Remembering Garfield King
George Shivers • October 12, 2021
Among those memorialized by the marker placed this year at the Wicomico County Court House was a young man by the name of Garfield King. He was born in 1880 in the village of Allen, 7 miles south of Salisbury, where I was born some 63 years later. I knew members of the King family growing up there.
At 18 years old, a mob dragged Garfield King from his cell in Salisbury, hanged him from a tree on the courthouse lawn, and mutilated his body. Since the 1890 Census was lost and he died before the 1900 Census, I was never able to determine anything about his parents or siblings. King’s name and his family never appeared in any federal census. He must have been born after the census taker visited his home in 1880, or more likely no census taker visited that home. It is clear that he was given the name Garfield to honor President James Garfield, who had fought for the United States in the Civil War and advocated emancipation. The president was assassinated a year after Garfield King’s birth.
When he was murdered, King was a recent graduate of the Princess Anne Colored Academy (now University of Maryland Eastern Shore). Funded by the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1886 for the education of African Americans, it was primarily a secondary school that offered industrial, agricultural, and practical Arts courses.
The first time I encountered the lynching came in letters given to the Allen Historical Society by Bettie Sue Payne Malone. The letters were written by Ruth Jones, who had grown up in Allen and was planning to write a history. She sent letters to several older community members asking about several events, among which was the Garfield King lynching. Her book project never panned out, but we are fortunate to have acquired the responses to her requests.
Percy Allen replied, “In looking over your list of topics, I would very definitely suggest that no mention be made of the Garfield King lynching. It was too horrible, and none of those involved were residents of Allen. Am sure you will have enough pleasant things to write about.” Another response came from Robert Huey, a resident of Chestertown at that time, who wrote the following in his 1951 letter: “Reference has been made to the lynching of Garfield King. While I read of this incident quite a number of years ago, I did not then, nor do I now, know of the details. I recall, however, going out to the little farm owned by Uncle Price (author’s note: He is referring to Levin B. “Squire” Price, local teacher, who resided across the street from the church), and following in the furrow as Garfield plowed around the field. Garfield was always good to me, and never did I see him act unkindly.” A reporter echoed his sentiments: “The lynched man was an educated Negro who graduated at the Colored Academy at Princess Anne, and has always been well thought of by his neighbors.”
The crime of which King was accused occurred on Saturday night, May 21, 1898, at a country store at Twigg’s Corner in Allen. In the springtime, local farmers were harvesting strawberries and planting their summer crops. One of those farmers, Gamaliel Banks, hired a young man from White Haven to work for him. Herman Kenney, who was 22 years old and White, was there with a group of his friends, as was Garfield King and some of his friends. An argument begun between the two groups in the store continued once they were outside. Newspaper reports indicated that King pulled a gun and shot Kenney in the abdomen at close range. Kenney died in the hospital on Tuesday evening, May 24. King argued that he had acted in self-defense, because Kenney had struck him. A number of questions arise:
- Given his character, why was Garfield King carrying a weapon?
- Why would he feel compelled to such a violent act if he did not feel threatened?
- Was there a prior history of tension between the two?
- Were the witnesses questioned by authorities, and if not, why not? Both men were with a group of friends, plus the store owner was present.
Ample evidence from newspaper reports shows that tensions were rising among local Whites. And there is no lack of evidence of White racism. This was, after all, the Jim Crow era.
Men from the surrounding countryside began to gather in Salisbury on Wednesday evening, and by 11:30, according to the Salisbury Advertiser, a mob had gathered at the courthouse and jail. Street lights near the jail had been eliminated, and it was cloudy with a light rain falling. The mob’s leader demanded that the sheriff give him the jail keys. The sheriff refused, but someone brought over a nearby telephone pole which was used to break through the jail door.
The men opened the cell using an axe to break the lock and dragged the terrified King out of the cell, down the stairs, and into the jail yard, simultaneously kicking and beating him. He was then hanged from a tree outside the courthouse. A few White citizens tried to quiet the mob and prevent the lynching, according to the newspaper. One, Mr. E. Stanley Toadvine, pleaded with the mob to return the prisoner to the custody of the sheriff.
After the lynching, when the mob had dispersed, Judge Holland arrived, having been awakened by the shooting and the shouts. He had King’s remains taken down and placed in the nearby engine house of the local fire department. His body was later interred in an unidentified Salisbury cemetery, possibly what was known as Potter’s Field near the railroad track. No mention was made of Garfield King’s family in the newspaper reports.
Contemporary reports indicated that some in the White community and, of course, virtually all in the Black community were outraged by the act of vigilantism and mob violence that deprived Garfield King of life and justice. The reporter for the Salisbury Advertiser condemned the act in no uncertain terms, writing:
“How can a citizen who has sworn his allegiance to the government to support the constitution, deliberately join in a procession to do violence to the law and to his own oath? Such an act means that we have no confidence in our civil government. Is there a lack of confidence in our government? If so, the proper method for the officers of the law to pursue to establish confidence is to prove this matter and seek out the offenders.”
Judge Holland also expressed his outrage during an interview with a reporter, though it must be noted that his concern stems not only from the crime against civil law but also from its impact on the reputation of the community: “It was a shocking, and to me, very unexpected crime. It is a burning shame that the fair fame of this community should be darkened and disgraced.”
On Tuesday evening of the week following the lynching of Garfield King, leaders of the Black community in Salisbury called a meeting at John Wesley Methodist Episcopal Church, condemned the lynching, and called for justice.
In her book On the Courthouse Lawn, Sherrilyn Ifill points out “there are many reasons for Whites to remain silent: fear of consequences, guilt, denial, or insistence that it was all in the past and no longer significant.” She goes on to say that Blacks, too, may resist talking about incidents of racial violence: “They may fear that such a conversation will be racially polarizing, undermining progress painstakingly made over decades….” She insists, however, that that conversation must occur.
Theologian James H. Cone presents a similar thesis in his lecture, "The Cross and the Lynching Tree," delivered at Harvard Divinity School on October 19, 2006. It ended with these words: “If America has the courage to confront the great sin and ongoing legacy of White supremacy, with repentance and reparation, there is hope beyond the tragedy — hope for Whites, Blacks, and all humankind — hope beyond the lynching tree.”
We can be grateful that the State of Maryland and Kent County, Wicomico County, and other Maryland locations are finally seeking to make amends for past injustices.
Sources:
Salisbury Advertiser, Vol. 31, No. 40 (Saturday, May 28, 1898)
Cone, James H., “The Cross and the Lynching Tree.” Posted on Trinity News, Oct. 12, 2007. http://www.trinitywallstreet.org/welcome/?article&id=917
Ifill, Sherrilyn A., On the Courthouse Lawn: Confronting the Legacy of Lynching in the Twenty-first Century. Boston: Beacon Press, 2007.
A native of Wicomico County, George Shivers holds a doctorate from the University of Maryland and taught in the Foreign Language Dept. of Washington College for 38 years before retiring in 2007. He is also very interested in the history and culture of the Eastern Shore, African American history in particular.
Common Sense for the Eastern Shore
Let your elected representatives and business and cultural leaders know that our Refuge and others like it all over the country deserve to be protected. They deserve our stewardship for the natural wonders they shelter, and because they provide refuge for people, too.
The Budget Deficit In a recent debate on closing Maryland’s budget deficit, Minority Leader Jason Buckel, a Republican delegate from Allegany County, made an important point: “The man upstairs has only been there for two, three years. I don’t blame him for our economic failures of the last 10,” referring to Democratic Gov. Wes Moore, who was elected in 2022. Ahead of the 2026 gubernatorial elections, Buckel’s comments highlight a key reality that many of his Republican colleagues seldom admit: It isn’t right to blame Gov. Moore for a budget deficit that has been brewing for years. Now projected at $3.3 billion, Maryland’s structural deficit is a problem that started long before Moore took office. In fact, it was first projected in 2017, during the tenure of former GOP Gov. Larry Hogan. This isn’t an opinion — it’s a fact that Buckel and other lawmakers, including Republican Del. Jefferson Ghrist, have bravely acknowledged. During that same debate, Ghrist remarked that the Department of Legislative Services had warned about this deficit throughout Hogan’s administration, yet he did little to address it. Ghrist pointed out that during Maryland’s “good years,” when the state received a flood of federal covid-19 relief dollars, spending spiraled without regard for long-term fiscal health. Hogan used these one-time federal funds to support ongoing programs, which masked the true state of Maryland’s finances and created an illusion of fiscal stability. Hogan continues to take credit for the “surplus” Maryland had in 2022 — even though experts repeatedly note it was caused by the influx of federal dollars during the pandemic. As Ghrist correctly observed, the lack of fiscal restraint and slow growth during the Hogan years laid the groundwork for the $3.3 billion structural deficit the state faces today. Indeed, Maryland’s economy has been stagnant since 2017, especially in comparison to its neighboring states, well before Moore took office. Compounding these challenges are President Donald Trump’s reckless layoffs and trade wars with our allies. Thousands of federal workers who live in Maryland are losing their jobs, which will cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue. Trump’s tariffs will also put an enormous strain on local businesses, including Eastern Shore farmers, who are now subject to up to 15% retaliatory tariffs on chicken, wheat, soybeans, corn, fruits, and vegetables. FY2026 Budget Considering this grim reality, Maryland’s lawmakers are making difficult, but necessary, decisions to shore up the state’s finances. Gov. Moore and state legislative leaders recently agreed to a budget that prioritizes expanding Maryland’s economy without raising taxes on most residents. In fact, 94% of Marylanders should see either a tax cut or no change at all to their income tax bill under the proposed agreement. Lawmakers also plan to cut government spending by the largest amount in 16 years, while at the same time making targeted investments in emerging industries, such as quantum computing and aerospace defense, so the state is less dependent on federal jobs. While the richest Marylanders might see their income taxes go up, it’s reasonable to ask someone making over $750,000 a year to pay $1,800 more to support law enforcement, strengthen our schools, and grow our economy. As for the proposed tax on data and IT services, these products aren’t subject to Maryland’s sales tax under current law. Maryland leaders want to modernize our tax code by levying a 3% sales tax on these products. Because they don’t raise income taxes on the majority of Marylanders and because state leaders are also cutting spending by billions, these ideas are fair. They’re also necessary after Gov. Hogan chose to kick the can down the road instead of addressing Maryland’s long-predicted deficit and now that Trump’s policies will lay off thousands of Marylanders and his tariffs will hurt our state. By making responsible choices now, Maryland leaders are putting the state on a path to long-term economic stability. Their decisions will help Maryland thrive, create jobs, and invest in the vital services that every resident relies on — without burdening hardworking families. I’m confident Maryland will emerge stronger, more resilient, and ready to lead in the industries of tomorrow. Elaine McNeil is chair of the Queen Anne’s Democratic Central Committee.
Among Donald Trump’s most recent targets is what he calls “rogue law firms.” At 6pm last Thursday, March 27, he issued an Executive Order (EO) aimed at my old law firm, WilmerHale, as one of those “rogue” firms. Approximately 15 hours later, the firm filed a 63-page complaint challenging the EO on multiple constitutional grounds. The EO is an “unprecedented assault on the bedrock principle that one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit” and constitutes an “undisguised form of retaliation for representing clients and causes Trump disfavors.” And by 8pm on Friday, March 28, a little over 24 hours after the EO was first issued, a federal district court judge in Washington granted a request for a temporary restraining order, blocking key provisions of the EO from taking effect for now. In doing so, the Court found that “the retaliatory nature of the EO is clear from its face. There is no doubt that it chills speech and legal advocacy and qualifies as a constitutional harm.” The Executive Order The EO and a so-called “Fact Sheet” that went with it recites that the Administration is committed to addressing the significant risks associated with law firms, particularly so-called “Big Law” firms that engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale) is yet another law firm said to have abandoned the legal profession’s highest ideals and abused its pro bono practice by engaging in activities that “undermine justice and the interests of the United States.” The specific examples offered in support of this conclusion: The EO asserts that WilmerHale “engages in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends,” an apparent reference to the firm’s representation of Trump’s political opponents — namely the Democratic National Committee and the presidential campaigns of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The EO cites WilmerHale’s “egregious conduct” in “supporting efforts to discriminate on the basis of race,” an apparent reference to the firm’s representation of Harvard in the Students for Fair Admissions litigation. The EO accuses WilmerHale of “backing the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes,” an apparent reference to the firm’s litigation related pro bono practice and successful challenges to immigration related policies. The EO accuses WilmerHale of “furthering the degradation of the quality of American elections,” an apparent reference to the film’s involvement in challenges to restrictive state voter-identification and voter-registration laws. The EO singles out certain current and former WilmerHale partners, including Robert Mueller, for special criticism by describing Mr. Mueller’s investigation as “one of the most partisan investigations in American history” and having “weaponized the prosecutorial power to suspend the democratic process and distort justice.” The EO then Revokes security clearances held by WilmerHale attorneys; Prohibits the federal government from hiring WilmerHale employees absent a special waiver; Orders a review and the possible termination of federal contracts with entities that do business with the firm; Calls for the withdrawal of government goods or services from the firm; and Calls for restrictions on the ability of WilmerHale employees to enter federal buildings (presumably including federal courthouses) and on their “engaging” with government employees. WilmerHale’s Complaint WilmerHale engaged Paul Clement, a former Solicitor General during the George W. Bush administration and a well-known advocate frequently representing conservative causes, to represent the firm in this matter. Assisted by some 15 WilmerHale litigators, the complaint names the Executive Office of the President and 48 other Departments, Commissions, and individual Officers in their official capacity as defendants. A variety of constitutional violations are alleged: The First Amendment protects the rights of WilmerHale and its clients to speak freely, and petition the courts and other government institutions without facing retaliation and discrimination by federal officials. The separation of powers limits the President’s role to enforcing the law and no statute or constitutional provision empowers him to unilaterally sanction WilmerHale in this manner. The EO flagrantly violates due process by imposing severe consequences without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The EO violates the right to counsel protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and imposes unconstitutional conditions on federal contracts and expenditures. The complaint alleges that WilmerHale has already suffered irreparable damage in the 16 hours since the EO issued. The firm has been vilified by the most powerful person in the country as a “rogue law firm” that has “engaged in conduct detrimental to critical American interests. The EO will inevitable cause extensive, lasting damage to WilmerHale’s current and future business prospects. The harm to the firm’s reputation will negatively affect its ability to recruit and retain employees. Further Proceedings Temporary restraining orders constitute emergency relief upon a showing of likely success on the merits and irreparable harm were the temporary relief not entered. A later hearing will be held in order for the judge to determine whether a preliminary injunction should be issued preventing the government from executing the EO during the continued length of the litigation. Editorial Note: In light of the recent capitulation of several “Big Law” firms to the unreasonable and unconstitutional attacks by the Trump administration, WilmerHale is providing a blueprint for resistance as it fights back. More law firms need to be inspired by WilmerHale’s response to Trump’s demand for revenge on his so-called political enemies. John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.
Tom Timberman was one of the founders of Common Sense for the Eastern Shore. Sadly, he died last month. He will be missed. Common Sense exists because of his leadership and inspiration. His vision was to provide factual and timely commentary and analysis on topics that concern people who live and work on Maryland's Eastern Shore, and to provide factual reporting to help readers shape their own lives. It was important to Tom, as it is today to the editorial board, for Common Sense to help voters to be aware of the effects — personal and local — of decisions made at the federal and state levels. Especially relevant now is this from our Mission Statement: “We seek an America responsive to its citizens and its constitution.” We reprint this tribute from Bill Flook, President of the Democratic Club of Kent County : Many of us were deeply saddened to learn of TomTimberman’s passing last week. It’s hard to believe that such a strong Democratic voice is gone. I worked with Tom for much of the past decade on many good projects promoting our values and activities, including helping on his campaign for County Commissioner, and I’ll particularly miss following his lead as Captain of the Dawn Patrol. Our group met most Saturday mornings for coffee and some good chat, before heading up to Dems HQ to set up the booth there. We’ll miss you, Tom!
After over 12 hours of debate over two days (and a whole circus from the other side), the Maryland House of Delegates has passed HB 350, this year's state budget, and sent it to the State Senate. This budget is a deal between House Democrats, Senate Democrats, and Governor Wes Moore. It faces our state's $3 billion deficit head-on not with fantasy math, but with real choices: smart cuts and fair new revenue. This is what grown-up governing looks like. How We Got Here: Maryland’s budget problems didn’t start overnight. Leaders began warning about a shortfall in 2017 when Governor Larry Hogan was in office. Hogan made our state budget bigger every year, but the legislature wasn’t allowed to move money around or make common-sense changes. By law, they could only make cuts. In 2020, Maryland voters changed that. Starting in 2023, lawmakers finally got full power to shape the budget, not just cut from it. Instead of fixing the problem, Governor Hogan used federal COVID relief to hide our fiscal instability. Then, before leaving office, he drained our state’s savings from $5.5 billion to $2.3 billion to boost his image. Today, we are facing a new fiscal arsonist. Donald Trump’s trade wars and cuts to federal programs hit Maryland hard. We have more federal jobs and agencies than any other state, so we felt it worse than most. A University of Maryland study says Trump’s tariffs alone could cost us $2 billion. Trump/Musk's policies caused over 30,000 people in Maryland to lose their jobs, offices to shut down, and promised investments to disappear. These federal cuts added another $300 million to our budget deficit. COVID relief gave us a short break and even created a fake surplus under Hogan, but that money is gone now. Meanwhile, housing, healthcare, and college prices have gone way up. The Trump–Musk White House is making it worse by cutting even more funding, eliminating research, and gutting the services we rely on. That’s why Maryland had to act. We needed a real plan to protect working people, fund our schools and hospitals, and keep our state strong. Why Cuts Were Needed Trump’s trade wars and cuts to federal agencies hit Maryland harder than any other state. A University of Maryland study says those tariffs alone could cost us $2 billion. That hurts real people: A chicken farmer on the Eastern Shore is paying 25% more for fertilizer. A dock worker in Baltimore has fewer ships to unload. A restaurant owner in Western Maryland can’t afford eggs and tomatoes. We’ve lost over 30,000 jobs. Offices have shut down. Promised investments disappeared. The decisions of the Trump/Musk administration added $300 million to our state deficit.
The 2024 presidential election was over swiftly. The Associated Press called it at 5:34 am on Nov. 6, and by 8 am, President-elect Donald Trump was crowing about the “ historic mandate ” given to him by the American people. A “mandate”? Turns out not. Trump jumped to an early lead on election night, but in the following days, his lead diminished as mail-in and provisional ballots were counted. A Baltimore Banner article on Nov. 6 highlighted the “Trump shift” that had occurred in every political subdivision in Maryland, even in counties where Democrat Kamala Harris won. This shift described the increase in Trump support since his loss to President Joe Biden in 2020 . As of Nov. 6, the biggest Trump shift was an 8.1% increase in his support in red Cecil County, but there were also shifts in the central Maryland counties that are the state’s Democratic strongholds — 4.3% in Montgomery and lesser amounts in other blue counties. Fourteen counties recorded shifts of 4% or more. On the Eastern Shore, every county had a shift over 4.5% except Talbot (2.7%), and the five largest shifts were Shore counties. For the state’s Democrats, it did not look encouraging. But as mail-in and provisional ballots were counted across the state, the Trump shift was reduced everywhere, and as of Nov. 16, disappeared altogether in Garrett (-1.2%) and Charles (-0.1%) counties. The shift dropped below 3% in all Maryland counties. Cecil’s shift became 2.1%. Montgomery’s shift dropped to 2.9%. Talbot’s shift declined to 0.2%, lowest of the Eastern Shore counties. Now, instead of five, only two of the highest five shifts were in Eastern Shore counties. The red bars in the chart below represent the Trump shift percentage values as of Nov. 16, in ascending order. The grey bars represent the misleading (and ephemeral) Trump shift percentage values as of Nov. 6. Please note the degree to which the Trump shift lessened and disappeared in the 10 days after the election. Another red mirage. But if you had only read the Nov. 6 article and not looked at the updated data, you would have been fooled into thinking Trump support is stronger than it is.
