Six Miles to Charleston (13 page)

Knock-kneed adults are more susceptible to injury. Since they have lived with the problem most of their lives without treatment, they would have developed osteoarthritis. In severe cases, the person may have even had trouble walking. So our notorious, vicious murderer and butcher may have been handicapped. If this was indeed an identifying characteristic, wouldn't Peoples have used it as a descriptor?

Without knowing the suspects by name, how did John Peoples identify them then? Well that actually ties in directly with whom John Fisher was accusing.

In the previous chapter, you read many accounts of the execution of the Fishers. There is record that John Fisher publicly blamed someone for the couple being wrongly accused. The
Charleston Gazette
gives record that prior to his execution, John Fisher protested his innocence and made that claim.

In his final letter, read moments before his execution, John Fisher states that in mere moments he will be standing before God. Even in that final judgment he will profess his innocence and indeed be found innocent before the throne of God. In his address he also gives reference to his accusers, “May the Redeemer of the World plead for those who have sworn away my life.”

Who was John Fisher accusing and what were the accusations? Those questions can be answered in a series of letters printed in the
Charleston Courier
on February 22, 1820.

T
O
T
HE
E
DITOR
OF THE
C
OURIER.

Sir,—A Bench Warrant, against a certain gang of highway robbers, who had infested the neighborhood of the Six-Mile House, having been put into my hands some time ago, by the Attorney General; and the Governor of the State having particularly requested me to attend to the execution of the same; I went, accompanied by a vast number of the citizens of Charleston and its precincts, to execute the unpleasant duty assigned under the authority aforesaid; and succeeded in taking, among others, the criminals who have lately suffered the penalty of the law. Fisher, one of the principal leaders of the gang, having declared under the gallows, as I understand, that “Colonel Cleary called him and the other prisoners in gaol
[sic]
, by name, to Peoples, the countryman, and prosecutor, whom they had robbed and severely beaten, so as to enable him (Peoples) to identify the said Fisher, and others—and that his (Fisher's) blood was on Colonel Cleary's hands;”—in order to remove improper impressions, which some persons might be disposed to attach to the expressions of a dying culprit, I have, by advice of several friends, been induced to request you to give publicity to the following questions, put by me to the gentlemen whose names are subscribed to the answer subjoined, and whose respectability is well known to the people of this community.

I know not who was behind the curtain, and prompted or advised this calumny; but I do aver, that from no person have I ever received more general and repeated expressions of gratitude than from this unfortunate man, who continued to do so, even to the very moment that I gave up the office, but whose subsequent conduct proves that the fear of punishment does not always bring about the work of reformation.

I am, respectfully, Yours,

N.G. Cleary

It appears that the sheriff, Colonel Nathaniel Greene Cleary, is the person that John Fisher accused. Fisher accused Cleary of identifying them to Peoples by name so that Peoples could identify them as his assailants and robbers. John Peoples was from Georgia and would not have known any of these persons by name. It is kind of interesting that, if you recall back in Chapter 3, there was a handwritten list of names of the Six Mile Housemen in a completely different handwriting than the actual statement of Peoples. Apparently John Peoples was concealed behind a curtain and watched as each person was brought down before him to be identified. John Fisher claims that Sheriff Cleary verbally named him and the others Peoples identified. This is interesting because he did not know the names, but a list of names including the Fishers had been provided to him on his statement. This makes John Fisher's claim extremely plausible.

In a second letter, Cleary addresses the issues of the accusations.

To Col. Gordon, Archibald Lord, N. Slawson, and others

     
Saturday Morning, Feb. 19,

G
ENTLEMEN,

As you were present with me and many others, when I took Mr. Peoples to the gaol
[sic]
for the purpose of identifying the prisoners taken up by me at the six mile house, I will thank you to answer the following questions:—

1. Did I, or not, direct the gaoler
[sic]
to bring down the prisoners, one at a time, and were they not so brought down?

2. Did I, or not, call the name of Fisher, or any other prisoner, after he or they were so brought down and before he or they were identified by Peoples?

3. Did not Peoples promptly and unhesitatingly identify Fisher?

4. Was there any the slightest act on my part which would, in your opinion, have led you to think that I had used any means or devised any plan by which Peoples could have led to identify Fisher?

5. Was there not most perfect circumspection used by me in bringing the prisoners down before Peoples, and what is your opinion of my conduct upon that occasion?

6. How many citizens or others, do you think were present at the time Peoples identified the said prisoners? I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

N.G. Cleary

The third letter in the series contains the responses to Cleary's inquiries.

To Colonel N. G. Cleary,

Sunday, Feb. 20, 1820

Dear Sir,—We received your letter, and with pleasure answer the questions therein contained.

1
^st
question. We answer—You did so direct, and they were accordingly brought down upon the lower floor.

2d. You did not call the name Fisher, or any other name.

3d. He did immediately identify Fisher and his wife, and Heyward and others.

4
^th
. There was no act on your part which could justify even a suspicion upon the occasion. You remained down stairs; were extremely cautious in the manner in which the prisoners were brought before Peoples.

5
^th
. There was the utmost possible circumspection used by you upon the occasion, and you conducted the matter with great caution and humanity. You never once called the name of fisher, or any other prisoner, but designated them by the general term of
Prisoner.
Your conduct upon the occasion was in our opinion perfectly humane, correct and honorable.

6
^th
. About twenty or thirty persons were present on the occasion.

J.G. La Roche,

J. Smith Darrell,

Nath'l Slawson,

T.J. Horsey,

Sam'l. Wilson, Jun.

And'w. M'Dowall,

A.B. Lord,

W.E. Hill,

John Gordon,

Sam'l. K. Cowing

R.B. Lawton,

Subscribed and severally sworn before Samuel Richards, J.H. Mitchell, and several other Justices.

Why would anyone convicted to die, knowing it was inevitable, not admit to what they had done? There are many instances of death row inmates being convicted of a capital offense crime and admitting to others to clear their conscious prior to execution. Why wouldn't John Fisher? Better yet, why wouldn't Lavinia Fisher or William Heyward? All three went to the gallows proclaiming their innocence. What reasoning would anyone have to frame the Fishers and Heyward and execute them?

Back in the very beginning, you will recall that the initial raids on Five Mile House and Six Mile House were conducted by a lynch mob with no legal authority. These men were a group acting under the guise of the Lynch's Law that held no true legal authority. In the articles it states that they acted on the authority of the owner's of the properties. David Ross was placed into possession of the house by the owner according to the
Charleston Courier
article. This shows that there was a definite land dispute. The Fishers were said to have ran Six Mile House since 1814 so had apparently occupied this property for five years. Remember that one of the key retributions under Lynch's Law was the seizure of property. The lynch mob seized Six Mile House and left Ross there.

The article stated that this lynch mob left Charleston in regard to a series of robberies upon defenseless travelers. It goes on to state that, “As they could not be identified, and thereby brought to punishment it was determined, by a number of citizens, to break them up.” If the robbers could not be identified, then how could this mob identify the inhabitants of both of these Inns as the robbers in question?

In 1791, twenty-eight years prior to the events of this book, the Bill of Rights was passed. Within the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment to the United Sates Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable search and seizure. Now imagine if you will, William Heyward sitting at Five Mile House when a mob rides up and orders him to vacate his home. He and the other occupants refuse, and perhaps one of them is killed, which would account for the freshly buried male body the coroner discovered several days after the raid. The place is then set on fire. Seems like an unreasonable search and seizure.

Immediately after that, the mob proceeds to Six Mile House and conveys the same orders. This time the residents flee, and David Ross is left by the mob to take control of the house. The next morning the occupants returned with William Heyward, a man that just had all his property burned, to Six Mile House. They find Ross inside and an altercation ensues as they forcefully remove Ross, who has no lawfully authority to be there in the first place. Ross states they fired at him. The Second Amendment, also part of the Bill of Rights, gave them the right to bear arms. They had a right to protect their home and property from a legitimate threat. Their neighbor's home had been seized by armed men and burned to the ground; their home had been seized by armed men; and they had returned home to find it occupied by one of their assailants. They took action and removed him. It is a legitimate and valid argument.

Perhaps it is even one that John Heath had used. Remember that Heath was the Fishers' attorney. In the initial trial, he lost to Attorney General Robert Hayne. Again remember that Hayne was an advocate of states' laws preempting federal laws. Heath could not win on that level, so when he lost, he appealed to the constitutional court.

It is purely speculation, but this may have been the argument many believe Heath would have presented for the Ross case. This is perhaps why this case was thrown out, and the judges took the John Peoples case and ruled summarily on it. By doing so they then violated the most important right within the Bill of Rights as far as the Fishers are concerned: the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. Remember that these constitutional rights had existed for twenty-eight years prior to the incident, and that the Fishers and Heyward were entitled to these rights. It did not happen. Then again, this was colonial justice and not criminal justice.

When David Ross fled Six Mile House, he returned to Charleston. He reported his assault to the sheriff. Now remember that the lynch mob rode out to these locations because of robberies. Even while David Ross was being assaulted, no one robbed him. He was not allowed to retrieve items left inside, but no one demanded items from him. Seems kind of odd that if these persons made their living robbing people, why did they not empty Ross's pockets? They were armed and could very easily have done it if they were indeed robbers. It is a very curious point that points back to residents defending their property.

What happens next is also curious. John Peoples shows up to water his horses two hours later. One finds it odd that Peoples had not heard of the events of the preceding evening and did not know what had occurred at Six Mile House or even the burning of Five Mile House. Why did he not stop at the Four Mile House to water his horses? He had to pass it. He also had to pass the burning remains of Five Mile House, which should have made him curious. It does seem suspicious.

Peoples stopped at Six Mile House and was accosted and robbed. He then returned to Charleston, and Colonel Cleary had a robbery to act upon. This robbery justified the actions of the mob being there. Colonel Cleary, the sheriff, could now ride in, make arrests, look like a hero and justify the lynch mob.

This takes us back to John Fisher's accusations toward the good sheriff. What did Cleary have to gain if John Fisher's accusations were true? A brief advertisement in the
Charleston Courier
on June 22, 1819, gives a little insight.

The sheriff was up for reelection.

C
HAPTER
10

Power and Greed

P
OLITICS AT
I
TS
B
EST

After the raid on the two inns, Colonel Cleary had a golden opportunity to become the hero of Charleston and sweep the election. Up until now he had several robberies in the area, but no one could identify the culprits. He had Ross being assaulted and now Peoples was victimized. With mob justice having just occurred, it obviously showed a lack of confidence in Cleary's abilities. He was pretty much obligated to act. If he did not, he could lose the election. With these victims he had an opportunity to “clean-up” Charleston. After all, he was the sheriff, and Charleston needed a good spring cleaning. The governor would bestow his blessings because the city was to be visited by the president in just under two months. Cleary could incarcerate anyone he felt was a threat.

As stated in the second chapter, the city of Charleston was in continuous competition with Savannah. Sailing ships were slowly becoming obsolete and steamships were being developed. President James Monroe was making a Southern tour, and in the beginning of April, he was in Virginia with several of his military advisers and his secretary of war to inspect Burrill's Bay, a site contemplated to be a grand naval depot. He was also inspecting several steam-powered vessels. The president's tour would take him onto Savannah via steam vessel. Charleston was also a point of interest for the president, and he would be in Charleston by the end of April. One could be quite certain that the governor did not want the embarrassment of robberies or armed lynch mobs to interfere with the president's visit. He wanted the president's visit to be unimpeded. He also wanted that naval base in Charleston.