account of its unwavering adherence to our most unpopular cause, and its advocacy of the Canterbury school. It will be a fresh scandal to Connecticut to let such a paper die.”1 Crandall and her allies lost their only ally in the local media just as they braced for a pivotal showdown—the appeal of Crandall ’s conviction to the Connecticut State Supreme Court. Prudence Crandall and her supporters prepared for the July appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court, where they hoped to overturn the jury’s verdict. They did not intend to downplay the issue of race or apologize for Crandall ’s work on behalf of black women. They planned to assert that the rights of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution applied to all free black men and women. Samuel May expected the appeal to lead to a historic showdown in the United States Supreme Court. The appeal from the trial of October 1833 did not involve the testimony of witnesses and the drama of cross-examination. Instead, prosecutors and Crandall’s defense attorneys 11 : Appeal for Equality [ 192 ] Prudence Crandall’s Legacy made their respective arguments to four justices of the Connecticut Supreme Court: Associate Justices Thomas S. Williams, Clark Bissell, Samuel Church, and Chief Justice David Daggett. Crandall’s attorneys had the burden of convincing the justices that the lower court had erred in upholding the constitutionality of the Black Law. The panel of justices faced challenges, however, in approaching the case in an objective and impartial manner. Two of the four justices had glaring conflicts of interest that went unaddressed. The most obvious conflict involved Chief Justice David Daggett. Justices on the state supreme court in the 1830s often performed double duty: they served the county courts and decided cases at the trial level, and then they heard appeals from county court cases at the state supreme court level. It was unusual, however, for a justice to hear an appeal as to whether his own decision as a trial judge was correct. A fifth state supreme court justice, John T. Peters, could have taken Daggett’s place, but Daggett invoked his authority as chief justice to hear the appeal of the Crandall case. Daggett’s presence had a chilling effect on the ability of the other justices to frankly discuss and debate Daggett’s rulings. Associate Justice Thomas S. Williams had two unique connections to the attorneys involved in the Prudence Crandall case. He became a judge in 1829 after he had defeated Andrew T. Judson in a state senate vote for a judicial appointment.This connection with Judson created no appreciable conflict. In 1812, however, Williams married Delia Ellsworth, the daughter of the famous Connecticut judge and political leader Oliver Ellsworth. His wife Delia was the sister of attorneyWilliamW. Ellsworth—Prudence Crandall’s lead attorney—making Justice Williams the brother-in-law of attorney Ellsworth. No one seemed to think that his sitting in judgment of a case argued by his brother-in-law presented a conflict. In addition, Williams had worked with Ellsworth as partners in Williams’s law office after Ellsworth had graduated from Yale. Justice Williams later wrote in his private diary, “I do much need wisdom to guide me in affairs so important to my fellow men. I would desire with Solomon, ‘give to thy servant an understanding heart to judge this people, that I may discern between good and bad.’”2 The other two justices had no direct connection to the Crandall case. Clark Bissell did not begin life with the advantages of his fellow justices. When he entered college in 1802, “It is doubtful if a poorer young man [18.189.14.219] Project MUSE (2024-04...

Share