Essay - A Comparative Study of the Charleston Insurrection Conspiracy as Interpreted...

A Comparative Study of the Charleston Insurrection Conspiracy as Interpreted by M. Johnson, E. Pearson, D. *****gerton, and D. Robertson

In its October 2001issue, the history journal William and ********** Quarterly featured a review essay in ***** Forum section entitled, "The Mak*****g ***** a Slave *****, Part I." This feature focused on the historical issues about black slavery in America particularly the Denmark Vesey insurrecti***** conspiracy in *****, South Carolina in 1822. A ***** essay penned by Michael Johnson, a professor of ***** at the Johns Hopkins University, which is entitled, "Denmark ***** and His Co-Conspir*****ors," *****fered a new interpret*****tion of the famous (and foiled) uprising of the Negroes in Charleston in the early 19th century.

*****on started his essay with a brief b*****ckground *****formation on some significant events that occurred before the planned uprising was discovered, and he also included a brief biogr*****phy of ***** Vesey, the suspected leader of the black slaves, though most of ***** information is based on the data provided in the Official Report document, which ***** a detailed account of the events before, during, ***** after the Charlest***** insurrection was found out.

Johnson's main thesis in his ***** is ***** the ***** led by Vesey, which many historians believed to be a possibility h*****d it not been foiled, did not, in reality, existed. Further, in Richard Wade's view (quoted ***** Johnson), "...no conspiracy existed, or at ***** th***** it ***** a vague and unformulated plan in the minds of townsmen." Johnson proved this assumption by making a comparative analysis of two ***** *****s chronicling the events that happened in the trials ***** Vesey and his co-conspirators: ***** Official Report prepared by Lionel Kennedy and Thomas Parker, the magistrates who presided over the proceedings, and a manuscript of ***** testimonies of witnesses ***** the defendants, which he referred to as the Evidence, or, Document B, patterned after Edward Pearson's two manuscripts presented in his book, Designs aga*****st Charles*****n. Johnson criticized Pearson f***** giving an inaccurate and unreliable study of two transcripts ***** ***** Vesey trial presented in his book, which Pearson labeled as Document A, while the other, Document B (Evidence). H e argu*****d that Document A is merely a copy of B, and is ***** different from B because ***** ***** ***** a continuous documentation of the trial records and testimonies (***** proved ***** stated in his essay the reasons why that ***** existed before A, and is an actual documentation of the occurrences ***** the trial). *****lso, he mentioned that the author of Designs "omitted words/added words, changed the capitalization, punctuation, and *****" from ***** original text.

After the introduction ***** manuscript B, Johnson enumerated some differences and irregularities between ***** ***** Report and Evidence, which supports his theory that an uprising supposedly led by Vesey, was not true, and the court that tried Vesey and his companions made up the "insurrection," as well ***** ***** witnesses and their testimonies that were given and documented during the trial. (For this paper, ***** researcher