Richmond (VA) Friends Meeting

James Pleasants

by WebPost | Dec 19, 1800 | History - Quaker, History - RFM

James Pleasants deserves more fame than he has received. He was raised a Quaker and served as Governor of Virginia, 1822-25. He also served in the Virginia House of Delegates, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

Within the context of his times, Pleasants was quite reform minded. He was in a unique position to influence change. Through his Quaker father, he was related to many reformers. Through his aristocratic mother, he was a cousin to Thomas Jefferson and related to other rich and powerful people.

As Governor, his most successful reform was the elimination of public flogging in favor of incarceration. His efforts to establish public education, improve roads and attain fairer representation for western counties were less successful.

He spoke out for free blacks at a time when Virginia law required that they be removed from the state. This law was finally relaxed in 1828. Throughout most of his career, Pleasants was a staunch Jeffersonian. However, his opposition to the policies of Andrew Jackson led him to support the Whig Party. His son, John, was the first editor of the Richmond Whig. His Quaker heritage may have contributed to his remarkable personality. A contemporary, John Randolph, said that Pleasants “never lost a friend or gained an enemy.”

In some way, he was only a Friend in the same sense as Richard Nixon. Jay Worrall, in The Friendly Virginian, called him “a Quaker turned politician.” For his law practice, he traveled in a fancy carriage that cost a whooping $250. He held 18 slaves on his Goochland County plantation. As a Congressman, he supported the War of 1812. Still, there is no reference to James Pleasansts that does not mention his Quaker heritage.

Wayne Young has provided us the information above on James Pleasants, a Virginia governor, who was influenced by Quakers..

                                                *          *          *          *

 “The Religious Society of Friends in Virginia has long standing interest in penal reform. For example in 1788 of 66 criminals tried, twenty-five were convicted and executed, three imprisoned, one burnt in the hand and thirty-seven discharged. In 1796, Virginia reformed its penal laws so “that no crime whatsoever committed by any free person should be punished with death, except murder in the first degree. In 1799, Virginia abolished capital punishment and replaced it with one to ten years in the penitentiary (operated in part by Richmond Quakers) “fearing that some unfortunate victim might be deprived of life, contrary to those (humanitarian) principles.” In 1802 capital punishment was reinstated for treason. James Lownes and Thomas Ladd, two members of the Richmond Meeting, regretted not making a deeper study of capital punishment and thus refrained from making a recommendation about it to the legislature.” (History of Richmond Friends Meeting, 1795-1962) by Mary Fran Hughes McIntyre, 1979.

Author and RFM member Margaret Edds continues in the tradition of those two Friends’ concerns about capital punishment with her new book An Expendable Man: The Near-Execution of Earl Washington, Jr.. (New York University Press, 2003). She provides readers a clearer understanding of the history and the modern day reality of the Virginia justice system as evidenced in the case study of Earl Washington, a 23-year-old black man from Culpeper, who by his own confession was sentenced in 1985 for the murder of a young white mother. He was incarcerated for 18 years and spent nine years on death row. The defendant was mentally retarded with a 69 IQ (age 10 equivalency). What we learn is that people with this level of retardation are usually very agreeable and willing to say what they are asked to say. His legal team argued that this was cause for his confession. Not surprisingly Earl Washington was a model prisoner with no infractions and liked by guards and inmates alike. DNA evidence eventually proved him not guilty. Washington now lives in Virginia Beach, where he works as a handyman and is newly married to a woman he met through his community mental health program.

This chilling story also provides insight into a system of representation where appointed legal counsel can be inadequate, why videotaping a confession to insure accuracy as well as to show body language is important, and how gubernatorial politics can play a part. Governors Wilder and Gilmore both were asked to assist with pardons. In 1994, on the eve of departure from office, Wilder granted immunity from the death penalty based on new DNA findings but offered life in prison for Washington, who had rightfully been convicted in a second case for burglary and assault. In 1999 a filmmaker raised the inadequacies of the legal findings and the frailties of the justice system in the PBS Frontline series, helping once again to open up the legal process for Earl Washington. A public campaign, which included editorial support from many Virginia newspapers, followed. On October 2, 2000, Governor Gilmore granted an absolute pardon but gave the state parole board the question of when to release Washington. Four months later Washington was free.

 Richmonders Marie Deans of the Southern Coalition on Jails and Prisons and local attorney Jerry Zerkin are among the cast of characters who made up the legal team from around the country that spent years defending Earl Washington.  Ironically it was Joe Giarratano, another inmate on death row, who authored Washington’s early appeal for habeas corpus since Washington was intellectually unable to handle the research and writing for such an appeal.

Edds relates not only a fascinating story of injustice but does a fine job in helping readers to understand the intricacies of the Virginia justice system and the improving changes in DNA testing. Readers who are especially interested in the Virginia history of capital punishment will find some of that story also. She helps us to understand why capital punishment is wrong and how death penalty law and protocol can frequently be in error.

In June 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court banned capital punishment of offenders who are retarded. Edds argues that this is just a beginning. “The key will be in the extant to which defense attorneys are able to get skilled assessments of clients and persuade juries of intellectual deficits and gaps in adaptive behavior,” she says.

Margaret Edds has provided a free copy of her book to the RFM Library.