Joe Thompson vs Walter Clarke

John Thompson's last will pronounced his strong desire that most of his slaves, including Joe and his wife Nell, be prospectively manumitted after a period of 10 years in servitude.

Clarke also appeared as a juror in an early and highly significant petition for freedom case, Ben v. Sabret Scott (1807).

[13] At the navy yard, the enslaved workforce was far from passive; on 1 August 1809 Commodore Thomas Tingey complained to Secretary of the Navy Paul Hamilton regarding black freeman and ship caulker Henry Adams, who had the courage to write Hamilton requesting the same wages as white men: "I am concerned that you should be thus pestered with, and will certainly endeavor to discover, who it is thus prone to disturb or destroy the regulations & discipline of this yard, by aiding such men as Adams with their pens and stimulating them to troublesome acts.

Henry Adams, "Sir, is an ignorant impertinent Negro man, who however, it is allowed, is a good journeyman caulker,...."[14] The work environment at the shipyard, blacksmith shop was rough and at times brutal.

In 1809 King disclosed, "Experience has pointed out the utility of employing for Strikers Black Men in preference to white & of them Slaves before Freemen – The Strict distinction necessary to be kept up in the shop is more easily enforced.

"[17] Somehow Joe Thompson found his way to Francis Scott Key, who had represented other petitioners for freedom, and put together this case as soon as the 10 years were up.

[19] The Circuit Court of the District of Columbia with Judge William Cranch presiding held "If a testator by his will manumits his slaves after a certain term of service, and the widow renounces the provision made for her by the will and adheres to her rights under the law of Maryland, and there is sufficient personal estate to satisfy her thirds without resorting to the slaves, they will be entitled to their freedom, although the executor should have assigned them to the widow in part satisfaction of her claim.

However, in 1836 faced with a reluctant estate administrator, Shiner who had worked with Joe Thompson for years, chose to adopt the same freedom petition strategy.

[25] Joe Thompson vs Walter Clarke, while favorable, to the plaintiff, the unique facts of the case in that "the widow renounces the provision made for her" limited the scope of the decision.

This meant as a matter of law, the Thompson case had limited application, as the verdict, hinged on a plainly written testamentary manumission.

[26] The ruling although limited in scope, would have made "a significant impression at the Navy Yard", especially on Thompson's fellow workers and freedom seekers Michael Shiner and Daniel Bell.