Unidentified Black Man at the Parker Home Courtesy of Lancaster County Historical Society

 William Parker and His Impact on the Christian Resistance

William Parker's narrative published in 1866 in The Atlantic Monthly is the only personal account of the resistance. It was contested by some as unauthentic because Parker only learned to read and write after he fled to Canada following the incident. There is a wealth of information which does not allow its dismissal, even if he had only dictated it to an admittedly sympathetic editor. While other primary sources include newspapers and magazines which covered the event, it remains the only eye-witness account.

The “sympathetic editor” signed only as E.K., either directly or indirectly impacted Parker's narrative because those who wish to question the validity of the document find his role as just cause to do so. The Atlantic Monthly article was written to show blacks to be ready for suffrage in 1866. Was it factual or was it embellished to serve the propaganda intention of E.K.?

Other questions exist surrounding the narrative. Was William Parker the man most responsible for the Riot? Was William Parker the most conspicuous man in the Riot? Was William Parker heroic and desperate as he describes himself, or is he exaggerating events to feed his own ego and legacy? Was William Parker a “good citizen” violating a “bad law”?

William Parker, the principal actor in the Christiana Resistance was an escaped slave. He was born in Anne Arundel County, Maryland on Rowdown, a plantation owned by a wealthy master named Major William Brogdon. Major Brogdon had two sons William, a doctor, and David, a legislator. Major Brogdon died when William Parker was still a child. As a master, Major Brogdon had been described by William Parker as “middle of the road &endash; not too lenient or strict.”

William Parker's mother was named Louisa Simms. She also died when William Parker was very young. William Parker was raised by his grandmother. He lived in the “quarter”. It was a rickety dwelling one hundred feet long by thirty feet wide. Seventy slaves lived on Rowdown. When Major Brogdon died, his sons divided the land and the slaves. William Parker, his brother, and his uncle went to their new home called Nearo which was owned by Master David. William Parker carried his reputation for strength and toughness with him to Nearo. His fighting prowess was born by the necessity of fighting older boys for a warm place by the fire. Later, William was a combatant in prize fights arranged by the master. William Parker used this analogy to explain his desire to be free. “My Rights at the fireplace were won by my child&endash;fists; my rights as a freeman were, under God, secured by my own right arm.”

The overseer at Nearo was named Robert Brown. He was fired for beating a slave girl so severely she almost died. A black man named Bob Wallace became foreman. William Parker described himself at this point of his life as, “contented as it is possible for a slave to be.” While slaves were treated reasonably well and were not beaten on Nearo, they were being sold off gradually. Approximately 12 percent of Maryland's slave population was sold annually by 1840. William Parker estimated his age at approximately ten or eleven years old when he and fellow slave Levi Storax hid from slave traders. William Parker hid to avoid the emotional pain of separation. He described the extent to which families grieved separation. Sales were equivalent to funerals, people would be “meeting no more in the flesh”.

While hiding, William and Levi discussed running away for the first time. They didn't go because they were afraid of freezing to death. Obviously, the boys understood the concept of Canada and freedom. Separation by sale was a part of the system. Both cruel and mild slaveholders took part. To William Parker and his fellow slaves, selling was the cruelest punishment. Slaves were especially afraid of sale to estates in states located farther south than Maryland. The masters there had reputations among the slaves for cruelty and no hope for escape existed.

It was the sale of his friend and fellow slave Levi who had been sold through deception that inspired William Parker to once again consider running away. Levi was told to take a letter to Henry Hall who was actually Levi's new master. William Parker lamented that, “there was no time to say goodbye.” William learned of Levi's tale in a chance meeting two months after the sale and the discussion of the two running away was renewed. Levi chose not to join William if he ran away.

William had become attached to another slave named Alexander Brown. After many more slave sell-offs, including Alexander's mother, William approached Alexander concerning running away. Alexander refused, but William made the decision to be free. William was approximately sixteen or seventeen at the time. In May, his decision to run away became final. A nearby planter named Jeffrey Dorsey was butchering. He told William Parker that he had gotten approval for William to help him.

No such permission had been given. According to William Parker, an angry Master David threatened to “pay me for the new and the old.” William Parker decided to run away at the first opportunity. William had decided to run away at a younger age. Why he waited to leave had nothing to do with the master. The misconception of slaves running away only from “bad masters” has been shown to be a myth. Frederick Douglas believed more slaves ran away from “good masters” than bad. Douglas advised masters to, “Beat and cuff your slave, keep him hungry and spiritless, and he will follow the chain of his master like a dog; but, feed and clothe him well, work with him moderately &endash; surround him with physical comfort, and dreams of freedom intrude. Give him a bad master, and he aspires to a good master; give him a good master, and he wishes to be his own master.”

Parker decided to create his own event to necessitate that he run away. One day William refused to go to work in the fields. When the master demanded he go to the fields, William provoked an incident by his refusal. Reasons such as rain and weariness were not valid excuses for a slave to miss his daily labor. William knew what the reaction would be. The master attempted to hit him with a stick, they grappled and William injured the man. He ran into the woods to hide for the remainder of the day. Under cover of darkness he returned to the slave quarters in order to retrieve his brother and they began their way north.

The Parker's reached Baltimore the following evening between seven and eight o'clock. They stayed one week, using a trick of brick dust on their clothes to create the illusion that they were local workers. From Baltimore they moved on to York, Pennsylvania. An incident at Loganville, Pennsylvania in which it was necessary for William to break a white man's arm with a stick caused concern that the fugitives were not safe in York.

With the help of two prominent black anti-slavery workers in Columbia, William Parker and his brother crossed the Susquehanna River by boat into Columbia. They were probably rowed across the river by Robert Loney who had done the same for fugitives before. They rested four days in Columbia, most likely at the home of the wealthy William Whipple which was the first home to which fugitives came before moving on to live and work in the farm country five miles east of Lancaster. Their lives there consisted of constant vigilance and looking over their shoulders. Eventually William's brother moved fifteen miles further to the east.

Upon a visit to his brother in Bart Township, William stayed for thirteen months. While there, he worked for Dn. Dengy. The significance of this time rested in William's becoming part of an alliance of refugees who vowed to prevent re-capture of fugitives at the price of their own death. There were known kidnappers in the area. A black named William Dorsey was taken by slaveholders and placed in the Lancaster jail to await trial. William Parker and others tried to free Dorsey. A brawl ensued and bricks, sticks, and clubs were used as weapons.

William Parker developed a greater disrespect for enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law as the alliance became more involved in its resistance. The Fugitive Slave Law meant nothing to Negro haters who used any means possible to return slaves. Using direct retaliation and violence to resist the kidnappers became a common means of resistance. The case of Moses Whitson a member of the Society of Friends near Chester, Pennsylvania and a colored girl he had living there with him ended violently. Slaveholders came to capture her and tied her up as they fled. A black named Benjamin Whipper, put out an alarm and the alliance sprang into action. They caught the kidnapping party at the Gap. They recovered the girl and beat the kidnappers. Two of the kidnappers died from neglect of their injuries, a local doctor named Dr. Lemmon refused to help them.

William Parker's involvement with the secret committee did not diminish following his marriage to a fellow fugitive named Eliza Ann Elizabeth Howard. He was shot in the ankle in Chester County while saving a fugitive from capture. As the vulnerability of fugitives became increasingly more apparent, the group formed to prevent capture resorted to vengeance on anyone assisting in their capture. Allen Williams betrayed a fugitive and was nearly beaten to death. It was into this atmosphere that Edward Gorsuch and the Maryland slave catchers came. The special resistance committee was well prepared for Gorsuch's arrival due to the efforts of an agent named Samuel Williams of Philadelphia. As William Parker described in his primary source account, “by walking directly into their camp, watching their plans as they were developed, and secretly testing every inch of ground on which they trod, they discovered enough to counterplot these plotters, and to spring upon them a mine which shook the whole country, and to put an end to manstealing in Pennsylvania forever.”

When Gorsuch and his party came to William Parker's home on September 11^th, the combatants on each side were placed in an extraordinary situation. Following the extraordinary events of September 11, William Parker and his family set out for Canada. The way to Canada was long and dangerous so William went on without his family. Newspapers contained the accounts of Christiana and stores of reward money for William Parker required William to go on to Canada alone. In Rochester, New York William received assistance from Frederick Douglass. They had known each other from their days as Maryland slaves. From Rochester, the party crossed over into the freedom of Canada.

The party landed at Kingston on the 21^st of September. From Kingston, William Parker moved on to Toronto. Upon his arrival in Toronto, William Parker learned of Pennsylvania Governor Johnston's demand for his return under the Extradition Treaty. He was assured by Canadian officials that he would not be returned to Pennsylvania. His wife joined him in Toronto. She had experienced a difficult period following the Resistance and William's escape to Canada. She had been arrested twice and her master had pursued her. They settled together, free on fifty acres in a Canadian village named Buxton.

The legacy of William Parker is one of heroism. But for current scholarship, William Parker and the resistance of Christiana had almost been lost to the history of African-Americans. He is mentioned, but rarely as the hero of the resistance, in historic annals. White observer Castner Hanway, not William Parker, was portrayed as the hero of the event. David Forbes, a Quaker, wrote in 1898 that Hanway was, “the hero of the riot, by reason of his trial for treason.” The stone monument which stands at Christiana to commemorate the resistance lauds Edward Gorsuch as, “dying for the law” and Castner Hanway who, “suffered for freedom.” William Parker is a nondescript name lost in the category of names indicted for treason. His name is listed as number thirty.

In 1951, when Lancastrians commemorated the one hundredth anniversary of the Resistance, the heroes were still seen as being the white participants. Even African-American speakers applauded the efforts of the white participants. Dr. Horace Mann Bond broached a different hero. He introduced William Parker as a heroic yet tragic symbol of his generation, “This is the Centennial of the violence engendered by great passions and forces, but also by one man. It is the story of A Man Without A Country; it is the tragedy of mankind everywhere who would be free, but must resort to violence to obtain their freedom.”

Current scholarship shows William Parker in the light of heroism as a man who refused to be debased by slavery. His story began as a slave boy at the fires where he showed a youthful resistance to tyranny. He developed a combative nature in prize fights arranged by his master. His legacy culminated in his refusal to allow Edward Gorsuch to claim his prize. He was a man who exhibited courage and bravado in the face of oppression and danger. If he exhibited pride in his resistance, it was a justifiable pride. He was admired by those who knew him. He was twenty- nine years of age when the resistance at Christiana changed his life forever. An abolitionist described him as being as, “bold as a lion, the kindest of men, and the most steadfast of friends.” Local blacks considered him to be their leader.

It was this man, William Parker, who provided the courage and strength to the resistance. His resolve was a fountain from which the fugitives at Christiana drank. Thomas Whitson best summarized William Parker's' contribution to history when he called him, “the real hero of the Christiana tragedy.” Whitson goes on to describe his vision of the legacy of William Parker by stating, “While we all stand reverently at the memories (of white heroes) let us not forget to make one small niche in our tablet of heroes for the Afro-American, William Parker.

The events of Christiana cannot be explained by a simplistic, static explanation of an evil slave owner's pursuit of a runaway slave into an enlightened North which universally despised the evil institution of slavery. Edward Gorsuch was not an evil man. Evidence suggests that he was a man who possessed traits of kindness and benevolence. He saw himself as being the wronged party because of his self-image as a kind and benevolent master.

The paternal viewpoint of slavery, as espoused by men like Gorsuch, served to re-enforce a patriarchal view of society. By seeing themselves as father figures relative to their slaves, masters viewed themselves as protectors and benefactors to those people held as slaves. Patriarchy justified slavery as being a positive good for a childlike race of people desperate for the leadership and guidance provided by the father.

A fatal combination of factors including patriarchy and a southern gentleman's emphasis on honor, brought Edward Gorsuch to his death at Christiana. He believed that, given his influence as father to his childlike ex-slaves, he could convince them to peacefully return with him to Maryland. Patriarchy, along with the powerful value honor held for him, caused Gorsuch to blindly enter the yard of William Parker's home. Edward Gorsuch had no ability to culturally understand the concept of resistance which he would confront at that home. For the childlike dependent blacks to confront him and refuse his desires not only confused his perception of the race but also challenged his manhood and the role of honor in his system of values. Confrontation and preservation of honor was preferable to retreat. Death was the result.

Following the Resistance, Southerners would charge Castner Hanway with treason because he was white. The thought of childlike black men and women resisting violently seemed degrading. The resistance must have been organized by a white man. Pennsylvania was an unlikely state in which to suspect violence to occur. With the notable exception of a strong community of abolitionist Quakers in the Philadelphia area, Pennsylvania was perceived to be a state without radical anti-slavery views. Pennsylvania was noted for having a diverse population of people who held diverse opinions on slavery.

A confused man in an unlikely place makes a static definition of good and evil insufficient to explain the occurrence of September 11, 1851. When Edward Gorsuch and his party approached the home of William Parker in an effort to recover fugitives from slavery, the first shots of the Civil War were the answer. Tensions which had been unsuccessfully suppressed by compromises in 1820 and 1850 culminated in the death of Edward Gorsuch.

The focus of my research dealt with the perspectives of opinion following the Christiana Riot and the role of William Parker. The examination of perspectives included the viewpoint and Southern perspective which had been espoused by a Maryland lawyer named D.F. Magee on September 9, 1911 at a commemoration of Christiana. The political perspective was included by examining the effect of the tragedy at Christiana on the race for governor of Pennsylvania in 1851. A plethora of newspaper reactions in the North and South were available to give perspective to national editorial reactions. The primary source perspective by the principle figure of Christiana, William Parker, was published in an 1866 Atlantic Monthly article.

The Southern perspective as espoused by D.F. Magee employed the rhetoric of a courtroom lawyer. Magee was an attorney. Magee attempted to retroactively justify slavery in two fashions. The one manner of justification was an attempt to present pieces of evidence which showed slavery to be a misunderstood institution which benefited blacks. At the same time that the rise of a market economy in the North created a form of industrial wage slave for whom no industrialists took responsibility, southern slaves were provided with all necessities of life by the father figure masters. Magee claimed the slave returned the love and care of the master by bestowing on the master a childlike affection and loyalty misunderstood in the North.

The second technique Magee used to justify slavery was by using the relative nature of laborers in the North and South. Magee attempted to prey upon the dynamic of racism and isolation of the “other” race. Magee's transparent attempts to enlist support from Northerners was based on the racist concept of Africans as jungle barbarians. Their importation into the civilized world exposed them to religion and culture unknown in the jungles of Africa. While treated equally well or even in a superior manner in relation to northern laborers, African American slaves were inferior by race. The combination of the two techniques by Magee was an attempt to create a dynamic in which an inferior race of people was treated well by a group of benefactors who owned them. While superior racially, Northern workers did not enjoy the paternal relationship with their industrial employers that slaves enjoyed with their masters. The hoped for image would be one in which Southern slavery would be viewed as the morally superior institution.

Magee's perspective as it applied to Edward Gorsuch and the events at Christiana, was of a kind and benevolent master who was shot down in cold blood as he legally sought to reclaim his property. The trial which followed was a farce and gross miscarriage of justice. The implication of Magee was that slavery as an institution was put on trial, not the men and women who violently had disobeyed the law.

Politically, the Christiana Resistance became the catalyst to the end of the career of William Johnston, Governor of Pennsylvania at the time of the incident. The simplistic view of Christiana was to blame radical abolitionists for inciting the blacks to violence. Abolitionism was seen as a radical minority movement. Democrats recognized the desires of Pennsylvania voters to be centrist and moderate on the slavery issue. Democrats successfully tied the incumbent Governor Johnston to the radical abolitionist movement. Whig newspapers desperate attempts to distance Governor Johnston from the death of Edward Gorsuch and to denounce attempts to implicate Johnston as being an abolitionist failed. He lost the election to Colonel William Bigler. The Democratic gubernatorial victory in 1851 became a significant victory. A Democratic party affiliated Governor supported fellow Pennsylvania James Buchanan in his successful presidential bid in 1856.

The selection of a Democrat in the governor's race of 1851 could be viewed as a reflection of moderate opinion nationwide. The moderate viewpoint was prominently expressed in national newspapers. The ability to create the image of William Johnston as a radical and to defeat him in Pennsylvania by using that strategy was illustrative of the overall popularity of the moderate viewpoint. Moderates were fearful of the events at Christiana and the implications of those events. The Fugitive Slave Law and the Compromise of 1850 had exaggerated Northern reservations concerning the institution of slavery. The higher level of tensions which existed seemed to culminate at Christiana. Both Northern and Southern moderates sought a restoration of peace. They saw efforts to maintain peace as including a repudiation of abolitionism. They were hopeful that the Pennsylvania governor's race was an indication of that repudiation.

There were moderates in the north who were moderates due to an ambivalence concerning constitutional law and the morality of certain laws. They found the Fugitive Slave Law provision requiring northern assistance to be morally reprehensible but felt it needed to be obeyed because it was the law of the land. They were hopeful that peace could be restored following Christiana. As was true of other moderates, the repudiation of radical abolitionism was necessary. Southern and Northern radicals both believed that the only interpretation appropriate following Christiana was that the Fugitive Slave Law had violently failed. Southerners blamed Northern defiance while Northerners blamed Southern immorality. Both sides felt the need to demonize the opposing viewpoint. Southern radicals demanded secession immediately from a group of states which refused to obey constitutional law. Northern abolitionists believed only God's “higher law” was applicable in dealing with the morally bankrupt institution of slavery. Because they believed northern abolitionists to have a numerical advantage, Southern radicals believed the North wouldn't ever enforce the Compromise of 1850. Therefore, rather than an isolated incident, the death of Edward Gorsuch was an event doomed to be repeated. It would also be an event with no southern vindication or justice from northern courts.

The role of William Parker and his significance at Christiana has been questioned historically. Was Parker's personal account valid as printed in the Atlantic Monthly of 1866, or was this account embellished by the sympathetic editor who wrote it? Was Parker the man responsible for and the most conspicuous participant in the riot? Was Parker the hero? The legacy of William Parker was clouded by the issues of the validity of the primary source narrative he claimed to have dictated.

William Parker was a man unconquered by slavery. He decided at a young age to run away from bondage. He brought about the incident which made escape necessary when he refused to go to work in the fields and then physically confronted his master. By precipitating this event, Parker relinquished any opportunity to change his mind concerning escape. He would hide during the day and return to the slave quarters during the evening to retrieve his brother with whom he escaped.

The ingenuity and commitment of William Parker would exhibit itself numerous times as he traveled north to Baltimore and into York and Columbia, Pennsylvania. The heroic resistance shown at Christiana was forged as William Parker trekked northward into Pennsylvania. Neither he nor anyone else he could protect would ever be returned into captivity.

William Parker was not an educated or literate man in 1851. He used the gifts given him to resist re-enslavement. Had he been a lawyer such as Thaddeus Stevens, he may have chosen other means of resistance to the intrusion of Edward Gorsuch. The gifts of courage, physical strength, and charismatic leadership were the means of resistance at his disposal. Those were the gifts he used to the detriment of Edward Gorsuch and other supporters of the Fugitive Slave Law.

William Parker saw himself as an average man who was desperate to resist an immoral and bad law. He used the means at his disposal for that resistance. The violence which was the result of that resistance and the perspectives drawn by a vast array of opinion defined Christiana's impact. Whether it merely reflected a national trend towards violent resistance or influenced a trend which became the Civil War, Christiana defined a man of courage within the context of his times.

Courtesy of Lancaster County Historical Society