This research sheds light on the identities of the previously unidentified enslaved individuals in the Colonel Ashley House and corrects the historical record on those that were already known to history by untangling facts from fiction. An in-depth analysis of the thirty surviving Ashley family account books housed at The Trustees of Reservations and the Sheffield Historical Society was conducted in tandem with an expansive search for the names of enslaved and freed Black people in the southern Berkshires and nearby Canaan and Salisbury in Connecticut. By pairing the archival discoveries found in the Ashley family account books with bills of sale, census data, court records, land deeds, local vital records, newspaper advertisements, probates, other account books, and tax records, the lives of nine individuals enslaved by the Ashley family were pieced together. These findings will inform a re-interpretation of the Colonel John Ashley House in Sheffield that is stewarded by The Trustees of Reservations. 

Only the earliest surviving Ashley family account books from 1771 to 1786 discussed people in bondage in the Ashley House. We know that in 1771, Colonel Ashley owned five enslaved people over the age of fourteen, and his son General John Ashley Jr. (1736–1799) enslaved three others over the age of fourteen. The contours of when the other enslaved individuals were liberated in the time after Bett and Brom’s case in 1781 remains opaque. Brom and Elizabeth Freeman—likely with Betsey Freeman in tow—won their freedom from Colonel Ashley and stopped working for him entirely. Zach Mullen appears to have settled his 1781 freedom suit with Colonel Ashley out of court and won his freedom; his brother Adam Mullen also appears to have gained his freedom in 1781. It cannot be determined if Colonel Ashley and General Ashley immediately freed Caesar, Harry, and the other unidentified enslaved people in their households. Moreover, recent scholarship has questioned the characterization of slavery suddenly ending in 1783 with complete liberation. 

The records of the Ashley family from 1782 through 1785 became less thorough in this pivotal moment of transition. Colonel Ashley never recorded the labor of his enslaved men again after 1781. The scant records that do exist from this period detail the coercive indenture of John Sheldon—a man still enslaved to the Sheldon family—to Colonel Ashley in the Spring of 1781. Concurrently in 1781, Jupiter Rogers and his sons, Will and Issac, began to work for paid wages from the Ashley family. Along with the various white laborers that consistently worked for the Ashleys before and after 1781, these Black men helped with the continued maintenance of the vast Ashley estate during this intervening period. Some of the formerly enslaved individuals of the Ashley family may have continued to work for the family directly after gaining their freedom. Adam Mullen mowed and carted for Colonel Ashley by at least 1782; the same may have been the case for Harry and Caesar.

Following these first few transitional years, other individuals formerly held in bondage by the Ashleys also returned to work for the household. Even after his bonded servitude ended, John Sheldon remained, living and working for the Ashley family for the rest of his life. Harry and Caesar both regularly worked for spurts of waged contracts for the Ashleys. Eventually, Zach Mullen and Colonel Ashley came to a tenant farming arrangement in 1789; he and his family would rent one of Colonel Ashley’s many homes with a garden lot in exchange for him working for wages. For the remainder of Colonel Ashley’s life, these men’s labor was supplemented with the work of indebted white laborers and free Black workers, including Ebenezer, Jacket (Jack), Lumblelow (Lem), Lyd, Lyfe, Benejah Abro, Ebony Freeman, Guy Johnson, Jacob Bows, Jeptha Holland, Jupiter Rogers, Isaac Rogers, Will Rogers, Peter Davis, and Richard (Dick) Sheldon (This list only reflects Black individuals who worked for Colonel Ashley, not his son General. John Ashley or his grandchildren.) Why would Zach Mullen return to work for a man who had imprisoned, abused, and enslaved him according to his 1781 freedom suit? Why would any of the men and women previously enslaved to the Ashleys continue to work for their former enslavers?  

Following the end of the Revolutionary War, the 1780s and 1790s marked an unstable economic period in Massachusetts history, marred by socio-economic tensions and flurries of common court cases over debt that culminated in the 1786 Shays’ Rebellion. Given this fraught climate, some freed Black people struggled to establish themselves financially following their years of unpaid servitude. Colonel Ashley was an exception rather than the rule with his will’s provision for his estate to support the formerly enslaved Harry, Zach Mullen, and John Sheldon; many other enslavers gave their former “servants” nothing after their 1783 freedom, and no other white person’s will in Sheffield provided for people they formerly enslaved. The land ownership of the Mullen brothers, for example, ebbed and flowed according to “down cycles” in the farming economy and amounting outstanding debts. Tenant farming for Colonel Ashley enabled Zach Mullen to escape the cycles of debt and lawsuits that plagued his brother Adam Mullen. Other Black individuals served as short-term, seasonal laborers to repay their debts to the Ashley stores or earn supplemental wages to support their own often multi-generational farms. The Ashleys continued to denote their Black laborers in their account books as “Negro” and often without their family names. A single account book contains entries for “Zach Mullen,” “Zach Mullen Negro,” and “Zach Negro.” The end of slavery in Massachusetts did not mean equality; the Black community in Sheffield still worked for people who did not bother or refused to learn their names, left their births and deaths unrecorded in local records, and buried them in unmarked graves.

While working for the family, white and Black laborers boarded at the Ashley House, rented houses and land from the Ashleys, or commuted from their own nearby household. Of the thirty-two “all other free persons” recorded in Sheffield in the 1790 Federal Census, only five of these Black families, totaling sixteen people, had their own household. From 1790 to 1800, the Black population grew exponentially in Sheffield because of its proximity to New York and Connecticut, where slavery was still legal. The 1800 Federal Census recorded 103 “all other free persons, except Indians” in Sheffield with a total of nineteen Black households. In the margins of these white elite-dominated account books, Black community ties and kinship networks are revealed through three-way exchanges for goods and services to friends, neighbors, co-workers, and family. When the Ashleys accounted for the “days lost” from labor of their waged Black workers, they recorded that many individuals returned home to Claverack, NY, Salisbury, CT, or Sheffield for holidays like the Fourth of July, Christmas, and New Years. In other instances, they went home to help with the harvests and hunting. Both women and men attended Black election day festivities in Boston and Hartford, often purchasing a new suit of clothes, borrowing cash, and losing two days of work for the occasion. Black men took time off work to participate in Black Training Days in Canaan and possibly Great Barrington that paralleled the white military and social holiday of the same name. Through their holidays, continued familial networks, and the establishment of independent households, the interconnected Black community of southern Berkshire County and northern Litchfield County engaged in forms of interpersonal and spatial resistance, even while many still labored under the watchful eye of their former enslavers. 

The thirty surviving Ashley family account books and various loose notes interspersed within their pages illustrate how Colonel Ashley and his descendants predicated their rural, regional empire on the work of enslaved men and women that enabled his stores, farms, mills, and households to be profitable entities. Their work allowed for Colonel Ashley to wear many hats, as a gentlemen farmer, innholder, judge, lawyer, mill owner, selectman, and shopkeeper. No bills of sale for any person enslaved to the Ashley family survive, —except for a woman named Mary purchased by General Ashley Jr. in 1789 and freed under the terms of an indenture. Enslaved people were often sold off as property to settle debts, but the Ashley family’s high level of economic stability prevented them from ever being forced to sell. No surviving account book mentions the enslaved labor of any women in either Colonel Ashley or General Ashley’s households. Our knowledge of Elizabeth Freeman and her daughter Betsey’s enslavement to the Ashleys derives from her freedom suit and the subsequent stories told by the Sedgwick family. Colonel Ashley probably owned at least one other enslaved woman in his lifetime, as did General Ashley. Their unknown identities demonstrate how archival bias obscures our knowledge of these women’s names, pasts, and futures outside of bondage. These individual biographies seek to foreground the experiences of all the individuals held in bondage by the Ashley family. In doing so, this research reevaluates how we tell the story of Elizabeth Freeman, the Colonel John Ashley House, and the wider Black community in the early republic Berkshires.

Brom [Bram] (? – ?)

Brom was enslaved in the home of Colonel Ashley by 1771. One possibility for Brom’s origin could be that he was sold by Captain Ruluff Dutcher (1738–1803) of nearby Canaan, Connecticut—the son-in-law of Colonel Ashley—after Captain Dutcher inherited an enslaved man called “Broom” or “Abram” from his father in 1758. No transactions survive to confirm this theory. According to the earliest Ashley account book, Colonel Ashley entrusted Brom with trips beyond his watchful eye, including frequent trips to cart ore from his open pit in Salisbury, Connecticut back to his Ironworks in Sheffield, courier tasks with goods from the Ashley store to Salisbury, and wagon trips to Claverack to fulfill wheat orders. He may have been the “Colonel Ashly’s negro” that drove his sleigh in the bristling cold in January of 1773 from Sheffield to Westfield for General Ashley’s mother-in-law, Mrs. Mary Ballantine. Beyond operating with the most autonomy of all the enslaved people in the household, Brom also may have had some training to work in Colonel Ashley’s bloomery forge. Brom sued Colonel Ashley for his freedom as Bett’s co-plaintiff in May 1781 and won. There is no evidence to suggest that Brom was Bett’s “common law husband” or that he also moved with the Sedgwicks to Stockbridge. The recent theory that Brom changed his name to Cato Brum, went to work for the Sedgwicks as their “horse-servant,” and ended his life in prison seems implausible, especially given Catharine Sedgwick’s descriptions of Cato as youthfully misbehaved. Like Elizabeth Freeman, Brom ceased all work and contact with the Ashley family following his suit, and the details of his life after gaining his freedom are lost to history.

Caesar [Ceaser, Ceas, “Ceser Negro”] (? – ?) 

Caesar was enslaved by Colonel Ashley by at least 1776. “Ceas” frequently carted with Brom heavy loads of ore from the Salisbury “Ore Hill” back to Sheffield; by 1780, “Ceaser” carted some loads on his own. After gaining his freedom, Caesar continued to work for Colonel Ashley in the 1780s for wages. In the 1790s, Caesar stopped working for the Ashleys or purchasing goods from their stores for a number of years, suggesting that he had professionally emancipated himself from the family. Entries for Caesar at the General Ashley store appear again consistently from 1798 to 1800. By 1798, Caesar had a son old enough to perform some labor for General Ashley to repay his debts for purchases. 

Around the time of Caesar’s reappearance in the Ashley account books, he may have adopted a new name. “Ceser Negro” and Caesar Freeman (ab. 1759–1845) are possibly the same person because entries for both names in different hands appear in 1798 in the Ashley account books. Caesar Freeman also started paying taxes in Sheffield in 1798. However, there were numerous Black men named Caesar in the area; thus, it is also possible that they were two separate individuals.

Harry [Heary, “Harry Negro”] (? – ?)

Harry may have been enslaved to Colonel Ashley around 1771 following his sale by John Upham of Claverack, New York. A runaway advertisement for an enslaved man named “Harry” suggests that he resisted the sale but was ultimately forced to return to Colonel Ashley’s ownership. Harry first appears in Col. Ashley’s account books in 1784, fetching a cow for a white tenant on Colonel Ashley’s land. After gaining his freedom, he consistently harvested and completed other physical labor for Colonel Ashley in the 1780s and 1790s while living at the Colonel Ashley House. He also purchased various goods from General John Ashley’s nearby store. Harry returned to Claverack for holidays, suggesting that he maintained his family connections in his former home. He played the fiddle and attended community events, such as the Canaan training day and the Boston Election Day. Notably, Harry only paid taxes once in 1791 and never appeared as head of a household in a federal census. If Harry ever took a last name is not known. He continued to work for Colonel Ashley up until the colonel’s death in 1802; Colonel Ashley provided for his continued care in his will. Harry then went to work for Colonel Ashley’s grandson William Ashley (1773–1849), and his trips to Canaan became more frequent. At some point before 1812, Harry married an unknown woman. His final entry in an Ashley account book was in 1816, but when he died cannot be determined.

John Sheldon [“John Negro,” “Old John,” “Black John”] (? – ab. 1810)

John Sheldon was previously enslaved to Colonel Elisha Sheldon (1740–1805) of Salisbury, Connecticut. For the repayment of a debt, Colonel Ashley recorded in his account book that “Colonel Sheldon’s negro John came to live with me May 9, 1782.” John was indentured or “loaned out” to Colonel Ashley with the agreement that he would return to Salisbury to help harvest. Colonel Ashley and Colonel Sheldon renewed John’s indenture to Colonel Ashley for another year in May of 1783. While slavery in Massachusetts was illegal by 1783, John was still legally enslaved to the Sheldon family in Connecticut. The Sheldon family moved to Vermont around 1790, and account entries for John Sheldon no longer mentioned his enslavement to the Colonel Elisha Sheldon or indenture to Colonel Ashley. Throughout the 1790s, John worked for wages alongside other Black and white laborers of Colonel Ashley and made minimal purchases at General Ashley’s store. He traveled the least out of any of the formerly enslaved men employed by Colonel Ashley. From 1798 to 1802, John paid taxes in Sheffield under the names “John Negro” and “John Sheldon negro” for the small amount of real estate and personal property he accumulated. In his will, Colonel Ashley provided for John Sheldon. On December 24, 1807, William Ashley paid his sister Jane Ashley Clark (1784–?) for her remainder of the settlement of Colonel Ashley, including around thirty-three dollars for the “support of John & Zack.” It is possible that John Sheldon lived with Jane after 1802 or that she handled his support monetarily. By October 11, 1810, entries appear in William Ashley’s account book for outstanding debts of “John Negro Deceased.”

Adam Mullen [“Adam Negro”] (ab. 1751–?)

Adam Mullen was probably born in Salisbury, Connecticut to unidentified parents around 1751. By 1756, he and his older brother Zach Mullen were enslaved in the household of John Dutcher (1708–1777) of Salisbury. To repay the damages on a court case over a debt to Jeremiah Hogeboom [Hannah Hogeboom Ashley’s brother] (1711–1784) of Claverack in 1757, John Dutcher handed over to the sheriff Adam, Zach, and two enslaved fifty-year olds—Tom and Mary—who may have been his grandparents. At some point before 1771, Adam and Zach were sold to Colonel John Ashley.

Adam Mullen carted ore from Salisbury to Colonel Ashley’s Ironworks starting in 1775 until 1781. His brother Zach Mullen, Brom, and Elizabeth Freeman gained their freedom from Colonel Ashley in 1781; based on his appearance in the 1781 Sheffield tax records, Adam Mullen also gained his freedom around the same time. Unlike his brother, Adam continued to work for the Ashley family directly after gaining his freedom and returned to living with Colonel Ashley around April 1784. Adam Mullen owned land along the Konkapot River beside the Ashley estate, which he sold in January 1787. The identities of Adam’s daughter—who was born by the mid-1780s— and his first wife went undocumented in the archival record. His son was probably Jacob “Jack” Mullen, who moved to Pittsfield by 1810. Adam Mullen remarried in 1806 to Prudence Steward in Sheffield.

Adam Mullen continued to buy goods from the Ashleys throughout his life and sometimes performed labor until 1807. Afterwards, Adam accumulated debt with various parties that brought cases against him at the Court of Common Pleas as he conducted business outside of the Ashley realm and their extended credit to be repaid with labor. In 1803, Thomas Stevens—a blacksmith of Sheffield—was listed as Adam Mullen’s “Trustee” in a case; Stevens possibly acted in a guardianship role similar to those imposed by the Overseers of the Poor. Adam may have worked for Thomas Stevens in some interrelated iron capacity. By 1805, Adam rented his own bloomery forge “together with the tools & implements” from Ziba Bush until around 1808. An 1807 deed for land recorded the sale of “about an acre of land, with a Dwelling-house & barn thereon standing, and the same on which Adam Mullen now lives,” which may have been from when he worked at the Bush forge. Adam Mullen was likely responsible for providing the iron for the fixtures on the “good well made & well iron bound wagon” he and Elisha Smith sold to Philander Hurlburt without ever fulfilling the order. An 1810 lawsuit over debts owed by Adam Mullen to Colonel Ashley’s grandson, William Bull Jr. (1757–1841), would be his last recorded appearance; the final years of his life are otherwise unknown.

Zach Mullen [Zack, Zachariah, Zackariah, Zacheus, Zaccus, “Zach Negro”] (ab. 1746–1817)

Zach Mullen was probably born in Salisbury, Connecticut or New York State to unidentified parents around 1746. By 1756, he and his younger brother Adam Mullen were enslaved in the household of John Dutcher (1708–1777) of Salisbury. Zach, Adam, and two enslaved fifty-year olds—Tom and Mary— were deeded to Jeremiah Hogeboom as payment for an outstanding debt. At some point before 1771, Hogeboom sold Zach Mullen and Adam Mullen to Colonel Ashley.

Zach never appeared in the earliest Ashley account book when he was enslaved, but his brother Adam did. In April 1781, Zach Mullen brought his grievances against the Ashleys to court and became the first enslaved person in the Ashley House to sue for their freedom. Zach’s case took the typical form of freedom suits; he sued on the grounds of abuse through a “plea of trespass.” His case was delayed three times until it was eventually dismissed. Colonel Ashley and Zach settled out of court around the time that Brom and Bett won their case. He gained his freedom, and he and his brother were taxpayers for the year 1781. From 1781 to 1787, Zach interacted with the Ashley family minimally and only worked sporadically for Colonel Ashley to pay for purchases at the Ashley stores. He may have owned his own land based on the taxes he paid, or he may have lived on his brother Adam’s property nearby until 1787. On November 1, 1789, Zach Mullen, his unidentified wife, his daughter, and possibly his son moved onto a “farm where Stephen Tuttle formerly lived” with a house and “a good garden spot.” They lived here continuously until 1805. Zach Mullen managed and tended this land and earned wages from Colonel Ashley for various labor, mostly consisting of managing the crops and caring for livestock.

The 1790 federal census recorded Zach Mullen as having a household of six people, possibly including his family and members of Adam Mullen’s family. Colonel Ashley’s will provided for Zach’s continued support if he needed it. In the year directly proceeding his death, William Ashley paid Zach for his continued work caring for “the property belonging to Col. Ashley’s estate” and, in another instance, paid him for tending Colonel Ashley’s stock. Sometime in the late 1800s to early 1810s, Zach may have lived and worked for Colonel John Ashley, 3rd (1767–1823), who by then resided in the deceased Colonel Ashley’s home. On December 24, 1807, William Ashley paid his sister Jane Ashley Clark from the Colonel Ashley estate, including around thirty-three dollars for the “support of John & Zack.” Furthermore, in the last year of his life, William Ashley recorded that Zach boarded at his home and his apparel was paid for out of the estate of Colonel Ashley. On March 28, 1813, Zach Mullen moved in with William Ashley and began to work for him. Zach Mullen died on October 13, 1817, in William Ashley’s home.

Elizabeth Freeman [Bett, Betty Freeman, Mumbet, Mum Bett] (ab. 1744–1829)

Elizabeth Freeman was born as Bett sometime between 1742 to 1744 in an unknown location. Many sources point to her birthplace to be in Claverack, New York because they believe she was previously enslaved to Pieter Hogeboom. Theodore Sedgwick II (1780–1839) remembered that “Mum Bett…first lived in Claverac, Columbia county, in the state of New-York, in the family of a Mr. Hogeboom. She was purchased at an early age by Col. Ashley.” However, while she could have been inherited or purchased by Colonel Ashley and his wife Hannah Hogeboom Ashley in 1758, no surviving evidence can be found to conclusively support Claverack as her birthplace. The identity of her parents cannot be determined, though, a friend of Catharine Sedgwick, Harriet Martineau, claimed that her parents came from Africa. Elizabeth Freeman kept in contact with her parents or possibly brought possessions of theirs with her when she was sold or given to the Ashley family. In her will, she bequeathed her daughter Betsey Freeman “1 do. [gown] received of my father” and “a short gown that was my mother’s.”

Folklore tells that Elizabeth Freeman was sold or inherited alongside her sister Lizzie. The evidence of Lizzie’s existence comes singularly from the story of Elizabeth protecting Lizzie from a blow delivered by Hannah Hogeboom Ashley with a hot “large iron shovel.” The Sedgwicks do not discuss the existence of Lizzie beyond this narrative, and nothing suggests that she moved with Elizabeth Freeman to work at the Sedgwick house in 1781. In their investigation on Elizabeth Freeman, Emilie Piper and David Levinson theorized that Lizzie could instead be her daughter, Betsey Freeman. Elizabeth Freeman gave birth to Betsey, or Little Bett, in the early 1770s. The identity of Betsey’s father is unknown. Theodore Sedgwick II recalled that Elizabeth Freeman married at a young age and had Betsey with her husband who died fighting in the Revolutionary War. At present, no recorded soldier who died in service can be identified that fits these parameters. Other researchers have claimed that Brom was her common-law husband, which also lacks substantiation. In her 1781 freedom suit, Bett was labeled a “spinster” and, in her later land transactions in Stockbridge, she was addressed as “singlewoman Spinster,” rather than widow. However, any possible common-law marriage she may have had could be ignored and unrecognized by the legal system.

While enslaved in the household of the Ashley family, Bett—as she was called when she lived in the Ashley House—helped with the domestic chores and served the Ashleys, alongside various short-term white female servants and possibly other enslaved women lost to history. One anecdote attests that Bett began practicing nursing and midwifery as early as 1775, implying that she learned the craft while enslaved in Sheffield. The surviving Ashley account books never recorded Bett, but her role in the household operated outside the bounds of Colonel Ashley’s accounting of his farm, store, potash, mills, and ironworks. Her invisible labor can be discerned in entries where Colonel Ashley sold items like “my wife’s butter” or “a chocolate cake”—goods that Bett undoubtedly would have played a role in producing. Bett also likely tended to the household linens and repaired domestic textiles and apparel. Her will included a linen pocket handkerchief with an embroidered “B”, a pair of cotton hose embroidered with “B.F.,” and two muslin handkerchiefs embroidered “E.B.P.” As one of her roles was likely to mark each textile to help with the laborious process of laundering, Bett would have learned some basic needlework skills that she put to service for her personal use. Given that the Ashley family lived in a rural country context, she may have also performed agricultural labor, tending to the livestock and garden.

In 1781, with their lawyers Theodore Sedgwick and Tapping Reeve, Bett and Brom sued Colonel Ashley for their freedom. They were the first enslaved persons to sue on the grounds of unconstitutionality, and their case claimed that slavery was incompatible with the new 1780 Massachusetts constitution. On August 22, 1781, at the court of Common Pleas in Great Barrington, the case Brom and Bett vs. Ashley was decided in favor of Brom and Bett. They were awarded thirty shillings. At this point, Bett officially took the name “Elizabeth Freeman.” Afterwards, she went to work for her lawyer, Theodore Sedgwick, in Sheffield and moved with the family to Stockbridge in 1785. By 1803, she owned land and, about 1807, left the Sedgwicks’ household to live in her own home with her extended family. Elizabeth Freeman died on December 28, 1829, and was buried in the Sedgwick family plot in Stockbridge.

Betsey Freeman [Betsey Humphrey, Betty, Little Bet] (ab. 1775–1858)

Betsey Freeman was the daughter of Elizabeth Freeman and an unidentified father. Different contemporary records cite her birthdate as 1770, 1772, and 1775. Thus, Elizabeth Freeman most likely gave birth to Betsey when she was still enslaved to Colonel Ashley, making the infant Betsey enslaved to him based on the status of her mother. Whether Betsey was the only child born to Elizabeth Freeman cannot be determined, but she is confirmed to be the only one to survive to adulthood. In her early years, she lived in bondage at the Colonel Ashley House and, then after her mother won her freedom in 1781, moved into the Sedgwick household in Sheffield and later Stockbridge. Catharine Sedgwick remembered her as “rather impish” and an exaggerated storyteller, while the compiler of Catharine’s letters, Mary Elizabeth Dewey (1821–1910), described Betsey as a “shiftless creature, a mere pensioner upon the [Sedgwick] family in which her mother had been a trusted friend.”

Sometime before 1803, Betsey Freeman married Jonah Humphrey (1778–ab. 1835), a member of the close-knit Black community in Stockbridge. In 1803, Humphrey and Elizabeth Freeman purchased land together. Betsey would live in this home until 1840. The couple had two daughters: Elizabeth Humphrey Van Schacck (?–1815) and Mary Ann Humphrey Drean (1804–?). Around 1835, Jonah Humphrey left Betsey and their daughter Elizabeth to move to the new southern Liberia colony of Bassa Cover with their daughter Mary Ann. In 1840, the executors of her mother Elizabeth Freeman’s estate sold the family land in Stockbridge, and Betsey Humphrey moved to nearby Lenox for the remainder of her life.

Mary (? – ?)

Mary was formerly enslaved to William Van Ness (1710–ab. 1790) of Claverack—the husband of Hannah Hogeboom Ashley’s sister. On May 5, 1789, General John Ashley Jr. purchased the “time” of “Mary a negro woman” in an indenture agreement. General Ashley first bought Mary from William Van Ness, freed her, and then rebound her to him as an indentured servant for ten years. Scholar Joanne Pope Melish described this indenture as supposedly being an arrangement Mary “agreed” to, but “Mary’s agreement would almost certainly have been made under duress on “free” ground in Massachusetts as the only way out of continued enslavement in New York. This kind of pressured service, whose legality seems dubious at best, was obviously calculated to extend the slave relation rather than to mitigate it.” Colonel Ashley recorded in his account book that “General Ashley sent to Wm Van Ness” on August 4, 1789 “10:0:24 of iron in which was 2 set of wagon tire,” possibly as a partial payment for the purchase of Mary. She may have been related to other enslaved people possibly inherited by members of the Hogeboom family from the patriarch Pieter Hogeboom (1676–ab. 1758). Right before the death of Gen. Ashley in 1799, Mary’s indenture to the family ended. The details of her life after her indenture ended are unknown.

***************************************

As is the case with many historic house museums, the Colonel John Ashley House’s role as a public institution began as a testament to a triumphant war hero and local legend of Sheffield, centering elite white male identity in the process. Narratives around Elizabeth Freeman and certainly the identities of any enslaved or free laborers existed only secondarily. Yet, the Ashley family and the wider Sheffield community’s maintenance of the Colonel Ashley House and its family history resulted in the critical preservation of historical materials. The survival of thirty family account books enables a reevaluation of its history. Revisiting archival material related to the Ashleys and the production of these biographies allows for a new type of engagement and interpretation of the house. As we enter the first stages of the house’s reinterpretation, The Trustees of Reservations is committed to illuminating all the stories of those who lived and were enslaved in the Colonel Ashley House in tangible, permanent, and meaningful ways. The Colonel Ashley House Interpretation Center, situated in a separate building open year-round, will receive a refurbishment and a new exhibition based on these findings. A part of this approach will be to better explicate how the Colonel Ashley House has physically evolved over time through visual aids. This is an important aspect of the conversation surrounding how spaces that enslaved individuals lived and slept in may no longer be accurately reflected in the surviving structure, or even exist. Along with the inclusion of these biographies, the new interpretation within the house will recenter and better educate the public on how the realities of everyday life in bondage in the Colonel Ashely House and rural New England more generally. This ongoing, multi-phase reinterpretation will seek to engage other nonprofit organizations and the Black community to make an impactful and enduring contribution to raise awareness about slavery in the North and its enduring consequences. 

Further Readings and Notes on the Sources:

The following account books are referenced throughout this article in abbreviated form. To mitigate the further spread of myths and misinformation regarding those enslaved at the Col. Ashley House, these biographies derive from evidence found in surviving primary source materials and the below citations provide references for retracing such information. The thirty surviving account books are accessible to the public by appointment at The Trustees of Reservations’ Archives & Research Center in Sharon, MA and the Sheffield Historical Society’s Mark Dewey Research Center in Sheffield, MA.

Colonel John Ashley, Ashley Account Book 1, Ledger, 1768-1786, Colonel John Ashley Papers, 1755-1818, The Trustees of Reservations, Archives & Research Center.

Colonel John Ashley, General John Ashley, and William Ashley, Ashley Account Book 2, ledger, daybook, memorandum, 1777-1819, Sheffield Historical Society, Mark Dewey Research Center.

Colonel John Ashley, and General John Ashley, Ashley Account Book 3, ledger, memorandum, 1786-1796, Sheffield Historical Society, Mark Dewey Research Center.

General John Ashley and William Ashley, Ashley Account Book 5, daybook, 1794-1795, Colonel John Ashley Papers, 1755-1818, The Trustees of Reservations, Archives & Research Center.

General John Ashley and William Ashley, Ashley Account Book 7, daybook, 1796, Sheffield Historical Society, Mark Dewey Research Center.

General John Ashley et al., Ashley Account Book 9, daybook, ledger, 1798-1801, Sheffield Historical Society, Mark Dewey Research Center.

William Ashley, Ashley Account Book 10, index, ledger, 1791-1805, Sheffield Historical Society, Mark Dewey Research Center.

William Ashley, Ashley Account Book 11, daybook, 1799-1806, Sheffield Historical Society, Mark Dewey Research Center.

William Ashley, General John Ashley, and John Ashley 3^rd, Ashley Account Book 12, daybook, memorandum, 1792-1812, Sheffield Historical Society, Mark Dewey Research Center.

William Ashley, Ashley Account Book 15, daybook, 1806-1807, Sheffield Historical Society, Mark Dewey Research Center.

William Ashley, Ashley Account Book 18, daybook, memorandum, 1819-1826, Sheffield Historical Society, Mark Dewey Research Center.

On slavery in the North and public memory, see Joseph Carvalho, “Uncovering the Stories of Black Families in Springfield and Hampden County, Massachusetts: 1650–1865,” Historical Journal of Massachusetts Vol. 40, no. 1/2 (Summer 2012): 70–3; Nicole Saffold Maskiell, Bound by Bondage: Slavery and the Creation of a Northern Gentry (Cornell University Press, 2022), 17–8, 23; Joanne Pope Melish, Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and “Race” in New England, 1780–1860 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000); Marla R. Miller and Karen Sánchez-Eppler, “Joining Reinterpretation to Reparations,” Museums & Social Issues 15, no. 1–2 (July 3, 2021): 75–6; Andrea C. Mosterman, Spaces of Enslavement: A History of Slavery and Resistance in Dutch New York (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2021), 67; William Dillon Piersen, Black Yankees: The Development of an Afro-American Subculture in Eighteenth-Century New England (University of Massachusetts Press, 1988), 117–21, 136; Marc Howard Ross, “Slavery and Collective Forgetting,” in Slavery in the North: Forgetting History and Recovering Memory (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018), 94–5, 99, 118; Elena Sesma, “‘A Web of Community’: Uncovering African American Historic Sites in Deerfield, MA,” Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage 2, no. 2 (May 18, 2015): 133; and Gloria McCahon Whiting, “‘Race, Slavery, and the Problem of Numbers in Early New England: A View from Probate Court,’ William and Mary Quarterly 77 No. 3 (July 2020): 405-40.

On background of enslavement at the Colonel John Ashley House, see “Entry for John Ashley,” Sheffield, The Massachusetts Tax valuation List of 1771, Massachusetts State Archives, volumes 132-134; Ashley Account Book 1, 165–6, 173–4, 199, 222–3, 226–9, 291, 294–6; Colonel John Ashley, “Notes regarding work of “Adam” for John Ashley,” 1784-1785, note laid in Account Book 1 (pp. 160), Colonel John Ashley Papers, 1755-1818, Archives & Research Center, The Trustees of Reservations. Ashley Account Book 3, 113–6, 127–8, 133; Ashley Account Book 10, 47; Ashley Account Book 2, 28, 46, 56; “John Ashley, Esq., Sheffield 1802 (Record no. 2195),” in Berkshire County, MA: File Papers, 1761–1917, vol. 1: Berkshire Cases 2000–3999, 5; “Entries for Sheffield,” U.S. Census, 1790, 1800, Sheffield, Massachusetts; and Myron Stachiw, “Col. John Ashley and His Web of Commerce, 1735-1802,” unpublished report (Sheffield, MA: The Trustees of Reservations, 2002); Bernard A. Drew, If They Close the Door on You, Go in the Window: Origins of the African American Community in Sheffield, Great Barrington & Stockbridge (Great Barrington, MA: Attic Revivals Press, 2004).

For the biography of Brom, see: “Christopher Dutcher,” September 15, 1752, Probate Records, 1743-1817: Probate Court, (Litchfield District), 101–5; Ashley Account Book 1, 112, 174, 167, 205, 210, 237, 245, 256, 266–7, 281, 300, 306; George Ballantine, ed., Journal of Rev. John Ballantine: Minister of Westfield, MA, 1737-1774 (Bowie, Maryland: Heritage Books, Inc., 2002), 2443; Brom & Bett vs. J. Ashley Esq, Court Records, Berkshire County Courthouse, Great Barrington, Mass., Inferior Court of Common Pleas, May 28, 1781, vol. 4A; Emilie Piper and David Levinson, One Minute a Free Woman: Elizabeth Freeman and the Struggle for Freedom (Salisbury, CT: Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area, 2010) 132, 136–7; Gelston Hardy, “Mum Bet vs. Ashley: A Little-Known Case Involving Slavery Which, If It Had Been Followed NATIONALLY, Might Have Prevented the CIVIL WAR,” unpublished paper, (Dewey Research Center: Sheffield Historical Society, 1974), 2–3; Drew, If They Close the Door on You, 11, 44; “Catharine Maria Sedgwick to Theodore Sedgwick I,” Stockbridge, MA, April 1, 1804, Catharine Maria Sedgwick Online Letters, Massachusetts Historical Society; Catharine Maria Sedgwick, The Power of Her Sympathy: The Autobiography and Journal of Catharine Maria Sedgwick, ed. Mary Kelley (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1993), 110.

For the biography of Caesar, see: Ashley Account Book 1, 174, 245, 256, 267, 287, 300; Ashley Account Book 2, 42; Ashley Account Book 11, 250; Ashley Account Book 9, 61, 63, 70, 75, 84, 87, 115, 124, 139, 150, 160, 184, 200, 211, 271, 296; Sheffield, Massachusetts Assessor’s Tax Lists and Records, Sheffield Historical Society, Mark Dewey Research Center, year 1798; “Entry for Caezar Freeman,” July 29, 1844, Massachusetts State Vital Records, 1841-1925, Deaths Registered in Sheffield 1845.

This Caesar Freeman of Sheffield and Great Barrington should not be confused with the Caesar Freeman of Stockbridge that married Margaret “Peggy” Hull, sister of Agrippa Hull.

For the biography of Harry, see: “Runaway Advertisement for Harry,” Connecticut Courant (Hartford, Connecticut), no. 329, April 16, 1771, 3; Ashley Account Book 1, 107; Ashley Account Book 3, 21, 42, 46, 61, 102, 108, 117, 124-5, 128, 130, 197; Ashley Account Book 5, 70; Ashley Account Book 2, 75, 163, 181–2, 223, 226, 247, 256, 270–7; Sheffield, Massachusetts Assessor’s Tax Lists and Records, year 1791; “John Ashley, Esq., Sheffield 1802 (Record no. 2195),” NEHS, 5.

For the biography of John Sheldon, see: Ashley Account Book 1, 291, 295–6; , Ashley Account Book 2, 45; Ashley Account Book 3, 128–9; Ashley Account Book 7, 66; Drew, If They Close the Door on You, 48; Sheffield, Massachusetts Assessor’s Tax Lists and Records, years 1798, 1799, 1800, 1801, and 1802; “John Ashley, Esq., Sheffield 1802 (Record no. 2195),” NEHS, 5; Ashley Account Book 12, 108.

For the biography of Adam Mullen, see: “Attachment, 1757 Dec 8,” Litchfield Historical Society, Wolcott Family Collection: Miscellany, Connecticut County Court (Litchfield County), 1753-1757, Folder 9, Item 4; Ashley Account Book 1, 237, 245, 281; Sheffield, Massachusetts Assessor’s Tax Lists and Records, year 1781; “Adam Mullen, to Samuel Bellows Sheldon, January 30, 1786, vol. 24, (Massachusetts Land Records 1620-1986: Southern Berkshire Registry of Deeds), 263; Col. J. Ashley, “Account regarding work of “Adam” for John Ashley”; “Entry for Jacob Mullen,” U.S. Census, 1810, 1820, Pittsfield, Massachusetts; Ashley Account Book 3, 18, 26; Ashley Account Book 11, 291; Ashley Account Book 15, 299; “Jared Canfield vs. Adam Mullen,” April 18, 1803, case no. 95, Massachusetts Court of Common Pleas records, 1760–1860, vol. 20, 401–2; “Ziba Bush vs. Adam Mullen,” April 1807, case no. 233, 1809, Massachusetts Court of Common Pleas records, 1760–1860, vol. 27, 61–2; “Philander Hurlburt vs. Elisha Smith,” January 4, 1808, case no. 195, Massachusetts Court of Common Pleas records, 1760–1860, vol. 24, 13; Asahel Olds, to John W. Hurlbert, September 21, 1807, vol. 46, (Massachusetts Land Records 1620-1986: Southern Berkshire Registry of Deeds), 83; “William Bull vs. Adam Mullen,” March 16, 1810, case no. 368, Massachusetts Court of Common Pleas records, 1760–1860, vol. 27, 373–4.

For the biography of Zach Mullen, see Adam Mullen as well as “Zach Mullen vs. John Ashley Esq.,” April 1781, case no. 20, Berkshire County, Massachusetts Court of Common Pleas records, 1760–1860, vol. 4, 24; Sheffield, Massachusetts Assessor’s Tax Lists and Records, year 1781, 1784, 1785, 1788, 1789, 1798, 1799, and 1800; Ashley Account Book 3, 60, 77, 91, 109, 111, 119, 126; Colonel John Ashley, “Account regarding work of “Zach” for John Ashley,” 1787-1789, loose note, Ashley Family Genealogy Files, collection of the Sheffield Historical Society, box 2; “John Ashley, Esq., Sheffield 1802 (Record no. 2195),” NEHS, 5, 78; “Entry for Zacheus Mullen,” U.S. Census, 1790, Sheffield, Massachusetts; Ashley Account Book 11, 246; Ashley Account Book 2, 87, 94 –5, 101, 217–8; Ashley Account Book 12, 26; Ashley Account Book 18, 95.

Zach Mullen’s son-in-law also resided with the family in 1795. Moreover, a man named Elijah Mullen (ab. 1784–1860) was born around 1783 in Sheffield to either Zach Mullen or his brother Adam Mullen. Elijah Mullen had a household of four people in Sheffield in 1810, possibly including Zach Mullen. By the 1820 federal census, he had moved to Pittsfield.

For background on the Elizabeth Freeman, see Piper and David Levinson, One Minute a Free Woman; Sari Edelstein, “‘Good Mother, Farewell’: Elizabeth Freeman’s Silence and the Stories of Mumbet,” The New England Quarterly 92, no. 4 (November 1, 2019): 604, 611; Arthur Zilversmit, “Mumbet: Folklore and Fact,” Berkshire History 1, no. 1 (Spring 1971): 5–6.

For the biography of Elizabeth Freeman, see: Theodore Sedgwick, Jr., The Practicability of the Abolition of Slavery: A Lecture, Delivered at the Lyceum in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, February, 1831 (New York, NY: Printed by J. Seymour, 1831), 14, 16; Harriet Martineau, Retrospect of Western Travel, vol. 2, 3 vols. (London: Saunders and Otley, 1838), 104; Elizabeth Freeman, Stockbridge, 1830 (Record no. 4959),” in Berkshire County, MA: File Papers, 1761–1917, vol. 1: Berkshire Cases 4000 –5999, 4; Catharine Maria Sedgwick, “Slavery in New England,” Bentley’s Miscellany, 1853, Vol. 34, 419; Piper and Levinson, One Minute a Free Woman, 63; Beth Luey, “”One Minute’s Freedom”: The Colonel John Ashley House, Sheffield,” in At Home: Historic Houses of Central and Western Massachusetts, Bright Leaf (Amherst, MA: Bright Leaf, 2019), 47; Hardy, “Mum Bet vs. Ashley,” 2–3; Elizabeth Freeman and Jonah Humphrey, to Enoch Humphrey, April 1, 1809, vol. 47 (Massachusetts Land Records 1620-1986: Southern Berkshire Registry of Deeds), 751–2; Enoch Humphrey, to Elizabeth Freeman and Jonah Humphrey, April 1, 1809, vol. 47 (Massachusetts Land Records 1620-1986: Southern Berkshire Registry of Deeds), 233–4.

If sister Lizzie was a real person enslaved in the Ashley House, a possible explanation for her not joining the Sedgwick household could be that she was already married and opted to stay with her spouse in Sheffield. Most of the wives’ names of the enslaved men in the Ashley household are unknown; Ashley Account Book 1, 43, 93; “Elizabeth Freeman, Stockbridge 1830 (Record no. 4959),” NEHS, 4; Felicia Y. Thomas, “‘Fit for Town or Country’: Black Women and Work in Colonial Massachusetts,” The Journal of African American History 105, no. 2 (March 2020): 204–6; Brom & Bett vs. J. Ashley Esq, 1781; Piper and Levinson, One Minute a Free Woman, 118.

For the biography of Betsey Freeman, see: “Entry for Betsey Humphrey,” U.S. Census, 1850, Lenox, Massachusetts; “Entry for Betsey Humphrey,” U.S. Census, 1855, Lenox, Massachusetts; “Entry for Betsey Humphrey,” April 21, 1858, Deaths Registered in Lenox 1858; Piper and Levinson, One Minute a Free Woman, 133, 137–9, 157; Catharine Maria Sedgwick, Life and Letters of Catharine M. Sedgwick, ed. Mary E. Dewey (New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, 1871), 73, 327.

For the biography of Mary, see: “Indenture in two parts between J. Ashley and Mary,” 1789, Sedgwick Family Papers, 1717-1946: miscellaneous manuscripts (Theodore Sedgwick), bound ed., collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston; Melish, Disowning Slavery, 96–7; Ashley Account Book 3, 134.

Acknowledgements: 

Thank you to my curatorial and archives team at The Trustees of Reservations and the Sheffield Historical Society for supporting and encouraging this deep exploration. Thanks to the Connecticut State Museum, Great Barrington Historical Society, Litchfield Historical Society, Massachusetts Historical Society, Norman Rockwell Museum, Stockbridge Library, Museum & Archives, and UMass Amherst W.E.B. DuBois Library for their assistance and for opening their archives to me. The three Ashley family account books stewarded by The Trustees and the Col. Ashley House historic photograph collection were recently digitized thanks to a grant by the National Endowment for the Humanities. This research was made possible by support from the Decorative Arts Trust in their sponsorship of a Peggy N. Gerry Curatorial Fellowship at The Trustees.

This article originally appeared in January 2025

---

Olivia R. Scott (Livy) is the Decorative Arts Trust Peggy N. Gerry Curatorial Fellow with The Trustees of Reservations at the Colonel John Ashley House. This work marks the first of more forthcoming research into the enslaved population of the Berkshires and the reinterpretation of the Col. Ashley House and its historic interiors.

The next important announcement is that in the past month, Jordan Taylor has moved on from his role as the Commonplace production editor. Since we relaunched the site in 2021 with new articles, a new format, and new URL, Jordan has been instrumental in shaping the look and feel of the work that we have published. I want to thank him for his amazing work and wish him the best in his new position as the Manager of Digital Content for Colonial Williamsburg. I also have the pleasure to welcome Katy Telling to Commonplace as our new production editor. Katy is a PhD candidate in History at William & Mary and also manages social media for the Omohundro Institute’s Octo as well as Women Also Know History.

It is now time for me to move to my plea for your support and turn to submissions. I want to follow up on my final point from last year’s note about submissions to Commonplace, but before I that, I would like to pause and have you read a few seemingly unrelated excerpted paragraphs from an unpublished piece titled “‘Bachelors, Look Out!’: Working Men’s Masculinity and Light-Reading Articles in 1830s New York City Pro-labor Newspapers” that I wrote in 2002 when I was in graduate school. Feel free to skip down if you want, but I think it will make sense on the other side.

***************************************

The labor agitation guidelines set down at the inaugural 1834 National Trades’ Union Convention included a mandate that union members should “refuse honor and office to every man who does not promote by a good example and deeds of benevolence the welfare of his fellow beings.” Published in the September 6, 1834, issue of the official National Trades’ Union newspaper, such principles informed the audience (union members and potential members) of acceptable labor organizing behavior and provided some of the contours of an ideal worker identity. Within that same issue, the newspaper’s editors used the limited available space to publish a series of riddles under the title, “A Good Wife.” Noting what a “good wife ought to be like,” these riddles included that she should be, “like a town clock, keep time and regularity,” but should also, “not be like a town clock; speak so loud that all the town can hear.” While these riddles offer scholars an opportunity to probe contemporary humor for ideals of marital and gender relations, their inclusion in one of the nation’s first pro-labor newspapers also raises the question of the relationship between articles like “A Good Wife” that were seemingly separate from political economy content and more recognizably labor-related articles such as the proceedings of the National Trades’ Union Convention.

Reading papers like the National Trades’ Union, The Man, The Union, The Democrat, and the Working Man’s Advocate, New York City’s workers learned about the bank war, monopolies, Loco-Foco politics, and labor unrest. The editors of these newspapers: Ely Moore, George Henry Evans, John Commerford, and John Windt, read like a who’s who of 1830s New York labor activism, and eager readers clamored to hear their opinions. Alongside these articles however, each edition also contained what The Man referred to as “light-reading articles” such as poetry, marriage announcements, humorous aphorisms warning about abhorrent behavior, advertisements, and other news of the day. More than just filler clipped from out-of-town papers to pad the publication, these articles often appeared on the front page and usually occupied more than two full pages of a four-page newspaper. Journeymen readers expected anti-bank discussions to appear side-by-side with anecdotes about how artisans’ wives should act and did not see them as mutually exclusive. This analysis of pro-labor newspapers considers these articles and their importance to readers as a crucial aspect of the cultural lives of Jacksonian working men . . .

Like many light-reading articles, discussions of marriage often used humor to make a point. A report in the National Trades’ Union on July 25, 1835, from frontier Chicago noted that women were in demand and “some have thirty suitors at a time, and duels are not infrequent to obtain the prize of beauty: even old maids find a ready market, after a few shots.” Editors noted that they ran the article “by way of circulating the most important information; and hope those interested will profit by it.” This humor could also be used as a weapon of social criticism when the institution of marriage was not respected. The National Trades’ Union ran another story on May 2, 1835, entitled, “New way to get a husband,” that described a woman who tricked a lawyer into marriage. The older woman feigned illness and sent for the attorney to draw up her will. She exaggerated the sum of her estate and when she “thought proper to be again restored to health,” was visited by the lawyer who soon popped the question, only to later find out about her tiny estate. The lawyer, never a popular character in pro-labor papers, had been beaten at his own game in his attempt to marry for money . . .  

Lawsuits for “Breach of Promise” were not just simple reminders that men should respect the institution of marriage; they were specifically punitive matters, reflecting the economic aspect of becoming a husband. The loss of a potential husband could mean economic devastation for a single woman and could not be forgiven by simple emotional excuses. At a time when average wages for skilled working men in New York City ranged from $1.00 to $2.00 a day, reported fines were often exorbitant and usually reflected  the middle class background of the men involved in the cases. However, this type of light-reading article prescribed a certain set of guidelines for any man’s engagement. Their inclusion in a pro-labor newspaper localized the message for artisans and infused it into part of a masculine worker identity. One example of this genre from The Man on April 27, 1834, described a jury that “returned a verdict of 5,000 dollars for the plaintiff, the whole amount claimed in the declaration. Have a care, young men!” The heavy fines reflected that marriage as an economic contract under laws of coverture needed to be protected accordingly; artisan readers could identify with the message of masculine obligation even if the judgements clearly fell outside their financial purview . . .

Bachelors were also popular topics of conversation in 1830s New York City, from pro-labor newspapers to middle-class novels and health reports. This was not a new fear. Newspapers identified bachelors as dangerous and destabilizing members of New York society going back to the eighteenth century. It was an exaggeration that bachelors ran rampant and that marriage was under attack by rogues, but the threat certainly felt real when highlighted repeatedly in the press. Low marriage rates for working men in the city and the notion that certain men did not even want to participate in the institution flew in the face of the papers’ pro-marriage message. In The Man’s March 7, 1834, daily “Marriages” column, a notice even ran under a blank space, declaring, “If people won’t marry, we can’t help it.” . . .

Even if they were not set up as examples to follow on the issue of love, pro-labor newspapers could recognize bachelors as an important group of readers and even treated them with compassion on occasion. One article in the May 16, 1835, issue of the National Trades’ Union warned readers of an attempt in Maine to pass legislation that would “tax ‘old Bachelors for the benefit of Maiden Ladies of a certain age.’” The article, entitled “Bachelors, Look Out!” declared that “an old bachelor would experience affliction enough, in all conscience, without being compelled to pay for it.” The appeal ended with the notion that if the bill passed, “the poor bachelor will be goaded on to matrimony by the relentless tax man. What think, ye, bachelors?” Rather than lechers, these old bachelors were victims of a scheme to take their money. It was a double blow because the taxes were for the benefit of women that these same men had either been unable or unwilling to marry. Outside forces sometimes excused bachelors for the failure to marry entirely. In a short note on May 10, 1834, The Man reported that the “Portland Courier says that the young ladies of that town have formed an Anti-Matrimonial Society.” While this seemingly relieved bachelors of their responsibility to marry in one case, the institution of marriage faced a number of other difficulties in the mid-1830s . . .

****************************************

Ok, we are back. I thank those of you who read through something I wrote in graduate school. It was never published, but it was sent in to a journal, and that brings me to the issue of submissions. With a few exceptions, most of what we publish at Commonplace comes to the journal as an unsolicited submission, rather than a commissioned article. We depend on you for what we produce. So whenever possible, I like to provide a look behind the curtain of how we do things here at Commonplace. In the context of asking for you to send in your work for consideration, I want to discuss the term “revise and resubmit” and how it got me thinking of something that I wrote more than 20 years ago. I wrote the paragraphs above as part of a piece that I submitted to a journal and after I received back a response to revise and resubmit, never resubmitted. I am sure that I got very busy with other things, but it was clear that the readers (both reader one and the dreaded reader two) had not accepted my main argument that there was something important to learn in these light-reading articles that might inform us about how white working men in the New York organized labor movement constructed their identity as family members and workers. Fair enough. The argument may not have been convincing or I had not done enough analysis of the material to convince them. The reason why I never went back to my “Bachelors, Look Out!” piece was that the suggestions sent to me in asking me to revise and resubmit the submission wanted a very different article than I was proposing. It may have worked for the journal had I have followed through, but it was not the discussion that I wanted to have. The story I wanted to tell was not what they wanted to publish. Again, fair enough.

Why am I revisiting this now as part of a call for submissions to Commonplace? Since we are asking you to put your work out there for us to review and decide whether or not it should be published, I want to let you know that whenever possible I avoid asking authors to revise and resubmit their work. Of course, every submission that we receive is different and there have been occasions when we have asked an author for a modified version of a resubmission, but those have been quite rare. I have reviewed submissions for numerous publications and asking for a revise and resubmit is very common and at some publications almost seems to be the default. If you ask for the revisions up front, you can be more assured that what comes back fits what you are looking for in the first place. We have not tended to approach submissions to Commonplace this way.

I have said in several venues that I never really know which articles will generate the most readers, so I feel that it is important for authors to not to lose their unique voice. What I look for in a submission is whether I think it can potentially work as a piece that will interest at least a portion of our diverse readership. If it can, I am usually open to working with the author to respond to the editorial board members’ comments and to get it ready for publication in a way that works for us while staying true to the author’s vision. If it does not fit, I try to be honest about that up front and suggest that they find a better venue. I hope this helps explain the process a bit better for potential authors and encourages some of you to consider submitting your work to Commonplace. If you have any questions about doing so or want to pitch me a piece, please reach out at commonplacejournal@gmail.com.

 

Happy New Year!

 

This piece originally appeared in January 2025.

---

Joshua R. Greenberg (@joshrgreenberg.bsky.social) is the editor of Commonplace: The Journal of Early American Life. He is the author of Bank Notes and Shinplasters: The Rage for Paper Money in the Early Republic (2020) and Advocating the Man: Masculinity, Organized Labor, and the Household in New York, 1800-1840 (2008).

This way of telling history has much to recommend it, and the examples I have named are wonderful pieces of historical storytelling that deserve to be read. They are vivid and entertaining; the stories effectively use narrative to illustrate important historical trends. But when historical figures are seen as important primarily because of the most dramatic moments of their lives, we can sometimes make it more difficult to see the hard, repetitive, boring work of making social change. After all, world-changing heroism is not just a matter of dramatic escapades, grand accomplishments, literary achievements, and firsts. History also changes because of strange, flawed, deeply human people doing unremarkable, tedious, and often boring work. 

David Ruggles was an extraordinary man who spent much of his life doing this kind of unglamorous work. Much of Ruggles’ work was like the work of thousands of other activists, men and women, black and white, who created the Underground Railroad through thousands of unrecorded, unremembered, obscure acts of courage, which often resulted in compromised or incomplete victories. At times, this work must have been boring: writing writs of habeus corpus; tracking expenses for Vigilance Committees; typesetting; delivering letters; cooking food to serve to fugitives or cleaning their bedclothes. Of course we should acknowledge Ruggles’ extraordinary feats. But the Underground Railroad could not have existed without the difficult, self-consciously un-historical, often boring, work that served as the movement’s foundation. This is why the (somewhat dull) story of the brig Brilliante is worth your attention.

It was December 1836. The days were short, cold, and dark. It very well might have been raining. Since moving to New York in 1827, Ruggles had become a trusted member of the antislavery activist community in New York City. The previous November, Ruggles founded the New York Committee of Vigilance with a core group of four others. Since then, they had conducted their work of attempting to free fugitive slaves through legal and illegal means. On December 3, Ruggles heard from one of his contacts that a known Portuguese slave ship, the brig Brilliante, had arrived in port. Ruggles wanted to verify this report, so he headed down to the docks and spoke with a white sailor, who confirmed that five enslaved men were on board and that the ship would be in New York City for a few weeks for repairs.

The legal status of enslaved people in New York State was complex. By 1827, slavery was illegal in New York. However, because of an 1817 state law that was still on the books, non-residents could still bring enslaved people into New York for up to nine months without having to free them. But Ruggles reasoned that the captain of the Brilliante couldn’t take advantage of this loophole because the Brilliante was a foreign vessel. Congress had outlawed the international slave trade in 1807, clarifying and extending the prohibition on slave-trading in 1818 and 1820. In short, bringing enslaved men from outside of the U.S. into New York Harbor violated these Federal laws. So, on Friday, December 10, Ruggles headed over to the office of the New York District Attorney, a man named William M. Price. After receiving Ruggles’ report, Price did nothing.

Ruggles returned on Monday, December 12, to check in on Price, who said he would “attend to it.” Ruggles left the District Attorney’s office with instructions from an office assistant to find out the name of the captain of the Brilliante. Ruggles came back again the same day and asked to talk to the Deputy Marshall, who said he didn’t have time deal with the matter that day and that he’d deal with it tomorrow. Ruggles responded, “but she”—the Brilliante—“may be gone.” The Deputy Marshall said that he needed more information and told Ruggles to come to his house that afternoon. But when Ruggles arrived at the house, there was, mysteriously, nobody home. 

Already, you may want to stop reading this article and go do something more entertaining. Ruggles probably would have liked to go and do something else, too. In this story, Ruggles probably spent most of his time walking: from his home to the docks to various offices, homes, and institutions, then back again. In December, New York City was rainy, and sometimes snowy. The streets of New York were famously the filthiest in the United States, too, lined with privies piled high, which overflowed into the streets. Loose pigs and dogs snuffled in the mire. As a black man, Ruggles would not have been allowed to take one of the brand-new horse-drawn streetcars. He would have had to trudge through puddles and filthy snow.

To return to our story: on the evening of Monday, December 12, Ruggles wrote a notice that would appear in the New York Sun the next morning. The note narrated Ruggles’ experience to drum up outrage against the District Attorney’s inaction. On Tuesday morning, Ruggles went to the District Attorney’s office again (another trudge through filthy snow), only to be, as he put it, “rather uncivilly, [shown] the door!” The District Attorney, clenching his fist, bellowed at Ruggles, “go out of MY OFFICE!”

Ruggles published another account of his adventure in the Evening Post. At that point, it was probably embarrassing for the District Attorney’s inactivity to be exposed so publicly. So, by the end of the day Tuesday, the captain of the Brilliante was arrested, and the enslaved men held on his ship were put in a debtor’s prison while the case proceeded. Finally. After all that work, all the stonewalling by officials, all the early-morning treks through the streets of New York, justice would be done! Right?

Of course not. Now there was a court case, which started on December 16. In summary, the captain of the brig argued for his innocence based on a technicality. (The men on board the Brilliante, he argued, should not be considered slaves because they were part of the ship’s crew and would not be sold in the United States.) The District Attorney accepted this argument without questioning the captain or introducing any other testimony, then discharged the captain. But the enslaved men were kept in the city’s debtor’s prison for four days, even though they hadn’t been charged with any crime, probably to prevent volunteers from liberating them.

Ruggles and three others went to the debtor’s prison on December 20, one of the darkest days of the year, probably walking once again through frozen filth. They asked: by whose authority are these men being held? The jail-keeper blamed the Sheriff and Marshall. So Ruggles went over to the Sheriff ’s office. (Another walk). The Sheriff said that he had nothing to do with it. Next, Ruggles went to the District Attorney’s office. (Another walk.) The District Attorney was not in, but his assistant told Ruggles that the men were being held as the captain’s property, which was illegal in the United States, according to Ruggles. Ruggles and his companions went up to see the Deputy Marshall. (Another walk.) He was also not in. They gave up and went home. It must have felt like they had walked all over the city. And their reward was: precisely nothing.

The next day, an unnamed person, likely a member of the Vigilance Committee, stopped the Deputy Marshall on the street and asked why the men were still being held in prison. The Deputy Marshall said that they shouldn’t be in jail and wrote a note ordering that the men be released. Ruggles and his companions brought the note to the jailhouse, but the jailkeeper refused to release the men. Ruggles told the jailkeeper that he had no legal authority to hold the men. The jailkeeper seemed not to care. “I shall risk it,” he said.  Members of the Vigilance Committee filed a writ of habeas corpus. But before they could finish that process, the slaves had already been moved back aboard the ship, where they were now trapped. It was defeat after infuriating defeat.

Finally, on Christmas Eve, a group of armed black New Yorkers (reportedly not including Ruggles) boarded the brig Brilliante and managed to rescue two of the men. When they returned later to get the rest of the men, they were unfortunately rebuffed. After all that work, only two men were freed. After all those days—all those words written, all the walking around the city, contacting official after official—all Ruggles got was a painfully incomplete victory. 

And even that small victory was not without its costs. On December 28, around 1:30 in the morning, Ruggles was awoken by the loud sounds of knocking on his door. Soon, three men had forced open his front door, brandishing pistols and knives, menacing Ruggles’ landlady, and yelling at Ruggles. Luckily, the police soon arrived and arrested two of the men. But when Ruggles went to City Hall the next day to press charges, he was imprisoned for a short time because the constable had an arrest warrant that allowed him to arrest any black person that matched a description of an escaped slave. The men who forced Ruggles’ front door would probably have kidnapped him and sold him into slavery in retaliation for his efforts to free the slaves on the Brilliante.

If all this trudging back and forth between various offices, houses, and jails sounds less like heroic activism to you and more like a Kafkaesque bureaucratic nightmare, that is my point. Slogging for miles through slush and snow in the dark and the cold, following the legal processes, trying to force public servants to do their jobs, knowing the law, understanding court procedures—this is what it was often like to actively work against slavery. Infuriating, complicated, annoying, tedious.

This brand of heroism can be hard to talk about, especially in public-facing histories, which must be not only accurate but entertaining. Sometimes, it seems as if historians work to make the work of activism seem as dramatic and colorful as possible. But it is important, too, to understand that much practical abolitionist work probably didn’t feel heroic or historical or impressive at all. Much of it was the frustrating and incomplete result of sheer doggedness. The story of the brig Brilliante reminds us that history is not just made by firsts: It’s made by repetitive efforts, too. Ruggles’ tedious brand of heroism serves to remind us of the thousands of other acts of quotidian courage performed by thousands of forgotten people, who had jobs and small businesses and children, but who were nonetheless willing to spend hours and hours walking through filthy snow.

Further Reading:

Primary sources:

David Ruggles, The First Annual Report of the New York Committee of Vigilance, for the Year 1837, Together With Important Facts Relative to Their Proceedings (New York: Piercy & Reed, 1837),  https://reader.library.cornell.edu/docviewer/digital?id=may839002#mode/2up.

David Ruggles, The Mirror of Liberty, vol. 1, no. 1 (New York: David Ruggles, 1838).

Edwin Williams and John Disturnell, New York as it is, in 1837 (New York: J. Dusturnell, 1837).

Frank M. O’Brien, The Story of the Sun (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1918).

Laws Relative to Slaves and Servants, Passed by the Legislature of New-York, March 31st, 1817. Together with Extracts from the Laws of the United States, Respecting Slaves (New York: S. Wood & Sons, 1817).

Longworth’s American Almanac, New York Register, and City Directory (New York: Thomas Longworth, 1836).

Secondary sources:

Fergus M. Bordewich, Bound for Canaan: The Epic Story of the Underground Railroad, America’s First Civil Rights Movement (New York: Amistad, 2006).

Edwin G. Burrows and Mike Wallace, Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).

Eric Foner, Gateway to Freedom: The Hidden History of America’s Fugitive Slaves (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).

Graham Russell Hodges, David Ruggles: A Radical Black Abolitionist and the Underground Railroad in New York City (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2010).

Jesse Olsavsky, The Most Absolute Abolition: Runaways, Vigilance Committees, and the Rise of Revolutionary Abolitionism, 1835-1861 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2022).

This article originally appeared in December 2024. 

---

Isaac Kolding is a PhD candidate in English at the State University of New York at Buffalo. His research focuses on the intersection between radical abolitionist rhetoric and literature in the nineteenth-century U.S. His writing appears in American Literature, American Literary Realism, and J19: The Journal of Nineteenth-Century Americanists.

In 2018, the State of Hawai’i commemorated the 150th anniversary of the gannenmono or first year people, the nearly 150 Japanese laborers imported to work in the Kingdom’s sugar fields. It was the “first year” (1868) of the Meiji Emperor’s reign, ending over 250 years of relative peace and harmony imposed by the essentially hereditary military dictatorship of the Tokugawa family. Though these gannenmono are often regarded as the first Japanese in Hawai’i, many of their countrymen had already visited the islands for at least sixty years, and probably much longer than that. These occurrences had probably been going on for centuries, but not until the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries did a few end up in places where literate inhabitants recorded their arrival rather than just incorporate them into oral records. A few by the nineteenth century luckily were rescued at sea by the increasing numbers of (primarily) American whaling and merchant ships.

Earlier pre-contact unrecorded encounters were likely. One scholar speculated, for example, that the Hawaiian feather kahili, a symbol of nobility and power unknown elsewhere in Polynesia, possibly derived from the somewhat similar Japanese keyari. Not everyone agrees, but the possibility is there. Or, perhaps, the Hawaiian game of konane is a derivative of the Japanese game of go. More ominously, some scholars suggest that Japanese drifters, not Captain Cook, may have introduced syphilis and other diseases to Hawai’i.

We are on firmer ground when the historical records document Japanese drifts. In 1793 a group of sixteen drifters managed to reach an island in the Aleutian chain and spent eight years living in several different Siberian settlements. Many died, but the survivors eventually were taken to St. Petersburg and presented to Czar Alexander I. Given a choice, six of the survivors opted to remain in Russia rather than risk the potential penalties of returning to Japan, but four of them boarded a Russian ship in July 1803, and after a lengthy trip the ship stopped at the Sandwich Islands (as they were then generally called) to resupply. There is no record of these Japanese leaving the ship, but if they did that should qualify them as the first known Japanese to set foot in the Hawaiian kingdom. The ship then sailed for Nagasaki and after some delicate and sometimes angry negotiations with local authorities, the four were returned to Japanese officials thirteen years after their shipwreck. The incident prompted the Shogun’s government to decree that no foreigners (in this case Russians) should ever be allowed to disembark on Japanese soil.

Three years later, in March 1806, eight survivors of the ill-fated ship Inawaka-maru were brought to Honolulu after being rescued by the American whaling ship Tabour, under the command of Captain Cornelius Sole. Their ordeal began on November 7, 1805, when they ran into a storm that severed their rudder; they cut down the junk’s mast to improve stability and for more than seventy days they drifted helplessly, surviving on a little rice at first but mostly on rainwater and fish.

Captain Sole took them aboard, and, realizing that they were starving, gave them only tea at first to not worsen their condition. A couple of days later they had their very first taste of bread and two months later they reached Honolulu. Nearly 500 men and women gathered to gawk at the strangers as they disembarked from the Tabour. King Kamehameha delegated responsibility for the Japanese to Kalanimoku, his prime minister. Kalanimoku, who often used the name Billy Pitt in deference to the late British Prime Minister, gathered fifty men to build a house for the Japanese. It took just four days, after which Kalanimoku assigned a cook and two guards to help the new arrivals. And when curious onlookers increasingly came to stare, Kalanimoku built a fence built around the house to keep strangers away. 

One of the sailors, thirty-four-year-old Hirahara Zenmatsu (generally known as simply Zenmatsu), eventually returned to Japan, where under lengthy interrogation, he related his story. It seemed to him that most Hawaiian men were more than seven feet tall and weighted between 240 to 320 pounds (in English equivalents). The women were almost as large. They wore no clothes except perhaps a small square of tapa as loan cloth. He reported that they did not have pots or pans but cooked in fire pits in the floors of their houses by covering red hot stones with mats soaked in sea water. Taro, sweet potatoes, meat and chicken were placed in the pits and essentially steamed. Despite the warm climate there were no mosquitoes, but there were many flies and fleas. Surprisingly, perhaps, Zenmatsu claimed the Hawaiians had no religion (no God or Buddha) and had no rituals to celebrate either holidays or weddings. They were apparently happy: every day they just ate, slept, and had sex! 

After three- and one-half months, on August 17, Zenmatsu and his companions left for Macau on a ship appropriately named Perseverance, whose Captain Amasa Delano offered to take them to China, hoping that from there they could make their way home. As they left, several hundred Hawaiians showed up to see them off, bringing taro, sweet potatoes, beef, pork, and chickens and one by one bade the Japanese goodbye. “We were so deeply touched,” Zenmatsu wrote, “that we all could not hold back our tears.” Despite the auspicious ship name, however, their return home was a sad journey. They got to Macau in mid-October but after two months they were sent to the Dutch settlement of Batavia (Jakarta), Java. They remained for four more months subjected to tropical diseases, which led to the deaths of three of them. Only three of the eight reached Nagasaki on a Dutch ship on June 17, 1807. One more died shortly after and still another committed suicide rather than submit to interrogation. Only Zenmatsu remained. After more than five months of interrogation, he was allowed to return home, but he also died within six months.

It was more than a quarter century before the next documented group appeared. In December 1832, a Japanese junk washed ashore off Waialua, Oahu, with four survivors. Transferred to Honolulu, they remained for eighteen months before securing passage on a ship bound for Kamchatka in Russian Alaska, apparently hoping to make their way down the Siberian coast and reach the northernmost islands of Japan. One of them died at the Russian American Company settlement, but the remaining three made it to Sitka and from there to an island north of Japan. Their fate is unknown as they left no records.

We know much more about the next group of castaways in Hawai’i because one of them, Jirokichi, managed to return to Japan where he was grilled for three years. His testimony, written down with illustrations, was hand copied multiple times in a three-volume work entitled Bandan (Stories of Barbaric Places). This story began in 1838, when the American whaling ship James Loper, under the command of Captain Obediah Cathcart, came across a drifting Japanese junk, the Cho ja-maru. Aboard were seven very weak men, who by that time had been drifting for five months.

The most formidable, by sheer talent, rather than rank or formal education, was Jirokichi. After a month of recuperation, Jirokichi and two of his fellow shipmates chose to remain on the James Loper to help with whaling. The others were transferred to two other nearby ships. Jirokichi meticulously observed all the operation of the huge (by Japanese standards) ship and the process involved in whaling. He also observed differences in Japanese and American sailing practices. Cathcart surprised the Japanese when he told them in the middle of the Pacific that the next morning they would arrive at an island. They were even more surprised when his prediction came true, and they reached Hilo on Hawai’i Island.

In Hilo, Cathcart handed the Japanese over to a community of Chinese settlers in town. The Japanese and Chinese could not understand each other’s spoken languages, but they could communicate through writing. While in Hilo, Jirokichi later related, they had been taken to see sex workers, but they found the girls unappealing. The three soon realized that despite the seeming hospitality of the Chinese, their real motive was to put the Japanese to work in the newly developing sugar cane fields. Cathcart, eager to help, took the Japanese from Hilo to Lahaina on Maui Island and put them into the custody of his friend the Reverend Dwight Baldwin. They even stayed in Baldwin’s house, the one essentially destroyed in the tragic 2023 fire that wiped out most of the town of Lahaina.

The Yale-educated Baldwin took great interest in the drifters and their country , never having seen any Japanese before. He wrote a lengthy article for the Polynesian newspaper on August 1, 1840 recounting what he learned. Jirokichi, he reported, though apparently illiterate, was much more intelligent than his two companions, and by this time was “catching up” with both the Hawaiian and English languages. The same edition of the paper reported that Queen Victoria had announced her intention to marry Prince Albert of Saxe Coberg and that the wealthy American John Jacob Astor had died. So, while Baldwin studied the Japanese, Jirokichi closely studied the strange customs, inventions, and beliefs of his Maui host. 

On meeting an American woman and child, Jirokichi noted that she was “very pretty and seemed gentle.” Her hair was reddish, her eyes almost white. The child, only four or five years old, had hair that “had already become completely white!” Baldwin’s house itself fascinated him: objects that were not found in Japanese houses such as ovens, and doorknobs intrigued him. Japanese houses did not have western style doors, let alone doorknobs. Japanese cooking did not lend itself to baking. 

After a few weeks on Maui, the three Japanese were sent to Honolulu, where hopefully they would have better luck finding a ship bound for China. They were there united with their four shipmates who had been staying in the home of a prosperous Chinese dry goods merchant. The three new arrivals, with a letter of introduction from Reverend Baldwin met Reverend Hiram Bingham, at that time in the process of designing Kawaiahao Church. 

In the following days and weeks, they explored the port city. Jirokichi continued to make extensive notes of how people lived, their plants and animals, military defenses, the houses he saw, and how to make adobe bricks. He saw windmills, a printing plant, poi making, sugarcane processing, and, most shockingly for the Buddhist Japanese, the slaughter of cattle. He described poi, cigars, craft making, and surgical procedures, all previously unknown to him. They even had an audience with King Kamehameha III. Jirokichi described the palace grounds, which included several buildings and a huge parade ground surrounded by a wall. The surrounding area was heavily fortified with big cannons every few steps. He unfortunately said little about the conversation with the king, but thought that he showed them more deference than he did his own subjects. They were offered poi, but found it tased sour and kept their mouths firmly shut. When they were then served watermelon, they were quite happy. 

During their stay, their Captain Heishiro became ill and died. Levi Chamberlain, missionary and extensive diarist, wrote that the captain’s four companions,“came to mingle their tears and perform superstitious ceremonies over the body” when they learned of his death. The king also called at the house to pay his respects. Reverend Bingham conducted a funeral service and had him buried in the church cemetery. “He left,” Chamberlain wrote, “a wife & children in Japan—three sons & two daughters.” Meanwhile no China bound ships appeared, so they returned to Lahaina and worked in the cane fields for a time, but the heat was too great for them, and they returned to Honolulu by canoe. They spent the next ten months there because the Opium War made Chinese ports unreachable. 

Hawaiian friends suggested they might have better luck trying to get home via Russian Alaska. They sailed for Alaska and spent the next ten months in soldiers’ barracks in Kamchatka. Jirokichi, despite his small size, amazed the Russians with his strength. He could carry three bags of rice at once (no Russian could) and he also defeated all comers at sumo wrestling. They hated the Russian food, but eventually a ship showed up and returned the six men to Japan via Sitka to the Kurile Islands.

Sent to Edo (Tokyo), they were subjected to extensive questioning. Two of them soon died, and Jirokichi himself was grilled for three years before finally being allowed to return home after eight years away. His interrogation included meeting with scholars, one of whom, Koga Kinichiro, wrote Bandan recounting their adventures. Many of the extensive drawings were apparently by Jirokichi himself.

The men and boys described above were not the only Japanese castaways to spend some time in Hawai’i. The most well-known did spend some time in Hawai’i, but their achievements elsewhere are better known. John Manjiro (as he came to be called) learned the whaling trade, spent time in New England, where he was educated, and after a few years worked in the California gold fields to earn money to return home. He went by way of Honolulu, where he met up with three friends who he had left there several years before. They convinced a sea captain to take them near (but not to) Japan and made their way ashore in a small whaling boat. 

The other, known as Joseph Heco, was rescued at sea with several shipmates and taken to San Francisco in 1851. As a precocious teenager over the next few years, he became the first Japanese to meet an American president (he definitely met two and probably three), the first Japanese to become a naturalized American citizen, and the first Japanese (along with his shipmates) to be photographed.

During this period, the United States Government, hoping to extend its influence across the Pacific, was in the process of preparing an expedition led by Admiral Matthew C. Perry to “open” Japan (by force, if necessary) for trade and re-coaling of naval ships. When Heco and his shipmates arrived in San Francisco, authorities, baffled by what to do with them, suggested, naively, that they should be returned immediately to Japan. The Japanese government, according to this line of thinking, would then be so grateful that they would gladly open their ports. Heco and a few of the shipmates and a couple of American friends, sailed to Hong Kong, hoping to meet up with the then formulating Perry expedition. Inevitably delays discouraged them and they returned to San Francisco.

Finally, in 1853, and again in 1854, Perry sailed into Edo (Tokyo) Bay demanding that Japan end its isolation and sign a treaty with the United States. The resulting Convention of Kanagawa (1854) had a clause that specifically protected American castaway sailors who might end up in Japanese waters and perhaps by implication (though not explicitly) Japanese castaways as well. Only one of Heco’s fellow castaways was with Perry, but he was so frightened that he refused to come on deck the entire time Perry was in Edo. 

The story is not yet over. By 1860, Heco and Manjiro were both back in Edo, among the very few people fluent in both English and Japanese. The primary European language then known in Japan was Dutch. Heco, an American citizen, got a job in the new American consulate in Kanagawa. He also founded the first (though short-lived) Japanese newspaper, having seen in San Francisco, Honolulu, and elsewhere how this medium resulted in the rapid spread of news throughout the population. He also established an import/export business, primarily with San Francisco contacts. Manjiro, on the other hand, was appointed as interpreter in 1860 to the first official embassy of the Empire of Japan to the United States of America.

And we still have the gannenmono, impossible without Perry’s missions. The negotiations with the Japanese government to bring workers to Hawai’i were carried out by Heco’s good friend from San Francisco, Eugene Van Reed, who would go on to become Hawai’i’s first consul general to Japan. The two friends left San Francisco for Japan, stopping in Honolulu, where Heco, who had been seasick most of the trip, stayed behind for a time to recover before eventually returning to his homeland.

Further Reading:

Chamberlain, Levi, “Journals, 1822-1949” (typescript copy), Vol. XVI, November 5, – August 14, 1832. Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society Library.

Kawada, Ikaku, et al. Drifting toward the Southeast: The Story of Five Japanese Castaways: A Complete Translation of Hyoson Kiryaku (a Brief Account of Drifting toward the Southeast) as Told to the Court of Lord Yamauchi of Tosa in 1852 by John Manjiro (Spinner Publications, 2004).

Kono, Hideto and Kazuko Sinoto, “Observations of the First Japanese to Land in Hawai’i,” The Hawaiian Journal of History, 34 (2000), 49-63.

Oaks, Robert F., “Golden Gate Castaway: Joseph Heco and San Francisco, 1851-1859.” California History, 82, no. 2 (2004): 38–58, 63–65.

Plummer, Katherine. The Shogun’s Reluctant Ambassadors: Japanese Sea Drifters in the North Pacific (Portland: The Oregon Historical Society, 1991).

Plummer, Katherine, trans. A Japanese Glimpse at the Outside World 1839-1843, ed. Richard A. Pierce (Kingston, Ontario and Fairbanks, Alaska, The Limestone Press, 1991).

 

 

This article originally appeared in December 2024.

 

---

With a PhD in Colonial American history from the University of Southern California, Robert F. Oaks taught for several years in Texas and California. Unable to attain a tenured position, he re-invented himself as a pseudo techie and worked for many years at Bank of America in the technology division. Upon retirement, he returned to his love of history, though now more interested in Asian and Hawaiian history. He now lives in Honolulu with his husband.

I recently chanced upon abundant documentation of Call’s case in the Digital Maine Repository of the Maine State Archives. Immediately I recognized how unusual it was. For several years I’ve been hunting up abortion stories carried in U.S. newspapers before 1860, amassing well over 230, the vast majority occurring after 1845. Stories deemed newsworthy typically started with a dead woman and a coroner’s inquest. Surprisingly few progressed to trial and fewer still to conviction. Nonetheless, dramatic accounts entered the news stream, commanding regional and national reprintings.

This Maine case was different: it was conspicuously missing from any and all newspapers, the woman did not die, and no coroner was involved. The convicted doctor appealed the verdict unsuccessfully and then sought pardon from the governor. He submitted dozens of sworn depositions along with petitions signed by over six hundred men and women in Lincoln County, drawing their opinions solely from oral information networks. And the orchestration worked: Dr. Call was pardoned. 

This extensive pardon file is rare and revealing. It contains detailed depositions from Deborah and her family. It presents community voices, medical evidence, and commentary from prominent legal spectators. It all happened in a time and place that was teetering between the old common law and Maine’s first statute criminalizing abortion. 

That’s what immediately excited me. Dr. Call was charged under Anglo-American common law, which held that only post-quickened abortions were criminal. (Quickening occurs halfway through pregnancy when the mother first feels fetal movement.) Maine passed its first abortion statute in 1840, not long after the pardon of Dr. Call. Could there be a connection?

Before 1840 only three states (New York, Ohio, Missouri) explicitly criminalized abortion in the first half of pregnancy, adopting statutes that retained the common law’s prohibition on post-quickened pregnancy, where a “child” was “destroyed,” and adding a more lightly penalized section covering the procuring of a “miscarriage” on “any pregnant woman.” Nothing in those three states’ newspapers or legislative debates indicates that abortion was a salient public issue, and until now this has seemed to be Maine’s story as well. The new laws emerged during routine legal code revisions, and the dualism of child destroyed/miscarriage procured found in New York in 1828 became a template that other states borrowed. Maine too borrowed this wording, but it broke new ground in completely discarding quickening while introducing a concept labelled “attempted” abortion. My excitement grew when I learned that the judge in Call’s trial, the Hon. Samuel E. Smith, was just ten months later appointed to the small commission charged with statute revision. Bingo: a direct connection between trial and new law.  

Finding this kind of connection is important for critiquing the historical reasoning of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision of 2022. The Dobbs decision pointed to the gradual accretion of new state statutes from the 1820s to the 1880s to bolster a claim of widespread moral abhorrence of abortion in all stages of pregnancy because it ended pre-born life. Alternate explanations advanced by historians include concerns over patient safety, support for pro-natalist policies, alarms about wives shunning maternity, and rivalry with non-mainstream medical providers. Further, the Dobbs decision paid no heed to subtle variations in the new laws, variations that signal the thinking behind statute creation. We know far too little about the circumstances that produced those earliest laws, and, except for New York City, we know little about actual enforcement. This Maine trial, remarkably documented, affords us a view of both public and legal thinking about early abortion law in the U.S. (see the American Historical Association and Organization of American Historians Amici Curiae brief in the Dobbs case).

Dr. Moses Call was thirty-one years old and single when he was charged. A New Hampshire native, he attended medical schools in Hanover, New Hampshire, and Pittsfield, Massachusetts, before opening a practice, around 1834, in Damariscotta, Maine, a small river village then situated in the township of Nobleboro, which had a population of 2,000. The township was rural but not isolated. Ports on the Atlantic, fourteen miles downriver, launched ships constructed in Damariscotta, while the first federal Post Road (historic Route 1 today) sliced through Nobleboro on its ambitious course from eastern Maine all the way to Florida.

While we lack newspaper coverage of this trial, the pardon file supplies a rough narrative of the alleged crime, as framed post-trial by the defense lawyers. Crucially, we don’t hear the prosecution’s case in these documents, except by indirection and also by the formal indictment. Yet that case won victory at trial and on appeal. What was being strategically finessed or omitted from the pardon file?   

One thing not omitted was the startling and violent language of the full indictment. “The said Call . . . with force and arms, did unlawfully, knowingly, and inhumanly, force and thrust a certain surgical instrument up and into the womb and body of one Deborah Chapman . . . she then being quick with child.” (This language came word for word out of a legal treatise published in Maine a year earlier, lifted from a British treatise of 1816.) The indictment placed this forceful event on July 17th. On July 18th, Chapman allegedly “brought forth the said child . . . dead.” To this charge, Dr. Call insisted he was completely innocent, and Deborah and her family insisted she never was pregnant. Yet he was found guilty.

Fourteen deponents living near Deborah’s parents, Thomas and Abigail Chapman, testified that they saw the young woman frequently that summer and never judged her to be pregnant “by her form or dress.” The assumption was that a post-quickened pregnancy was visible. Several had visited her father’s house on July 18th, a Monday, when Deborah was “unwell” and Dr. Call was summoned. Some recalled seeing her industriously washing floors and churning butter, tasks that were inconsistent in their minds as a prelude to the intense contractions of labor. 

Five detailed depositions from Deborah’s immediate family focused on the events of July 18th. Her mother watched Deborah carry heavy buckets of water from a distant well. The girl helped prepare the midday dinner and ate it, but soon “was taken sick” and went to bed upstairs. Both parents stated that she was late on her “monthly returns,” something not unusual for this young woman of “slender constitution,” according to her father. “She has never been a rugged girl,” the mother said; Deborah had “the habit of passing her times”—missing her periods—“for a month or two and then she is always very sick.” So there was an established pattern of missing her period followed by a heavy flow. After visitors left, the girl moved to a downstairs bedroom, where her pain worsened.  

In the late afternoon, Dr. Call arrived and stayed just over an hour. He joined the family at tea, after administering a pain medication that quickly made the girl “easy.” The family described who was in and out of the room, concurring that Dr. Call was alone with Deborah for only five minutes. Afterwards, the brother entered and observed no blood on the doctor’s hands. He saw bottles in the doctor’s portable medicine chest but no visible instrument. The doctor departed, leaving additional pain medicine for use as needed. The next morning, Deborah was fine, her appetite restored. The older sister did the laundry on the 21st and observed nothing unusual, namely blood, on Deborah’s underclothes. The sisters shared a bed; a pregnancy or abortion could not have escaped notice, the older sister insisted. No one was asked or volunteered when her “monthly returns” arrived. 

Deborah’s deposition, as funneled through the Justice of the Peace recording it, sounded strident and firm, perhaps more so than while giving testimony in the witness box, often an intimidating experience. She emphasized she had recurrent problems with “painful menstruation.” She was alone with the doctor for just five minutes. Never once in her life had she been to his office, she said, though she had seen him several weeks before the 18th (a point left unexplained). She had never “been with child in my life,” never delivered one, never had an abortion. Her emphatic declaration stopped short of proclaiming she had never had sex. She also described a visit by Henry Chapman, twenty-five years old, and Harrison Chapman, twenty-three years old, both first cousins to each other and to Deborah. By now, she knew that gossip about an abortion was circulating. She confronted Henry, who vehemently denied instigating rumors. (Also absent from her deposition: any hint that she and Henry had once been courting.) Henry blamed the rumors on Abraham Chapman, an uncle to all three who lived close by. 

Deborah further stated that Abraham soon came by and insisted that Dr. Call was the source of the rumors. He outlandishly claimed that Call was showing the fetal remains to select others. (Criminals usually try to hide proof of their crimes.) Abraham offered Deborah, she said, an astonishing $500 to play along in a plot to land the doctor in state prison “where he should have gone years ago,” a dark hint at a career of criminal acts. Her sister Sally, present in this interchange, described Abraham as abusing Call “in language of the coarsest and vilest kind, heaping epithets of all kinds upon him.” Deborah rejected the bribe, concerned that Abraham and others were determined to wrong Dr. Call, “who at least in this affair is innocent.” Was the phrase “at least” a careful legal hedging by the recording Justice of the Peace, or was Deborah herself shrewdly distancing her own claim of innocence from a doctor of questionable reputation?  

A bundle of pardon depositions revealed apparent malfeasance during the trial in a Wiscasset lodging house hosting an inappropriate mix of guests. Lodgers included Abraham and Henry, the prosecution’s star witnesses, along with two more Chapmans, youthful cousins Harrison and Michael, witnesses for the defense. An additional three lodgers were potential jurors summoned for duty. Harrison, Michael, and one juryman deposed that Abraham and Henry openly discussed the case with one and all. Abraham treated the jurymen to liquor, and he and Henry each bunked with a juror. The deposing juryman withdrew from the jury panel feeling he had heard too much, but the other two served. There was a clear implication that one had taken a bribe for his promise of a guilty verdict.

A crucial prosecution exhibit was a note in Dr. Call’s handwriting advising on patient care and referencing something expelled—the “it.”

If you should flow, that is bleed much, take a table spoon full of the large phial every 15 minutes till it stops – you will not flow till it is away . . . . After the flowing has stopped, should you have pain, take 50 drops, that is a small teaspoon full of the small phial every hour till easy.

We don’t know which medical expert the prosecution called to explain these sentences as instructions for recovery from an instrument abortion, as the indictment specified. From my reading of many scores of criminal abortion stories, I know the typical moves: after a pregnant woman’s uterus was probed in a doctor’s office, she went elsewhere to await contractions and expulsion a day to a week later. These instructions could in theory map to that scenario as post-operative care. 

After the trial, the pardon team found a physician a county away who flatly declared that only an ignorant person could mistake this as a recipe for abortion. Dr. Call’s prescription, he wrote,

is not in my opinion what one conversant with abortion would direct were he desirous of accomplishing it; . . .  further it is my opinion that such directions as the above would be strictly in accordance with good practice for a variety of difficulties about the uterus and vagina such for instance as Polipus, Mole, etc.

Uterine polyps and moles were standard entries in obstetrics texts of the time. A mole is now understood to be a blighted but still-growing embryo, requiring induced removal if no natural miscarriage occurs. If the first vial contained ergot, this instruction might plausibly work. Ergot, a fungus that grows on rye grain, actually intensifies uterine contractions and was used to speed up slow labors. Physicians disagreed about its efficacy as an abortifacient in mid-pregnancy. 

At trial the prosecution linked this scrap of paper to Deborah Chapman through testimony by Henry, who claimed Dr. Call left it tacked on his door early on July 17. A close neighbor flat-out disputed this in the pardon case: Mrs. Ann Curtis claimed that Dr. Call wrote this prescription for her womb complaint three years before. Emphasizing that she was a mother of eight (so definitely not one to seek abortions), she stated that “something unnatural grew” in her womb, “which after a number of days came away. It was not a child, nor anything like an abortion.” In short, a miscarried mole. A heavy flow with pain ensued, hence the prescription. Sometime later, she said, unruly children raided a desk and scattered papers outside, and the prescription was lost. If this was true, someone living nearby—for example, Abraham—might have found it and hatched a scheme to convict Dr. Call.

More depositions from farmer Nathaniel Bryant and others placed Call four miles northeast of the village on July 17th from 9 a.m. until late in the day, with dated receipts and calendar notation as confirmation. A final set of depositions came from Wiscasset townspeople who observed Abraham and Henry contaminating jurors in several stores during the trial.

These were very effective pardon documents: the girl was not visibly pregnant, she had little private contact with Dr. Call on her “unwell” day, he had a seemingly airtight alibi for the 17th, and she was offered a huge bribe by an unpleasant uncle who detested Call. Taken together they suggest that no abortion ever took place.

The unusual presence of prominent lawyers and judges at the trial suggests that this event was something out of the ordinary. The most notable was the septuagenarian judge Prentiss Mellen, who traveled fifty miles from Portland to sit in the courtroom. Mellen was once a U.S. senator and served fourteen years as the chief justice of Maine’s Supreme Judicial Court. Mellen expressed great surprise at the jury’s guilty verdict. Another spectator, Lincoln County State Senator Lucius Barnard, declared it a “strong case” for a pardon. Erastus Foote Esq., who once served as Maine’s attorney general and was now a counsel to Call, characterized the evidence of Deborah being quick with child as “quite insufficient.” “Even the abortion, on the testimony, was contradictory and doubtful.” Deborah’s quickness was not substantiated, Foote thought, but he was less certain about the abortion. 

Another spectator, probate judge Nathaniel Groton, asserted there was “no evidence” of any abortion, and besides, was it really criminal? Abortion was something “our legislature have never seen fit to enact any statutes upon.” Nor did the public want to see more stringent laws on this, he claimed in this somewhat convoluted sentence: “The offense, if committed, has none of those urging [urgent?] demands upon the laws for punishment, to be found in our statutes.” The Hon. Josiah W. Mitchell from Freeport, co-counsel to Call, expressed “outrage and astonishment” at the verdict. He named Henry Chapman the central witness and villain of the trial, “a base, vaunting wretch who had often boasted of his success in the seduction of females.” Mitchell said that Henry implicated himself in Deborah’s alleged pregnancy.

If all these pardon documents were truthful and complete, then how did this case ever get cleared for trial? That was the job of a grand jury and the state’s attorney, one Edwin Smith. One deposed grand Juror revealed that only five people appeared before it: two doctors, Abraham Chapman and wife, and nephew Henry. The doctors were, legally speaking, duds: Dr. Albert Clark of Bristol admitted he “knew nothing of the facts, but said he could prove the crime by other witnesses”; Dr. Samuel Ford of Damariscotta said “he knew nothing except for hearsay.” Somehow the intemperate Abraham and the unreliable Henry came off as men of probity to the grand jury.

Perhaps Henry gained credibility with the grand jury by telling them a story he later told under oath in 1842. Henry maintained that Call approached him shortly before Henry’s testimony at the 1836 grand jury to offer the younger man a substantial bribe to keep silent about Call’s acknowledged role in the abortion. Why Henry took this claim to a Lincoln County prosecutor six years later is unknown. That attorney followed through and charged Call with subversion of justice by inciting perjury. Evidently pockets of animus still dogged Call. A jury trial ensued and quickly found the charge meritless. But it might well have swayed the 1836 grand jury. 

That the doctors Clark and Ford led off the grand jury inquiry is very revealing, despite contributing no material facts. Many depositions by neighbors obliquely referenced a malicious backstory which they believed accounted for a sham trial. Clearer details came from two attorneys, Mitchell and Mellen. Defense counsel Mitchell referred to a prior lawsuit over slander—“defamation of character”—brought by Call against Clark, who lost, after which angry handbills and “a garbled pamphlet” attacking Call went public. Mitchell advised his client to delay the abortion trial to let the clamor die down, but Call insisted he needed to clear his name. Mitchell was sure the abortion trial was “got up” over “vindictive feelings.” 

The Hon. Prentiss Mellen also attacked Clark and Ford. Call had been “grossly slandered in his professional character” by these two men, Mellen told the governor, and he had reason to know, because he represented Call in the slander trial, winning “a handsome verdict for damages.” That probably explains why he made the trip to witness the abortion trial of his one-time client. After the guilty verdict, Call rehired Mellen to appeal his case to the Supreme Judicial Court. Mellen was confident of victory: what better lawyer than the venerable ex-chief justice, facing three younger justices he had once mentored?

Mellen expected to win a new trial with a two-pronged attack. He mounted a procedural challenge relating to law and he presented evidence of jury tampering. The court ruled he could pursue only one path, not both, at the defense’s choice. Mellen went with tampering and was surprised when the high court ruled that the claim was not fully persuasive and lacked rebuttal testimony. Mellen and Call lost the appeal.  

An appeal must be based on legal error. Mellen could not argue that Deborah was not quick with child, or not pregnant at all; that was a matter of fact decided by the jury, not to be relitigated. How did the jury conclude she was quickened, the criterion essential to the common-law crime? Ordinarily, there were several ways: witnesses could attest to a visible pregnancy. If the woman dies, an autopsy can reveal the size of an enlarged uterus. Fetal remains can show gestational age, as can ascertaining the date of the last menstrual period. I’ve seen all these strategies in other trials, but none apply here, because Deborah was alive, evincing no physical evidence of the alleged crime. So how did Henry prevail, when Deborah’s family insisted she was never pregnant? More crucially, why was he accepted as a credible witness, if he impregnated Deborah as several deponents suggested? The alleged bribe of Henry by Call fuels suspicion: why would Call confess to Henry and then bribe him to keep it secret? Far more likely is that Call knew that Henry already knew, because they had conspired. In many cases I’ve seen, the presumed father who arranges the abortion can be charged as an accessory to the crime. Yet that didn’t happen; Henry was the star witness for the prosecution, and the jury bought his version.

Perhaps the slander trial with doctors Clark and Ford can help us. Strikingly, no depositions mentioned the substance of the slander. The team orchestrating Call’s pardon had to steer carefully. They needed evidence of sufficient preexisting malice to motivate a false abortion accusation, without replicating the actual slander lest it damage Call’s reputation with the governor. Groton, the probate judge who wondered if abortion even was illegal, handled the slander delicately in his letter to the governor. He praised Call as “a man of talents above the ordinary grade,” who “from the nature of his profession and the extent of his practice, has been the subject of considerable attention by his professional brethren,” costing him “great expense in defending himself.” What did he mean: “from the nature of his profession” and “great expense” to defend himself? This seems a broad hint that Call carried on a special sideline practice in abortions.   

That seems very plausible to me. A career built on illegal procedures after quickening could raise concerns with other doctors. Dr. Ford practiced in Call’s village, so he was wired into the local reproductive grapevine—hearsay, he admitted—informing him about Call’s willingness to end pregnancies, quick or not. Possibly professional jealousy soured Clark and Ford. In the 1850 census, Dr. Call reported property value that made him the fourth richest man in Nobleboro, behind a few ship builders and a large storeowner. Doctors Ford and Clark were about the same age as Call, but his property value in 1850 was equivalent to theirs combined. It appears he had a lucrative practice. Finally, despite the “handsome verdict” Call won for slander, his lawyer knew suspicions lingered; hence the advice (unheeded) to postpone the Chapman abortion trial. Seen from this vantage, the whole point of the trial was to bring him down, and if it took $500 and $100 bribes, Clark and Ford were willing to pay, to see Call sent to state prison.

I see three plausible narratives of the events before the trial; perhaps there are more. In the first, Deborah was or feared she was pregnant by Henry, at a stage too early to swell her belly. The couple did not wish to marry, so Henry engaged Dr. Call. The procedure could have been an acknowledged abortion, or, if early enough, a common medical treatment to restore menstruation by removing blockage. The signs of early pregnancy were indeterminate, which is precisely why quickening was so crucial as the only legal proof of a living pregnancy. In this scenario, Deborah’s procedure perhaps took place a week or so before July 18th, in accord with her admission that she saw Call once then. Call’s open visit on the 18th thus addressed a rebound episode of cramps needing analgesics—or, more deviously, a staged episode of cramps, to keep the parents in the dark about why Deborah was missing her “returns.” It can take some weeks for menstruation to resume after an abortion or childbirth.  

A second variation postulates an instrument abortion on the very early morning of the 17th, before Dr. Call rode west to his day-long alibi. Deborah’s intense household chores on the morning of the 18th could have been a tactic to hasten the miscarriage. I’ve encountered young women in my set of abortion stories throwing themselves down stairways or riding horseback, to hasten or provoke a miscarriage.

What does not at first square with either of these scenarios is Deborah’s fervent sworn testimony about never having been “with child” nor having undergone an abortion. Yet if she convinced herself that she was only having treatment for a delayed period, she could swear to these statements. The larger denial, of having sworn to no treatments at all by Call, is the stickler. Yet an unmarried girl in pregnancy trouble might conclude that a false oath was the best path to save her reputation.

The third scenario adopts the framing of the pardon case. Doctors Clark and Ford, hungry for revenge over their costly drubbing in the slander trial and angry over Call’s rumored willingness to perform illegal abortions, maliciously partnered with Abraham and Henry Chapman who were quite willing to lie under oath in exchange for bribes. In this scenario, Deborah never was pregnant. Henry at some point must have been truly courting her, to make the false pregnancy seem plausible. But why would he throw her under the bus like this, and ruin her reputation? Maybe he and Abraham assumed the enormous bribe would bring her on board. The uncle said as much, according to Deborah: he belongs in prison, everyone knows that, just say you were pregnant and collect an easy $500. Maybe she first agreed and then reneged?

The pardon process began as soon as the high court rejected Call’s appeal, in late November 1837. Most of the depositions were attested between Dec. 14th and 18th, and a few on the 20th. The governor and council issued their decision on Dec. 22, 1837, in Augusta, a good day’s ride away. It took me a lot longer than three days to make sense of these many documents, so I wonder if some fix wasn’t in already. The pardon went the whole distance, proclaiming Dr. Call not only exempt from punishment but completely innocent.

Meanwhile statute revision had begun in mid-1837. Judge Smith, prominent as a thrice-elected governor before he became a Lincoln County judge, joined the revision committee, soon aided by his brother Edwin Smith (the prosecutor of Call) and Prentiss Mellen (defender of Call in the slander and appeal cases). The job involved processing ten years of new law passed since the 1830 edition of statutes, editing and streamlining the whole, and suggesting new laws as well, to be vetted by the legislature. These three men had just endured a contested trial on the uncomfortable subject of a woman’s reproductive body, one that necessarily turned on the elusive concept of quickening. Despite representing opposing constituencies—the state, the plaintiff, the defendant—these three men found that actual quickening was difficult to establish in a case where the woman lived. So they scuttled the whole question, borrowing the two-part law from New York but with a key innovation: both sections applied to “any woman, pregnant with child, whether such child be quick or not.”

How then were judges and juries to decide which section of the law applied? I think the statute writers assumed the wording spoke for itself. The destruction of a child before birth called to mind an actual death of a recognizable child, and not a mass of tissue weighing under an ounce or two. In early gestation, it might not even be visible. The lesser offense provision punished an attempt with the intent to disrupt pregnancy, not the resulting disruption. This would cover cases where medicines given to induce abortion proved, not surprisingly, to be ineffective and the woman stayed pregnant. It could cover cases where indeterminant or invisible products of early conception were expelled. And it could even cover an operation on a chaste woman, as Deborah Chapman claimed to be. The statute writers crafted a way to charge and convict Dr. Call for operating on a woman who was not actually pregnant.

“Attempt” in fact became the summary word for this law. In the published statute book, there appears a marginal gloss alongside each section. The first tag was “procuring abortion,” and the other “attempting to procure abortion.” While the Dobbs decision was not wrong to put Maine’s law in the column of states penalizing abortion in all phases of pregnancy, the actual crime it calls “miscarriage” is not the death of an unborn life begun at conception, as the Dobbs decision would have it, but the moral wrong of intending to conceal an illicit pregnancy. We can see this in the telling decision of the revision committee to create a completely new chapter of the criminal code to house this law. They bundled existing laws about adultery, sodomy, fornication, blasphemy, and gambling into a new chapter titled “Offenses Against Chastity, Morality, and Decency.” By placing the abortion law there, they signaled that abortion in itself was a morals violation concerning sexual chastity rather than a crime involving fetal death.

Only when the mother died did the charge escalate to second degree murder (in an abortion) or to manslaughter (in miscarriage). This escalation was a long-standing feature of Anglo-American law, when unintentional deaths occurred in the commission of a crime. Maine newspapers provide evidence of just two Maine abortion trials in the twenty years after the 1840 law, and both involved dead mothers and charges of second-degree murder. The first, in 1843, ended in acquittal. The second in 1851 led to the conviction of a mill-town doctor with a reputation for helping mill girls out. Dr. James Smith of Saco drew a life sentence at hard labor in the state prison; high public interest centered on an unusually horrifying disposal of the young woman’s body. But Smith appealed, hiring a top Portland lawyer (recently U.S. attorney general in the Polk administration, and soon to-be justice on the U.S. Supreme Court). The entire conviction was reversed on a technicality (a “writ of error”). The high court’s decision tied itself in knots parsing the words of the abortion section of the 1840 law, with paragraphs of confusing medical claims about miscarriage, fetal viability, premature births, and abortion, most of it not relevant to the writ of error. In the end, the reversal rested on the original indictment’s failure to include intent (“to destroy such child”). Dr. Smith was a free man, facing a hue and cry in the New England press.

Just two newsworthy cases in twenty years suggests a thin record of enforcement. Perhaps there was a trickle of misdemeanor cases in the county courts, yet to be uncovered? Yet absent the death of the mother, abortions rarely came to light, when all parties concerned strive to keep it private. An unusual mid-century physician in Hallowell published statistics of 1,000 births in his two-decade career and noted with mild disapproval that “cases of abortion occur too frequently in this community. . . most of them among married women.” Physicians were the most likely to know about these things, either in hearing scuttlebutt from patients (like Doctors Clark and Ford in Lincoln County), from dealing with complications caused by inexpert abortions, or from doing the procedure themselves. It is no surprise, then, that the biggest push to criminalize abortion in the U.S. came at the behest of the American Medical Association, which lobbied every state government in 1860 to pass or tighten laws on abortion.

Meanwhile, Dr. Moses Call continued to practice in Lincoln County into the 1870s, making a splash in national news circuits when his considerably younger second wife filed for divorce. Among her complaints, in the nine-day trial, was her discovery that he was a convicted abortionist; after 40 years, the Call/Chapman case finally broke into newsprint! The estranged wife was awarded custody of a young son and an extraordinary alimony of $14,450, a further indication of a Dr. Call’s unusually profitable profession. Henry Chapman married, had five children, and lived out an obscure life into his fifties as a ship joiner. Deborah also married, but not until age 31, a long delay suggesting reputational fallout from the locally infamous trial. Her marriage lasted nineteen years, until her death. Most unusually, she never bore a child.  

 

Further Reading

James C. Mohr’s classic, Abortion in America (Oxford University Press, 1978), provides an indispensable overview of the nineteenth-century criminalization of abortion.

Cornelia Hughes Dayton gave us the first microhistory of a 1740s abortion case in Connecticut: “Taking the Trade: Abortion and Gender Relations in an Eighteenth-Century New England Village,” William and Mary Quarterly 48 (Jan. 1991): 19-49. There is a rich companion website with original documents.

Brook Lansing Mai has a recent excellent addition to the microhistory genre involving a French immigrant in New York City in 1844: “‘The helpless French girl’: Seduction Narratives in a Nineteenth-Century Abortion Trial,” Gender & History 36 (July 2024): 313-26.

Aaron Tang, a law professor, offers the most comprehensive account of state statutes up to 1868: “After Dobbs: History, Tradition, and the Uncertain Future of a Nationwide Abortion Ban,” Stanford Law Review 75 (2023).

Maine Digital Repository holds the pardon file: Moses Call Files.

Ancestry.com and Genealogybank.com provided essential sources for scoping out the cast of characters.

 

This article originally appeared in October 2024.

 

---

Patricia Cline Cohen is the Edward A. Dickson Emerita Professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara. She is the author of The Murder of Helen Jewett: The Life and Death of a Prostitute in Nineteenth-Century New York (Knopf, 1998) and co-author of The Flash Press: Sporting Male Weeklies in 1840s New York (University of Chicago Press, 2008). In 2020, she embarked on a study of U.S. abortion practice and law from 1800 to 1860, and she continues to make progress on her joint biography of Mary Gove Nichols and Thomas L. Nichols, who in the 1850s notoriously advocated for women’s bodily autonomy. 

Advertisements and articles in periodicals show us that marine specimens were highly sought after at American anti-slavery fairs. Issues of the abolitionist newspaper The Liberator tell us that the Boston Anti-Slavery Bazaar in Faneuil Hall had a “Botanical series of British Alga, Mosses and lichens in books and mahogany eases” in 1847, “Sets of Mosses, Lichens, Flowering Plants, Depatica, Zoophytes, Algae, Fungi, Ferns and Grapes . . . Sea Mosses exquisitely arranged in baskets and shells” in 1848, and a “collection of British Sea-Weed and shells” in 1850. Seaweed in particular, was a common sight. Reports on the sixth Rochester Anti-Slavery Bazaar in The North Star boasted: “Of the contributions of the Manchester box, none attracted more general attention than the beautiful portfolios of dried plants and seaweeds.” Note how curation is particularly prized in these descriptions. These plants are not scattered or loose, but set in books, eases, baskets, shells, and portfolios. 

The interest in ocean specimens continued to grow over the course of the nineteenth century. In another instance, a report of the twenty-third National Anti-Slavery Bazaar in an 1857 issue of The Liberator explains: 

Natural and scientific curiosities and collections were as abundant as literary ones. There were algae from every coast sent by the ladies of Britain and the prisoners at Belile. Here were ferns from every field, and shells from every sea, scientifically arranged, or poetically described.

From these accounts, it seems that seaweed and algae held the most appeal for amateur oceanographers. Seaweeding, or algology, was a popular practice throughout the nineteenth century. As the phrase “scientifically arranged, or poetically described” shows us, there was an implied connection between seaweeding and literary practice. The two met most vividly in the seaweed album. The process of making an album was fairly simple, and laid out in many popular instructional guides. One would begin by walking down the coast to find these specimens, and then, once at home, place them in a large basin filled with water, lay the seaweed flat, insert a stiff piece of paper underneath it, and carefully spread the damp seaweed with a large pin. Very soon, one’s blank book would be filled with colorful seaweeds of all kinds, possibly accompanied by scientific labels, transcribed poems, or other details like the date and location of collection. Beginning in Britain, this trend offered mobility, solitude, and scientific curiosity to hobbyists and professionals alike and was particularly enjoyed by women. Seaweed collectors saw the coast and the ocean as an ecosystem that could be appreciated, studied, and even preserved.

The presence of algae, seaweed, and other treasures of the deep at American anti-slavery fairs speaks to the reach and widespread popularity of this practice. Obviously, the funds that would be raised by capitalizing on this trend were a major motivation for organizers. However, by turning to seaweed as a material curiosity and symbol, anti-slavery activists also transformed this trend in three major ways. First, they used this trend to shift the Atlantic Ocean from a place of violence and separation into a space of witnessing and potential connection. Secondly, these albums established a place for scientific curiosity in abolitionist circles, implicitly critiquing the racist and exclusionary institutions which produced scientific knowledge in the nineteenth century. Finally, the album I will discuss in this article asserted God’s promises to the enslaved by displaying the seaweed as an example of godly design.

Consider, for instance, an account of an antislavery fair from The Liberator which inserts the entirety of the poem “Sea Weed’s Address.” Following the opening epigraph “Where the Atlantic rolls, wide continents have bloom’d,” the address “to the American public” reads:

Regard us not as strangers! our race rose

At the creative word that call’d forth thine,

And with the doomed earth share in part thy woes,

And like thee for a new creation pines.

It continues:

Hast thou forgot the Lord, that we have heard.

Oft on our shores the cry of blood and strife,

And every vagrant breeze our groves that stirred.

Hath sighed the mournful tale of human life!

And the winds wail the sorrows they have seen,

Oppressed, and the oppressor every where;

For the abolitionist, these marine specimens were not separate from the world of suffering or an aesthetic distraction, but rather, through a common origin and shared environment (represented here by the “vagrant breeze” and wind), a witness to slavery’s horror. Unlike scientific practices which regard the seaweed as distinct from the economic, legal, and social conditions of slavery, this poem suggests that oppression reaches even the deepest depths of the ocean. In this cry, “Regard us not as strangers!” the seaweed implicitly announces itself as an abolitionist, also pining for a “new creation.” When looking closer at the presence of marine specimens at American anti-slavery fairs, it becomes clear that these objects were more than items of natural curiosity. 

The plants and marine specimens washed ashore are entities which have left the cycle Gardulski and Sharpe outline—not through the kind of agricultural cultivation and harvesting we see in the exploitative economy of Southern slavery, but through a different system of chance, discovery, and curation. Thus, a new network, or even ecosystem, of abolitionist exchange and trade rises to the surface. Yet we cannot forget that the seaweed leaves the depths and enters the surface world as a commodity. Remembering Sharpe’s note on residence time, this return to market is uncomfortable and highlights a skepticism scholars maintain towards the emancipatory power of this exchange. In fact, it is exactly seaweed collections at the Boston fair (as seen in “Sea Weed’s Address”) that Teresa Goddu in Selling Antislavery describes as a means for “fairgoers to enjoy the rewards of sentimental exchange without becoming too closely identified with suffering” —an example of what she terms “nonslave items” that “allowed white shoppers to buy purer reflections of their liberal subjectivity.” While they cannot escape their status as commodity, however, some anti-slavery seaweed albums did more than affirm a burgeoning liberal consumerism. 

What happens if we deemphasize the white consumer, and focus instead on the act of creating the album? More specifically, how might the hand of a Black seaweed album maker complicate this exchange and allow us to read this curatorial work as literary and scientific exercises in critiquing liberal subjectivity? Few scholars who have worked on nineteenth-century seaweed albums have noted the way this craze reached American anti-slavery societies. The major reason for this, I suspect, is fairly straightforward: very few are still intact or easily accessible. The most complete example of an abolitionist seaweed album I have seen thus far is Sea-weeds collected on the British coast, presented to the Boston Anti-Slavery Bazaar, a manuscript held at the Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections at Cornell University Library.

Sea-weeds is filled with seaweed specimens carefully curated and arranged by William G. Allen and Mary King Allen, an interracial couple who moved to England in 1853 to escape racist mob violence (their story would go on to inspire Louisa May Alcott’s “M. L.”). In England, William Allen, a Black educator and lecturer, maintained close correspondences with American abolitionists. Sea-weeds, then, testifies not only to the Allens’ continued participation in anti-slavery societies while in exile and their interest in natural science, but also functions as an affirmation of their “controversial” marital union through the shared byline of “W & M.A.” 

The Allens’ assembled book, which was presented to the Boston Female Anti-Slavery Society, provides a unique glimpse into the intersections of natural science and abolition; a pursuit that may encapsulate the kind of Foucauldian “counter-science” Britt Rusert has termed “fugitive science.” With the front page announcing its connection to the Boston Anti-Slavery Bazaar, the book announces itself as a political object, setting it apart from seaweed albums or instructional books which foreground the plants. The generic title, Sea-weeds collected on the British coast, is vastly overshadowed by the green stamp of its anti-slavery destination. Even the conventionality of the title has the charge of political sentiment, as the British coast was the couple’s place of refuge.  

The front cover of Sea-weeds also includes a poem which proclaims “Oh! call us not weeds, but flowers of the sea.” Variations on these verses appear across many seaweed albums, sometimes attributed to an Elizabeth Aveline. In the opening pages, another poem accompanies a seaweed arrangement set to look like flowers:

Not the spoils of conquered dead,

Ocean’s willing offerings these!

From her treasure house not riven,

But of her abundance given.

Though these lines are fairly generic, the reminder that these plants were not “conquered” nor “riven” seem to again champion a less extractive and exploitive form of exchange.

American consumers would have already been familiar with albums like the Allens’ Sea-weeds, which arrived from Leeds in 1853. The audience for this album was likely other scientific enthusiasts who owned relevant equipment of their own, as one description notes that appreciating “most of the specimens in this book, requires the aid of a lens, to discover half its beauties.” The Allens themselves drew from popular seaweed collection guides, as some of the pressed seaweeds include scientific names and a number of longer descriptions or poems. For instance, in the description of Scarlet Plocamium, a common and particularly red type of seaweed, they attribute the description to Marine Botanist and Philip Henry Gosse’s The Ocean. 

The inclusion of Gosse, the English naturalist who introduced the first public aquarium to the London public, is worth lingering on here. Not only does this citation reveal the Allens’ scientific knowledge, it also ties their work with Gosse’s own criticism of slavery. Gosse’s letters, first published in the magazine The Home Friend in 1855 and later collected in the book Letters from Alabama, recount the work he did while tutoring at the Belvoir plantation in Pleasant Hill. He describes the brutality of slavery, ending one letter in September 1838 with the proclamation:

In spite of the beauty and grandeur of the country, the lucrative remuneration which a person of education receives for this talent and time, and the rich and almost virgin field for the pursuit of natural history (no small temptation to me), —I feel slavery alone to be so enormous an evil, that I could not live here: I am already hastening to be gone.

As Sea-weeds precedes Gosse publishing his letters, it seems unlikely that the Allens knew about Gosse’s experiences in Alabama. Yet this sentiment about the inability to do scientific work (in other words, to extract knowledge from the American natural world while the violence of slavery persists), is one magnified in William Allen who was, prior to his escape to England, teaching at New-York Central College as the second ever Black college professor in the United States.

Sea-weeds thus fits into Allen’s larger body of work as another testament to the obstacles Black Americans faced when they sought an education (even when they were, as Allen was, free and wealthy). In Allen’s A Short Personal Narrative, he recalls how his early education was dependent on the political climate of Virginia, the goodwill of others, and the “Free Papers” and permissive documents that he terms a “curious specimen of American literature.” His early schooling as a free youth was “destined to be of short duration” following Nat Turner’s rebellion, which led Virginia to abolish “every colored school within their borders.” He gained new schooling through soldiers at Fort Monroe and found access to libraries through slaveholders (he comments himself that this “seems like a paradox”), before attending the famous Oneida Institute. Sea-weeds shows us not only the range of Allen’s intellectual work, but also the conditions that could encourage or preclude that work. 

Of course, the Allens’ escape to Britain was not simply about research. It was, first and foremost, about the threats of violence they faced following their marriage. Sea-weeds demonstrates how fiercely William Allen defended his union with Mary King as a legitimate and pious one. Attributed to “W & M.A.”, Sea-weeds’s byline reads as a proud defense of their relationship as man and wife, as collaborators in anti-slavery organization, and partners in scientific research. In Allen’s personal narrative, The American Prejudice Against Color, the professor recalls the moment he and King decided to leave the country. He recounts their resolve, stating, “we would obey our heart’s convictions, though all the world should oppose us; that, come what would, we would stand by each other, looking to Heaven to bless us, and not to man, for either smiles or favor.”  

Their faithful decision to look “to Heaven to bless us, and not to man” is deeply resonant with the way Sea-weeds uses the language of scientific observation to reassure the reader of God’s promises. The collection’s final entry, titled “Conclusion” connects the beauty and complexity of the seaweed with religious creation. These qualities, the Allens write, ought to be read as affirmations of God’s care:

If God so clothe these obscure caverns and submerged rocks, will He not much more care for those whom he has redeemed with the blood and conformed to the image of His Son? . . . If, by searching into the laws by which He governs the Universe, the mind attains a calm and quiet enjoyment, as unmixed with evil as anything earthly can be, how much more conducive to his happiness must that knowledge be which ‘aketh wise unto Salvation!’

Like the seaweed which addresses readers of The Liberator above, the specimen in the Allens’ album is treated as something akin to the human body (or at least its clothes), and then, as proof of God’s word. Thus, we see that seaweed collection at the anti-slavery fair was not simply an extension of a larger scientific trend or craze. Rather, abolitionists like William and Mary King Allen used the seaweed album to reflect on their own state of exile, to critique slavery’s relationship to systems of scientific knowledge production, to uplift their marriage, and to find religious promises in the obscure and submerged.

 

Further Reading

A Singularly Marine & Fabulous Produce: The Cultures of Seaweed (New Bedford: New Bedford Whaling Museum, 2023).

Stephen Hunt, “‘Free, Bold, Joyous’: The Love of Seaweed in Margaret Gatty and Other Mid-Victorian Writers,” Environment and History 11:1 (Feb 2005): 5-34.

Molly Duggins, “Pacific Ocean flowers: colonial seaweed albums” in The Sea and Nineteenth-Century Anglophone Literary Culture, ed. Steve Mentz and Martha Elena Rojas (New York: Routledge, 2017), 119-34.

Maria Zytaruk, “Preserved in Print: Victorian Books with Mounted Natural History Specimens,” Victorian Studies 60 (2018): 185-200.

Sasha Archibald, “Love and Longing in the Seaweed Album,” The Public Domain Review, March 9, 2022.

William G. Allen, The American Prejudice Against Color: An Authentic Narrative, Showing How Easily the Nation Got Into an Uproar (London: W. and F. G. Cash, 1853).

R. J. M. Blackett, William G. Allen: The Forgotten Professor,” Civil War History 26:1 (1980), 39-52.

Teresa A. Goddu, Selling Antislavery: Abolition and Mass Media in Antebellum America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2020).

Britt Rusert, Fugitive Science: Empiricism and Freedom in Early African American Culture (New York: New York University Press, 2017).

 

This article originally appeared in October 2024.

 

---

Charline Jao is a graduate student in the Literatures in English department at Cornell University. Her research on nineteenth-century abolitionist print culture has appeared in American Periodicals and the Cornell Rural Humanities Pamphlet Collection, and is forthcoming in Comparative Literature.

Stubbs was a mixed-race free man. At the time of Free Poll’s escape he was working as a sailor on the Enterprize, a privately-owned ship with a commission from the American government to capture British merchant vessels during the Revolutionary War. According to newspaper reports, the Enterprize successfully apprehended several “prizes,” then sailed them to Philadelphia to sell the ships and their cargoes. It was a dangerous business, but one that sometimes paid off. Like other sailors, Stubbs probably received a small portion of the profits, perhaps enough to support himself and his wife for a short while.

After living as a free person in Baltimore for ten months, Free Poll must have learned that Stubbs had returned to Philadelphia, so she traveled the ninety of so miles north to join him. The City of Brotherly Love contained a growing Black population, some enslaved, some legally free, and others who had fled bondage. Free Poll and Mark Stubbs now lived in Pennsylvania—the first state to pass a gradual emancipation law in the United States, giving encouragement to Black and sympathetic White Revolutionaries that the excessively cruel system of slavery might be on the road to extinction. The law, however, did not grant Free Poll her liberty legally. She would have to remain on guard against re-enslavement by slave catchers for the rest of her life.

Like all advertisements, the notice written by Kerr reflected the deep prejudices of the enslavers themselves—an important point to bear in mind when we read these advertisements today. He described Free Poll as “artful,” when the likely reality was that she had learned to be clever in dealing with White people. Enslaved people had to pay keen attention to enslavers, who claimed them as property and exercised significant power over their bodies and lives. Those in bondage commonly devised ways to disguise their own feelings to deceive their so-called masters. Not only did Kerr portray Free Poll as deceitful and cunning, but he also ridiculed her marriage with Stubbs. Since neither enslavers nor the law respected the legitimacy of marriages of the enslaved, Kerr refused to recognize Stubbs as Free Poll’s husband in his advertisement, referring to him instead as her “husband, as she calls him.”

Modern readers need to be especially suspicious of character descriptions contained in advertisements like this one. For example, Kerr characterized Free Poll’s mixed-race husband as a “notorious villain,” probably not based on his actual behavior and actions but rather on his audacity in marrying and giving sanctuary to an enslaved woman who had eloped from the man who claimed to own her. What Stubbs most likely wanted was simply to live with his wife in freedom. Indeed, even James Madison recognized that many Blacks who fled enslavement were merely “coveting that liberty for which we [White Revolutionaries] have paid the price of so much blood, and have proclaimed so often to be the right, & worthy the pursuit, of every human being.” (Madison never emancipated any of the people he claimed as human property.)

In contrast, like all White people who published newspaper advertisements, what Kerr desired was to re-enslave Free Poll for his own financial benefit. He feared that she and her husband “may set up for themselves” in Philadelphia, meaning that they could enjoy the liberty so ardently sought by White and Black Revolutionaries at the time.

This account of Free Poll’s bid for freedom is taken from Freedom Seekers: Stories of Black Liberation in the American Revolutionary Era and Beyond, a new online resource that transcends existing compilations of advertisements by creating a curated set of histories or “stories,” each building from a single advertisement, often augmented by other sources. Freedom Seekers launched on July 4, 2024, and will run through to the commemoration of the semiquincentennial of the Declaration of American Independence. It will eventually feature hundreds of narratives of freedom and independence across the British and American Atlantic World in the revolutionary era and beyond. Demonstrating their dedication to ideals of liberty fundamentally at odds with those of Thomas Jefferson, tens of thousands of enslaved people absconded, risking their lives to liberate themselves. Their actions were both personal and political as they freed themselves and challenged the system of racial bondage. These brave bids for freedom generated numerous newspaper advertisements describing the freedom seekers and offering rewards for their capture. The information contained in those notices, along with research in related sources, enables us to reconstruct, reimagine, and commemorate many of their stories—a primary purpose of this project. While the project’s major focus will be North America during the American Revolutionary Era, the project will also extend chronologically between the seventeenth and the early nineteenth centuries and will range across the North American and British Atlantic World. 

There are now many published collections of newspaper advertisements for enslaved people who escaped, both printed and digital. Online collections often feature searchable transcriptions and statistical databases of many thousands of freedom seekers across space and time, enabling researchers to learn a great deal about enslaved people in the aggregate. During the past few decades scholars engaged in the labor-intensive work of transcribing advertisements and tabulating various characteristics of escapees to provide a structure within which to understand aspects of the lives of individual freedom seekers. For example, using statistics calculated from numerous advertisements allows us to assert, with some confidence, that Free Poll was considerably older than most people who fled, that she planned her escape meticulously in comparison to other escapees who carried fewer items, that she ran during the warmer months just as many others did to maximize their chance for freedom, and that she ultimately headed for Philadelphia—a popular destination for many freedom seekers during and after the Revolutionary Era.

However, as scholars like Saidiya Hartman and Marisa Fuentes have argued, the tabulation of enslaved bodies in such databases can implicitly reaffirm the treatment of enslaved people as property to be enumerated. If not done carefully, such work may inadvertently echo enslavers’ objectification of enslaved people and their bodies as property. In addition, what often is lost in the compilation and utilization of statistical databases of freedom seekers is what most fascinates those who read them, namely the tantalizing hints the advertisements contain about the stories of individual men, women, and children who resisted slavery by escaping. Databases reveal the bigger picture of numbers and patterns, but they can also obscure the details about individuals, their lives, experiences and whatever else can be gleaned from the few dozen words of a newspaper advertisement and whatever related records that exist.

In rare cases it is possible to research and write a great deal about a single freedom seeker, as in the case of Ona Judge who escaped from George and Martha Washington. The surviving records related to Judge are exceptional, however, and most freedom seekers remain obscure and largely hidden from our view. Often all we know about them is contained in the brief newspaper advertisement penned by an enslaver, a source that is inherently biased. Yet these advertisements have fascinated readers since their first appearance, and a combination of contextual research and imagination can allow the freedom seekers to reach across the centuries and transcend the words used in advertisements by enslavers to categorize and define the enslaved.

We warmly invite people to participate in this project of recreating the stories of freedom seekers. During the next several years, we welcome contributions from academics, graduate students, undergraduates, and members of the public. These contributions will be reviewed and, if accepted, edited and published on the website. This web-based resource will feature numerous short essays (usually no longer than about 1,000 words) based primarily on advertisements for people who fled enslavement. We will include the stories of freedom seekers from across the British Atlantic World, from the seventeenth to the early nineteenth century, although our project will focus in particular on the American Revolutionary era. The resulting resource will breathe life into these short newspaper advertisements, revealing as much as possible about the enslaved people who challenged their bondage and sought freedom.

We hope that professors, teaching assistants, graduate students, and other teachers may use these stories in the classrooms. We have found that students are fascinated by these advertisements. They relish the challenge of careful textual analysis and research to learn more about the people and places recorded in an advertisement and to carefully establish a greater sense of the person who challenged their own enslavement and the system of slavery itself. At the University of Wisconsin, where Freedom Seekers is based, an undergraduate internship program in the History Department is supporting students in researching and writing stories for the website. Furthermore, each year the project’s Anansi competition will provide cash prizes and additional publication in Clio for several of the best essays submitted by graduate students. 

The project website includes a page with materials that can be utilized by instructors who would like to make the research and writing of stories into a class assignment. It is challenging to imagine an accurate story of a freedom seeker when most of what still exists are only the words of his or her enslaver as recorded in newspaper notices. The “For Instructors” section of the Freedom Seekers website features detailed resources and strategies for researching advertisements and the people they describe. This can begin with a careful reading of the language used to describe the person who had escaped: a reference to African ethnicity or to African “country marks,” for example, encourages research into African heritage and ethnicity, and the Middle Passage endured by the freedom seeker.

Advertisements might also include descriptions of scars and other injuries that marked the bodies of freedom seekers. References to a clipped ear and whip-scarred back, along with adjectives such as “artful” or “cunning” can be read as evidence of long-term resistance by the escapee. Researchers can also look for more advertisements, which may provide further information about how long a person was free, and perhaps where they were suspected of having gone. Some advertisements include lengthy descriptions of clothing that may enable a detailed reconstruction of the person’s appearance. There are strategies for exploring locations mentioned in advertisements, such as the place a person had escaped from, and perhaps the place where they may have gone, as well as the journey between the two. It is often possible to learn more about the White people who placed advertisements or are mentioned in them, and this too can provide contextual information for understanding the situation of the freedom seeker before their escape. 

We are living through a time of deep crisis in our nation, and the meaning and significance of freedom and democracy are as controversial today as they were in the late eighteenth century. Our project asks what freedom meant in the eighteenth century, exploring how for many people in North America and across the Atlantic World, liberty meant an end to slavery. Demonstrating their dedication to ideals of liberty at odds with the practices of men such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, tens of thousands of enslaved people absconded, risking their lives to liberate themselves. Their actions were both personal and political as they freed themselves and challenged the system of racial bondage.

It is our hope and expectation that the accumulation of hundreds of freedom seeker stories will provide a new kind of community-built resource, one that will enable us to think about enslaved people who resisted their bondage as individuals rather than as statistics. Freedom Seekers will show how all kinds of men, women, and children who escaped were important actors in the challenge not just to their own enslavement but to slavery more broadly. It will require us to broaden our thinking about the American Revolution to encompass a related but distinct set of bids for freedom and independence.

 

Further Reading

Karen Cook Bell, Running From Bondage: Enslaved Women and their Remarkable Fight for Freedom in Revolutionary America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021).

Erica Armstrong Dunbar, Never Caught: The Washington’s Relentless Pursuit of Their Runaway Slave, Ona Judge (New York: Atria Books, 2017).

Marisa J. Fuentes, Dispossessed Lives: Enslaved Women, Violence, and the Archive (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016).

Saidiya Hartman, Lose Your Mother: A Journey Along the Atlantic Slave Route (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007).

Graham Russell Hodges and Alan Edward Brown, eds., “Pretends to Be Free”: Runaway Slave Advertisements from Colonial and Revolutionary New York and New Jersey (New York: Fordham University Press, 2019; originally published in 1994).

Daniel Meaders, Advertisements for Runaway Slaves in Virginia, 1801-1820 (New York: Garland, 1997).

Simon P. Newman, “Hidden in Plain Sight: Escaped Slaves in Late Eighteenth- and Early Nineteenth-Century Jamaica,” William and Mary Quarterly (OI Reader app), June 2018, 1–53. https://oireader.wm.edu/open_wmq/hidden-in-plain-sight/hidden-in-plain-sight-escaped-slaves-in-late-eighteenth-and-early-nineteenth-century-jamaica/ [accessed September 9, 2024].

Billy G. Smith, “Free Poll (May 1781),” Freedom Seekers: Stories of Black Liberation in the American Revolutionary Era and Beyond, https://freedom-seekers.org/story/free-poll/ [accessed July 15, 2024].

Billy G. Smith, “Resisting Inequality: Black Women Who Stole Themselves in Eighteenth Century America,” in Carla Gardina Pestana and Sharon V. Salinger., eds., Inequality in Early America (Hanover, N.H: University Press of New England, 1999), 146-49. 

Billy G. Smith and Richard Wojtowicz, eds. Blacks Who Stole Themselves: Advertisements for Runaways in the Pennsylvania Gazette, 1728-1790 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989).

Lathan A. Windley, ed. Runaway Slave Advertisements: a documentary history from the 1730s to 1790, 4 vols. (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1983).

 

Major online collections of freely available freedom seeker advertisements include:

Freedom On The Move.

Discover Enslaved People in the Newspapers.

The Geography of Slavery in Virginia.

North Carolina Runaway Slave Notices, 1750-1865.

Runaway Slaves in Britain.

Runaway Slaves in Jamaica (I): Eighteenth Century.

 

This article originally appeared in September 2024.

 

---

Antonio T. Bly is the Peter H. Shattuck Endowed Chair at California State University, Sacramento. He has published several books and articles on people who escaped slavery, servitude, and marriage, including most recently “‘Indubitable signs’: Reading Silence as Text in New England Runaway Slave Advertisements,” Slavery & Abolition 42 (2021), 240-68.

Simon P. Newman is Emeritus Brogan Professor of History at the University of Glasgow, and an honorary fellow at the Institute for Research in the Humanities at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. His most recent book is Freedom Seekers: Escaping from Slavery in Restoration London (2022).

Billy G. Smith is Emeritus Malone Professor of History and Distinguished Professor of Letters and Science at Montana State University. He has published widely on class, poverty, and race in early America and the Atlantic World, including extensive work on freedom seekers. His recent publications include “Mapping Inequality, Resistance, and Solutions in Early National Philadelphia,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 110 (2021), 207-29.

Gloria McCahon Whiting is E. Gordon Fox Assistant Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. She is the author of Belonging: An Intimate History of Slavery and Family in Early New England (2024).

Madison was talking about the three-fifths clause of the United States Constitution. Appearing in Article I, Section 2, the clause read:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

At its most basic, the three-fifths clause stipulated that three-fifths of the enslaved population of a state would be counted alongside five-fifths of the free population for determining how many members in the House of Representatives each state received. Three-fifths of the enslaved population would also be subject to “direct Taxes,” should Congress impose any. But because the number of Electoral College votes would be determined by adding the number of Senators a state received (always two) to the number of House members a state was entitled to, a higher enslaved population would give a state greater influence over both the House (where all tax bills had to originate) and over the choice of president.  

Madison’s phrase—divested of two fifths of the man—sounds akin to the most common way that scholars, teachers, and anyone else talking about the three-fifths clause today describes what it did: that it counted each slave as “three-fifths of a person.” This phrasing suggests a shared presumption among whites that black people were only fractionally human. There is certainly no shortage of examples of whites arguing precisely this, especially in the antebellum era. And, at first glance, that appears to be what the three-fifths clause is doing. The fraction “three fifths” is in the text itself, and though the word “slave” is never used, the clause is clearly talking about enslaved Black people. There are understandable reasons why it is so easy to assume that defenders of slavery on some level had to believe that Black people, free or enslaved, were innately not fully human. 

Yet this phrasing is, at best, misleading. So far as I can tell, commentators on the three-fifths clause in 1787 and 1788—its defenders as well as its critics—did not use this phrase. Madison’s line appears to have come the closest, and even he did not mean that Black people were only sixty percent human. In fact, his argument, like that of other defenders of the three-fifths clause, rested on the assertion that enslaved Black people were three things simultaneously: subordinates to whites, legally the “property” of their owners, and human beings, through and through. Southerners like Madison had a vested interest in acknowledging that enslaved people were people, since states with large enslaved populations—Madison’s home state of Virginia most of all—would gain greater representation in the House and the Electoral College through the inclusion of three-fifths of the enslaved population.

Denials of Black humanity, free and enslaved, coexisted with explicit acknowledgment that enslaved Black people, though legally deemed “property,” were people. Either could be invoked at different moments by the Constitution’s defenders (who called themselves federalists) as well as its critics (whom federalists pejoratively labeled antifederalists) to drive home specific arguments they sought to make. But arguments that enslaved people were people, and those claiming they were “property,” did not divide cleanly along political or sectional lines. When we presume that arguments in defense of slavery and denials of full Black personhood had to go hand-in-hand, we can easily miss or minimize how important it was for those defending the Constitution’s protections for slavery to acknowledge, and at times even emphasize, the personhood of the enslaved. Closer attention to the debate over the three-fifths clause during the public ratification debate reveals how central the personhood of the enslaved was to the Constitution’s protections for slavery, and how explicit slavery’s defenders were that Southern states stood to gain by it.

To be sure, whites North and South called the people they enslaved “property” constantly. They often used words like “Black” and “negro” as synonyms for “slave,” reflecting a tendency to equate Blackness with bondage. They frequently compared Black people to animals, especially beasts of burden. Slavery itself was brutal and, by its very nature, dehumanizing. Whites could (and did) claim that Black people, free and enslaved, were innately “inferior.” They could (and did) question whether Black people were capable of comprehending political ideals like liberty and equality, even when petitions or the prospect of violent revolt by the enslaved clearly proved otherwise. Most eighteenth-century whites denied that Black people deserved to enjoy the same political rights as white American citizens.

Yet none of these arguments should be taken as evidence that white people patently refused to acknowledge, let alone were somehow incapable of knowing, that Black people, free and enslaved, were people. Critics of the three-fifths clause, especially Northern antifederalists, stressed the personhood of the enslaved to underscore how brutal slavery and the trans-Atlantic slave trade was. A New York antifederalist, writing under the pseudonym Brutus, did precisely this in the fall of 1787. “What adds to the evil is, that these states are to be permitted to continue the inhuman traffic of importing slaves, until the year 1808,” the pseudonymous Brutus explained in his third letter, linking the three-fifths clause to Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which forbade Congress from “prohibit[ing]” the slave trade “prior” to that year. “[A]nd for every cargo of these unhappy people, which unfeeling, unprincipled, barbarous, and avaricious wretches, may tear from their country, friends and tender connections, and bring into those states, they are to be rewarded by having an increase of members in the general assembly.” 

Frightening as that was, the prospect of increased, perhaps insurmountable Southern power was not the only concern on many Northerners’ minds. Another was what including three-fifths of the enslaved population in each state implied about the relative equality of Black and white people. Abraham Fuller, a delegate at the Massachusetts ratifying convention, thought “the rule of proportion . . . five slaves to three freemen” was “but equal, for slaves are but chattels.” But his colleague, Francis Shurtliff (spelled “Shurtleff” in Theophilus Parsons’ notes), “want[ed] to know whether five smart negro slaves are to be equal to three of our children.”

This was the most typical way to characterize the three-fifths clause: not as a fraction (“three-fifths of a person”), but as a ratio (“five slaves” treated “equal to three freemen”). The point was to stress the comparative representation of enslaved and free people, and often, to compare the relative value of enslaved and free labor, not to claim that the Constitution rendered each enslaved person forty percent less human than their free counterpart. Not all enslaved Black people would count toward apportionment. That could certainly be interpreted as a reflection of “inferiority”: of enslaved labor, of enslaved laborers, or of Black people more generally. Any given white person could hold one or more of these views at the same time. But none meant that enslaved Black people were not people. That very fact provoked the cringeworthy comparison between “smart,” productive “negro slaves” and white children at the Massachusetts ratifying convention. It was also on the mind of North Carolina antifederalist William Goudy, who combined this worry with concern about direct taxes in one blunt statement: “I wish not to be represented with negroes,” Goudy stated flatly, “especially if it encreases my burthens.”

To emphasize the hypocrisy of Southerners’ insistence that slaves were “property,” and to challenge the political advantage Southern states stood to gain courtesy of the three-fifths clause, Northerners frequently compared Black people to beasts of burden. For all his sympathy for human victims of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, Brutus made this very comparison in the very same letter in which he referred to enslaved Africans as “unhappy people”: “If this be a just ground for representation, the horses in some of the states, and the oxen in others, ought to be represented,” Brutus wrote. “For a great share of property in some of them, consists in these animals; and they have as much controul over their own actions, as these poor unhappy creatures, who are intended to be described in the above recited clause, by the words, ‘all other persons.’” Dehumanizing comparisons like these reflect Northern white fears of both increased Southern political power, on the one hand, and even the remote possibility of Black citizenship, on the other. The personhood of the enslaved lay at the heart of both fears. The point of such comments was to claim that because Southerners called enslaved people “property,” it made as much sense to count animals owned by Northern whites toward apportionment as it did to count enslaved people owned by Southern enslavers. Which was to say, not at all.

By our twenty-first century standards, that argument is absurd. It was absurd by eighteenth-century standards, too. And federalists, especially those from the South, had a ready answer. Three-fifths of the enslaved population counted toward apportionment, and beasts of burden didn’t, because enslaved people were not animals. This claim was in no way incompatible with either whites’ widespread belief in Black “inferiority,” or enslaved people’s legal status as “property.” Slaves, federalists countered, were persons, just as the Constitution said they were.

“It is true, that slaves are property,-but are they not persons too?” one Southern federalist, writing under the pseudonym A Native of Virginia, asked readers: “Does not their labour produce wealth? And is it not by the produce of labour, that all taxes must be paid?” Enslaved peoples’ general status as subordinates to free persons, and their more specific status as wealth-producing possessions of their masters that had monetary value of their own, did not change the fact that they were people. “The Convention justly considered them in the light of persons, rather than property,” A Native of Virginia continued, “But at the same time conceiving their natural forces inferior to those of the whites; knowing that they require freemen to overlook them, and that they enfeeble the State which possesses them, they equitably considered five slaves only of equal consequence with three free persons.” 

A Native of Virginia was addressing Southern criticism that focused on the potential tax burden the three-fifths clause imposed. Referring to enslaved people’s “natural forces” as “inferior” and clearly distinguishing between “three free persons” and “five slaves,” A Native of Virginia nonetheless challenged Southerners who might be “accustomed to consider their slaves merely as property; as a subject for, not as agents to taxation.” A Native of Virginia reminded readers that that was not all enslaved people were. The three-fifths fraction provided due consideration for enslaved people as property whose labor and bodies were sources of wealth, and as persons fundamentally different from beasts of burden. That was why not all of them would count toward apportionment, like free persons, but it was also why not all of them would be subject to “direct taxes,” either. “What rule of federal taxation so equal, and at the same time so little unfavourable to the southern States,” A Native of Virginia asked readers, “could the Convention have established, as that of numbers so arranged?” Thus, the argument went, the three-fifths clause ought to satisfy those inclined to believe representation should be based on wealth, and those who believed it should be based on population, since enslaved people counted in both categories.

This was why Southern federalists saw no contradiction in calling slaves “property,” and no shame in admitting that counting three-fifths of the enslaved population alongside all of the free population “was highly favourable to the southern interest.” A pseudonymous federalist, An American, reminded Southerners how much they stood to gain if the Constitution were ratified. “By the present arrangement, you may enjoy the weight and power of five votes and a half for 168,000 slaves, being three fifths of your whole number of blacks,” An American told members of the Virginia ratifying convention in a piece published in a Pennsylvania newspaper in May 1788. “Power has been given to your state with no sparing hand. You (suffer me respectfully to say so) of all the members of the union, appear to have the least cause of complaint.” What made it possible was that enslaved people were people, not merely possessions. Whatever tax burden Southern states would carry would come with additional representation: a more than fair trade-off by any estimation. 

This argument for Southern power also proved compatible with the very arguments that Northerners brought up to disparage Southern slavery: that slavery was inherently less efficient and productive than Northern “free” labor, and that it was inherently more risky because slaves could revolt at any time. Both these inherent risks, and the advantages the South stood to gain if the Constitution were ratified, stemmed from the simple fact that enslaved people were people. In fact, the very risks inherent to slavery justified the power the Constitution conferred on slave states. Some “who opposed an unlimited importation” of Africans, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney told his colleagues in January 1788, thought slaves dangerous because they could be convinced by “an invading enemy” to “turn against ourselves & the neighbouring states, and that as we were allowed a representation for them in the house of representatives, our influence in government would be increased in proportion as we were less able to defend ourselves.” The very fact that slave societies were more vulnerable to revolts because slaves were people made it all the more necessary that Southern states receive some consideration for them in the Constitution. An American called them “a dangerous species of population,” and believed that, “when proper arrangements shall be made and occasion shall require,” the South “can rely on the most useful and friendly aid from the north.” In other words, the protections required to maintain this system of enslaving people would, in effect, bind the Northern and Southern states together via a shared interest in maintaining security from slave violence.

Collectively, Southern federalists pointed to the personhood of the enslaved to argue that whatever power the Constitution vested in slave states via the three-fifths clause was not the outrageous act of rank hypocrisy that Northern antifederalists made it out to be. Rather, the three-fifths clause prudently reflected slaves’ dual status of property and persons simultaneously. A Constitution that denied either status completely would not distribute political power and potential tax liability in a way that reflected the basic reality of slavery as an economic system or as a legal regime that rested fundamentally on the coerced labor of human beings. 

That was Madison’s point. Because an enslaved person worked for a master, and not for themself, and because an enslaved person could be sold, brutalized, and chained by their enslaver, that enslaved person “may appear to be degraded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational animals, which fall under the legal denomination of property.” But Madison argued that that understanding was incomplete. The enslaved were also “no less evidently regarded by the law as a member of the society; not as a part of the irrational creation; as a moral person, not as a mere article of property.” This was not simply because they were “protected” from brutalization unlike other forms of property and “punishable” for offenses, Madison explained. It was rather because the law deemed it so. The “mixt character of persons and of property”—what Madison called enslaved people’s “true character”—“is the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and it will not be denied that these are the proper criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted that if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with other inhabitants.”

Madison admitted that this benefited Southern states. But Northerners could not have it both ways. They could not count the enslaved “in some degree as men, when burdens were to be imposed,” but omit them from the apportionment tally by arguing they were strictly property. They could not “reproach the southern States with the barbarous policy of considering as property a part of their human brethren” and then turn around and “contend that the government to which all the States are to be parties, ought to consider this unfortunate race more compleately in the unnatural light of property, than the very laws of which they complain!” The Constitution already counted “other inhabitants” (like white women and children, though Madison did not list these examples specifically) on a one-to-one basis with free white men. By this measure, Madison suggested, counting three-fifths of the enslaved population was something of a bargain for the North. Would Northerners prefer all slaves counted toward apportionment?

For Madison, as for other defenders of the three-fifths clause, an enslaved person was not “three-fifths of a person” because they were their master’s property any more than they were only “three-fifths” the property of their master because they were a person. It should be obvious that none of this makes slavery more “humane.” It means that the Constitution gave enslavers a vested interest in acknowledging that the people they claimed as “property” were people. The three-fifths clause allowed enslavers to exploit the humanity of people they enslaved, to use the fact of their personhood, for political gain. Whether defending or criticizing the three-fifths clause, participants in the public ratification debate were convinced that how the Constitution treated enslaved people—as “property” and as “persons”—would be the key to the future of slavery, Southern power, and racial hierarchy. 

 

Further Reading

Primary sources related to the three-fifths clause and the ratification of the Constitution may be found in:

The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution Digital Edition, ed. John P. Kaminski, Gaspare J. Saladino, Richard Leffler, Charles H. Schoenleber, and Margaret A. Hogan (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009).

 

Secondary sources:

Mary Sarah Bilder, Madison’s Hand: Revising the Constitutional Convention (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017).

Robin Einhorn, American Taxation, American Slavery (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2006).

Jan Ellen Lewis, “The Three-Fifths Clause and the Origins of Sectionalism,” in Barry Bienstock, Annette Gordon-Reed, and Peter S. Onuf, eds., Family, Slavery, and Love in the Early American Republic: The Essays of Jan Ellen Lewis (Charlottesville: The University of Virginia Press, 2021), 254-80.

Jan Ellen Lewis, “What Happened to the Three-Fifths Clause: The Relationship Between Women and Slaves in Constitutional Thought,” Journal of the Early Republic 37 (Spring 2017): 1-46.

Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010).

Matthew Mason, Slavery & Politics in the Early American Republic (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006).

Leonard L. Richards, The Slave Power: The Free North and Southern Domination, 1780-1860 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2000).

David Waldstreicher, Slavery’s Constitution: From Revolution to Ratification (New York: Hill and Wang, 2009).

Sean Wilentz, No Property in Man: Slavery and Antislavery at the Nation’s Founding (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2019).

Christopher D. E. Willoughby, Masters of Health: Racial Science and Slavery in U.S. Medical Schools (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2022).

 

This article originally appeared in September 2024.

 

---

Nathaniel C. Green is Professor of History at Northern Virginia Community College. A specialist in early U.S. political culture, he is the author of The Man of the People: Political Dissent and the Making of the American Presidency (University Press of Kansas, 2020; paperback, 2024). He is currently at work on a book-length study of the three-fifths clause, tentatively titled Three Fifths: The Constitution, Slavery, and the Toxic Politics of Compromise.

Because of its prime location in the increasingly connected circum-Atlantic world, New London offered shoppers a dazzling array of imported goods from which to choose. On June 6, 1798, the Connecticut Gazette advertised, for example, that the Eleven Sons was in from Liverpool with one hundred crates of crockery ware “among which are a number of elegant Dining, Breakfast, and Tea Services.” While an elegant serving dish might have pleased Richard’s mother or one of his older sisters, the gift seeker moved on, stopping only when the wares of a local potter drying in preparation for firing revealed something that seemed like it would help pave the way for the child’s future success: a four-and-one-half-inch-tall savings bank made of durable stoneware clay.

While people have been stashing their savings in clay and other types of containers for millennia, it was the creation of both a national bank and a mint after the American Revolution that must have made the idea of gifting a savings bank particularly appealing. Here was a place a growing boy could store the nation’s new decimal coinage. The bank would promote one of the habits the recently deceased Benjamin Franklin had been praising as essential in every edition of Poor Richard’s Almanac published since 1732. So popular were his adages about saving and other virtuous behaviors that a British publisher had begun printing a set of playing cards in 1793 that illustrated them. One of the cards features a young, well-dressed man avoiding the town stocks by eschewing horse race gambling. “For age and want,” the card recommends, “save while you may, no morning sun lasts all the day.”

The New London savings bank must have additionally appealed to Richard’s gift seeker because it also promoted industriousness. Fashioned in the distinctive shape of a skep or the upside-down straw basket used for millennia to house honey-producing bee colonies, the bank asserted that saving depended on persistent hard work. When Paul Revere included a skep encircled by bees in the top right portion of the border of a Masonic summons he engraved in 1772 for a meeting of St. Peter’s Masonic Lodge in Newburyport, Massachusetts, he was following a long Masonic tradition of using the beehive symbol that would soon be explained by Boston-born Thomas Smith Webb in his Freemason’s Monitor or Illustrations of Masonry, the first edition of which was published one year before the savings bank’s creation: “The beehive . . . teaches us that, as we came into the world rational and intelligent beings, so we should ever be industrious ones.”

What may have appealed most to Richard Williams’ gift seeker, however, was that the beehive-shaped savings bank was not yet leather-hard and therefore presented an opportunity to record a personalized message on its broad surface. When mixed with water and brushed on the bank, powdered cobalt oxide imported from Europe’s Ore Mountains would settle into any incisions the potter was instructed to add. Later, after the repeated addition of salt to the kiln over the several days of firing that stoneware requires, the message chosen for the toddler would appear in bright blue under an attractive glass-like glaze produced when the salt vaporizes:

Richard Willimas [sic]

Mind and Save your Silver Money so that you can be a Man

Be comming

New London, Jun 9th 1798

Called out by name, or at least a recognizable version of it, Richard is urged to save his money and thereby become a certain kind of man, namely a “Be comming” or “becoming” one. While the position of the adjective may have been necessitated by the bank’s size and shape, its placement after “Man” underscores the hope that Richard would become not just a wealthy man, but a gentleman. The Bible’s “God Almighty” and Shakespeare’s “the devil incarnate” are two examples of well-known postpositive adjectives that the bank’s purchaser may have been imitating in the hope that by instilling in the two-year-old the habit to save, he would grow up to be a member of the elite.  (It is possible that there is also a pun here that plays on the savings bank’s shape. Richard will hopefully come to be an industrious man or bee.) 

While, at first glance, the New London savings bank and its eloquent message thus appear to follow Franklin and Revere in asserting that one’s own labor and personal discipline will be enough to propel a child into a prosperous adulthood, a closer look at its composition and its owner’s family reveal that slavery was an inextricable part of how wealth and the props of the wealthy were created in early national maritime Connecticut. 

Of the many Richard Williamses in the vicinity of New London in 1798, the one of an age to most likely warrant being given a savings bank was baptized in Essex on June 19, 1796, the son of a shipwright whose rise was a direct result of his involvement in building the ships that supplied the slavery plantations of the West Indies. Samuel Williams was born in 1751 to the owner of a river-powered ironworks on the Falls River branch of the Connecticut River. Samuel expanded his father’s business vertically, adding a gristmill, a sawmill, and finally a shipyard, as revealed by archival records and a thorough archeological excavation conducted by a team at Wesleyan University in 1990. By employing some fifty men and boys at any given time, the Williams Shipyard produced slightly more than one ship a year out of nails, fittings, boards, planks, and timbers all produced on site. A proto-industrialist, Richard’s father became wealthy enough from supplying ships for the West Indies trade that he was able to convert the small cape-style home he owned into the full two-story home where the savings bank likely found its place overlooking what had become a sixty-acre empire.

In their forays back-and-forth between Connecticut, the West Indies, and ports in between, Williams-built ships would likely have conveyed the main ingredients used in making the bank and then glazing it: stoneware clay, a deposit of which was discovered in the late seventeenth century extending from South Amboy, New Jersey, to Staten Island and Long Island, New York, and salt, which was imported from the West Indies in greater amounts than sugar, molasses, and rum. 

Salt’s ability to extract water from fish muscle and transport the salt into it, leaving the remaining, less active water less accessible to microorganisms, helped transform Britain’s small seaboard Atlantic colonies into a new nation by allowing its fishermen to preserve the cod they caught on Georges Bank for long-distance export. So central was the role of salted cod in moving the North American seaboard from the periphery to the center of global trade that it continues to be celebrated in the form of the “Sacred Cod” that has been hanging in the chambers of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, first in the old state house and now in the new one, since the first half of the eighteenth century. 

Salt was so ubiquitous in fishing communities that when Samuel Williams’ Connecticut River neighbor Venture Smith, the African prince stolen into American slavery at the age of six, was a young man working and saving to purchase his freedom in the mid eighteenth-century, the means on hand to test the prodigious strength he employed to that end was salt. He wrote in his autobiography, which is marked with the same place (New London) and date (1798) as Richard Williams’ savings bank, “I took up on my knees a tierce of salt containing seven bushels, and carried it two or three rods. Of this fact there are several eye witnesses now living.”  Astoundingly, Smith carried a cask containing 420 pounds of salt between thirty-three and almost fifty feet. (Today, the world record for lifting an Atlas Stone is 630 pounds, but this does not entail carrying the stone any distance except up and over a 48-inch-tall bar.) Such was his strength that Smith was able to work enough hours to save the far above average amount his master charged him for the liberty that was rightfully his own. Unlike Richard Williams, however, Smith was forced to bury his savings in the ground after one of his masters opened his chest and stole one of the promissory notes he had hoped to use towards his self-rescue. Worse, the reward for Smith’s bee-like industry was tainted by repeated examples of continued ill treatment even after he became a free landholder in Haddam Neck, Connecticut. 

One such occasion took place when Smith was returning home from New London by ship and a hogshead of molasses was lost overboard when the ship docked at a Captain Hart’s wharf in Saybrook at the mouth of the Connecticut River. Even though Smith had already gone onshore when the accident happened, Captain Hart forced him to pay for the loss. ‘‘Such a proceeding as this,” Smith writes in his Narrative, “would in my native country be branded as a crime equal to highway robbery. But Captain Hart was a white gentleman, and I a poor African, therefore it was all right, and good enough for the black dog.’’ Captain Hart’s molasses had traveled from a West Indies plantation, the product of the same kind of enslaved labor that Smith had expended throughout his young adulthood. For planters, merchants, and captains alike, the treatment of people of African descent could be justified by this idea, so formidably expressed by Smith, that they were akin to animals.

New England summers are not long or hot enough to allow for the evaporation of large amounts of salt water and thus the price for salt was driven almost entirely by the high cost of importing it from abroad. Salt was shipped from Liverpool, where brine was pumped out of mines and evaporated by heating it, and from Portugal and other Mediterranean countries where salt was raked from where it had evaporated in shallow ponds or along rocky shores. After the British claimed ownership of what is now Turks and Caicos in 1764, Britain’s mainland colonies imported the cheaper coarse salt raked there by enslaved people until the American Revolution disrupted this and all other foreign trade. Connecticut’s General Assembly went so far as to offer a bounty to anyone who could create a salt works and be the first to produce five hundred bushels of salt. When this failed to yield enough for the colony’s needs, the Council of Safety deputized an agent to impress ships of sixty to one hundred tons for service in acquiring salt from the West Indies. A list in Connecticut’s state library of the ships chartered reveals harrowing accounts of the trials endured in the pursuit of salt, such as those of the Betsey, which returned from the West Indies to New London with 3,000 bushels of much-needed salt in August of 1777 only to be captured, scuttled, and set on fire by a British frigate off of Montauk Point the following year. 

By the time Richard Williams was turning two in 1798, large quantities of salt were once again arriving regularly in New London from multiple foreign ports. On June 6, 1798, three days prior to the date on his savings bank, the same advertisement in The Connecticut Gazette announcing the arrival of one hundred crates of crockery ware also announced that six thousand bushels of salt had just arrived via Liverpool. However, potters’ preference for coarse and thus less expensive salt makes it likely that the salt whose vaporization in the kiln produced the glaze on Richard Williams’ bank was not from this or a similar Liverpool shipment but rather was raked from one of the islands where climate factors combine to evaporate sea water quickly and where there was enslaved labor to collect the salt left behind. Mary Prince describes in her 1831 autobiography the miserable decade of her young adulthood she spent enslaved raking salt on Turk’s Island:

I was given a half barrel and a shovel, and had to stand up to my knees in the water. . . . Our feet and legs, from standing in the salt water for so many hours, soon became full of dreadful boils, which eat down in some cases to the very bone, afflicting the sufferers with great torment. . . . If we could not keep up with the rest of the gang of slaves, we were put in the stocks, and severely flogged the next morning.

It was a relentless circle of brutal exploitation in which the salt raked by Mary Prince and other enslaved people was sold to northern fishermen who sold it back southward in the form of salted fish with which to feed the enslaved who raked the salt.

Those who benefited from the circulation of salt came to include Richard Williams, who became a successful Essex shipwright in his own right and whose prominence there got him elected to the Connecticut state legislature in 1851. The only cause for doubt in attributing the salt-glazed bank to this Richard Williams is Samuel Williams’ decision to give his son a middle name that honored one of Essex’s three original families, the Pratts. In the archival records, Samuel’s son often appears as Richard P. Williams. While it is troubling that there is no “P” on the savings bank, it could be that it was Richard who decided to use his middle initial in adulthood. If the survival of his savings bank in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts is any indication, the Richard Williams who owned it seems to have believed that his rise was a result, not of his connections, but his individual efforts. Rather than smashing the bank once it was full of coins, as was and remains customary for clay and glass piggybanks, either he or someone who also appreciated the tenets of individualism used a chisel to carefully enlarge the coin slot and thereby extract the saved silver coins while preserving all the words incised in it.

No one, it seems, was ever bothered by the transposition of two letters in the name Williams. Perhaps the bank’s purchaser did not notice the error upon receipt of the fired bank. Readers recognize words by global letter patterns, not by the identity and position of each letter, and they are thus quick to silently correct transposed adjacent letters without even realizing it. Given that the bank’s purchaser did not reject the bank after it was completed, he or she may not have noticed the error until arriving back in Essex. Today, however, the transposition seems fated, a small reminder of something much larger baked into American salt-glazed stoneware produced prior to the demise of plantation slavery. In her autobiography, Mary Prince testified to what she endured to produce its attractive glaze:

Sometimes we had to work all night, measuring salt to load a vessel; or turning a machine to draw water out of the sea for the salt-making. Then we had no sleep—no rest—but were forced to work as fast as we could, and go on again all next day the same as usual. Work—work—work—Oh that Turk’s Island was a horrible place!

This article has traced the hidden double role of slavery in the salt-glazed stoneware savings bank, first in a family’s firm conviction that individual virtues were the reason for their rise even despite its patriarchs’ involvement in the West Indies trade, and second in the labor of the enslaved in raking the salt that gives the bank and its message its deceptive luster. Of course, just as another Richard Williams may have owned this savings bank, there could be early American stoneware that was glazed with salt from England or Europe. However, to insist on as much is to erase Venture Smith and Mary Prince’s experiences. Their voices make clear that the circulation of salt and salted fish between New England and West Indies slave plantations shaped everyone’s lives as indelibly as cobalt oxide seared in fire.    

 

Further Reading

On New England pottery: Lura Woodside Watkin, Early New England Potters and Their Wares (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950).

On Connecticut River Shipbuilding and the Williams Family: Essex Historical Society and Essex Land Trust, Falls River Cove, vol. 1 of Follow the Falls, https://engage.overabove.com/follow-the-falls-volume-1-falls-river-cove/0627097001526997901; Shirley H. Malcarne and Donald L. Malcarne, “The Williams Building (Boat) Yard, 1790-1840: A Study of an Early Essex Ct. Enterprise and the Ships it Sent to the Sea” (1991); Wick Griswold and Ruth Major, Connecticut River Shipbuilding (Charleston: The History Press, 2020).

On salt: Konrad A. Antczak, Islands of Salt: Historical Archaeology of Seafarers and Things in the Venezuelan Caribbean 1624-1880 (Leiden: Sidestone Press, 2019); Cynthia M. Kennedy, “The Other White Gold: Salt, Slaves, and Turks and Caicos Islands and British Colonialism,” The Historian 69 (no. 2, 2007): 215-30; Mark Kurlansky, Cod: A Biography of the Fish that Changed the World (New York: Walker and Co., 1997); Mark Kurlansky, Salt: A World History (New York: Walker and Co., 2003).

On slavery in New London, Connecticut: Taylor Desloge, “New London: A Fault Line in the Story of Freedom and Slavery in the Atlantic World,” Segregation and Community on New London’s Hempstead Street, https://segregationnewlondon.digital.conncoll.edu/why-new-london-a-fault-line-in-the-battle-over-slavery-and-freedom-in-the-atlantic-world/.

On Mary Prince and accounting, see Katrina Dzyak, “Atlantic World Accounting and The History of Mary Prince (1831),” Commonplace: the journal of early American life, accessed June 11, 2024, https://commonplace.online/article/atlantic-world-accounting/.

 

This article originally appeared in August 2024.

---

Elise Lemire is Professor of Literature at Purchase College, SUNY, and the author of Battle Green Vietnam: The 1971 March on Concord, Lexington, and Boston and other titles. Her book Black Walden: Slavery and Its Aftermath in Concord, Massachusetts is available on Audible.

Captain Whipple called the older of the boys “Prince,” which was probably a callous joke on his royal pedigree. The other boy was given the common slave name “Cuffee.” Both lived and worked in Whipple’s house and stable.

When the revolution advanced to the point that patriots began setting up shadow governments, Whipple became a member of New Hampshire’s first independent assembly. He attended the sessions in Exeter accompanied by Prince, who had grown into an imposing strong man of twenty-five. When the assembly tapped Whipple to represent the state in Philadelphia, he rode south with Prince as his squire and personal servant. When the Continental Congress slowly lurched toward declaring independence, Whipple was one of the firebrands who never wavered from the course and earned the enduring respect of both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. As the delegates to the Continental Congress assembled that summer of 1776, Whipple wrote his friend John Langdon on June 24, 1776, with exciting news: “Next Monday being the 1st of July, the grand question is to be debated, and I believe determined unanimously. May God unite our hearts in all things that tend to the well-being of the rising empire.” Whipple did not sign the Declaration of Independence with Hancock’s flair but scratched his dignified signature with the other patriots on that vellum. Whipple was not the only signer who had been a slave trader.  John Hancock’s partner in his Boston merchant house, James Rowe, also trafficked in humans.

Some weeks later Whipple was commissioned into Continental Army with the rank of captain. This required Prince to also enter the nation’s service but without formal rank or place in the army as the patriot cause then recognized only white soldiers. Whipple and Prince didn’t face battle at this time as they fled with the rest of the skeletal American government to Baltimore when the Redcoats seized Philadelphia.

On Christmas Eve of 1776, Whipple and Prince crossed the Delaware with General George Washington’s army to conduct a surprise attack on the British flank. The details of their actions during this battle are lost. The next year, Captain Whipple was given command of New Hampshire’s First Brigade and ordered to march west to meet Burgoyne’s redcoats. As he had done hundreds of times Whipple charged Prince with attending their horses and retired, but the next morning found the work still undone. According to Portsmouth’s local newspaper editor at the time, Charles Brewster, this led to the following exchange:

Prince appeared sulky and in ill humor and his master upbraided him for his misconduct.

“Master,” said Prince, “you are going to fight for your liberty, but I have none to fight for.”

“Prince,” replied his master, “behave like a man and do your duty, and from this hour you shall be free.”

Prince wanted no other incentive; he performed his duty like a man throughout the campaign, which ended in the surrender of Burgoyne, and from that day he was a freeman. 

This story is likely apocryphal on a number of grounds. First, according to the records of the New Hampshire Adjutant General, William and Prince served from Sept. 27, 1777, to Nov. 15, 1777. However, Prince clearly was not free in 1779, two years after he supposedly was promised his freedom, because he was one of nineteen black men who that year petitioned the New Hampshire Assembly for their freedom.

These men, describing themselves as “natives of Africa, now forcibly detained in slavery, in said state,” humbly but directly asked for some legislation by which “we may regain our liberty and be ranked in the class of free agents, and that the name of slave may no more be heard in a land gloriously contending for the sweets of freedom.” Prince and the other enslaved men had no fondness for their fetters and felt acutely the contradiction between American ideals and their condition. They were, they said, “born free to a country, where (tho’ knowledge, christianity and freedom, are their boast) they are compelled, and their unhappy posterity, to drag on their lives in miserable servitude.”

They rested their argument on many solid rocks of antislavery argument. On the grounds of natural law: “Nature gave them life and freedom, upon terms of the most perfect equality with other men; that freedom is an inherent right of the human species, not to be surrendered, but by consent, for the sake of social life.” On the grounds of religion, they objected that their enslavement was not Christian: “Is it from the sacred volumes of christianity? There we believe it not to be found!” On the grounds of the principle of property: “our present masters, will not be sufferers by our liberation, as we have most of us spent our whole strength and the prime of our lives in their service.”

New Hampshire’s legislature read and tabled this petition at their session the following year. When Prince jumped the broom with his bride Dinah Chase, a free black woman from nearby New Castle, he did so as another man’s property. Dinah’s legal owner signed her manumission papers on the day of her wedding, but it would not be until 1784, three years later, that William Whipple would finally put his famous signature to another declaration of independence, that most dear to Prince, his own manumission.

But even this act was not quite a fulfillment of some wartime promise. Whipple chose to execute his manumission when his claim to human property was shaken and made uncertain by legal currents roiling New England. To the south, the Massachusetts Superior Court had essentially rendered slave property unenforceable in that state’s courts in a series of rulings (citing the freedom suit of Elizabeth Freeman) that involved Quok Walker, a man who stole himself away from his master and was able to defend his self-possession in court. New Hampshire had just drafted a constitution and its bill of rights was sufficiently broad to leave property in human beings on dubious legal ground. 

William Whipple’s long delay in fulfilling his promise of freedom to the man who had loyally served him and his cause could be seen as an act of hypocrisy. Whipple was certainly knowledgeable of the legal decisions that were shaking the foundations of Yankee slavery in Massachusetts and elsewhere. He served as a justice in the New Hampshire Superior Court from 1782 until his death in 1785. Such an interpretation would be consistent with the way other American founders, like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, have been reframed in recent years. But such conclusions are too easy because it was quite possible within the worldview of a wealthy and powerful white American, which Whipple undoubtedly was, to both hate slavery yet remain reluctant to free any particular enslaved person.

There is plenty of evidence that William Whipple sincerely wished slavery would die a swift death in the new republic. When the dashing young patriot and aide-de-camp of General Washington, John Laurens, proposed raising a regiment of enslaved men in South Carolina on the promise of their freedom, Whipple was elated and wrote a friend, “The last accots from S. Carolina were favorable. A recommendation is gone thither for raising some regiments of Blacks. This will I suppose lay a foundation for the emancipation of those poor wretches in the Country, & I hope be the means of dispensing the Blessings of freedom to all the Human Race in America.” Like Benjamin Franklin, Whipple most likely viewed slavery as a force that endangered the dream of America becoming a land filled with white immigrants. During the war, Whipple expressed his vision of America as a land peopled by (presumably white) emigrants: “The prospect of laying a foundation of liberty and happiness for posterity, and securing an asylum for all who wish to enjoy those blessings, is an object, in my opinion, sufficient to raise the mind above every misfortune.” Many, maybe even most, patriots opposed slavery not because they deeply sympathized with those chained, but because they viewed slavery as being responsible for growing the black population which they believed would always be a rebellious and criminal element of society.

Despite being cheated of years of freedom by the man who claimed to own him, Prince Whipple chose to live in his shadow, spending the rest of his life living in a small house in William Whipple’s backyard where he and his wife Dinah raised six children. His decision raises eyebrows today. Why would a man remain loyal to another who dehumanized and ultimately betrayed him? The answer lies not in Prince Whipple’s misplaced feelings of loyalty, but instead reveals the overwhelming danger and oppression that faced “free” black people in supposedly “free” northern states.

Prince Whipple would have heard of many African American veterans like himself who were taken back into the ownership of a white man after they took off their uniform. The full story of the numbers and experiences of black Revolutionary War veterans forced back into slavery has never been told—quite the opposite—as their experiences don’t fit comfortably within the heroic storyline of the plucky patriots fighting for liberty. Evidence for the ongoing suppression of the truth is that the writers closest to these events were more aware of them and knowledge of this tragedy seems to have faded as the centuries passed.

In 1842, an ancient white veteran of the Continental Army, identified only as Dr. Harris, spoke before the Congregational and Presbyterian Anti-Slavery Society, at Francestown, New Hampshire and wondered,

Now, the war is over, our freedom is gained—what is to be done with these colored soldiers, who have shed their best blood in its defence? Must they be sent off out of the country, because they are black? or must they be sent back into slavery, now they have risked their lives and shed their blood to secure the freedom of their masters? I ask, what became of these noble colored soldiers? Many of them, I fear, were taken back to the South, and doomed to the fetter and the chain.

While the proportion of African American Revolutionary War soldiers who were dragged back into bondage cannot be precisely determined, it is clear that this danger was one that lurked in the fears of many, even in the North. Legislative hearings held in Rhode Island after the war established that at least two of the black men promised their freedom had been re-enslaved and taken to the South. A substantial number of lawsuits were lodged in state courts around the nation on behalf of black war veterans who had been falsely promised their freedom. These suits pointed to the tragic fact that black veterans could not protect themselves from re-enslavement. Rather, they depended on community networks in black neighborhoods in larger cities and the help of powerful white patrons to defend their freedom.  

Free black men and women in the early years of the American republic knew that what little freedom and property they had could be stolen in an instant. Their survival often depended upon cultivating the patronage and protection of powerful white men. Prince Whipple was painfully aware that the scope of his freedom did not extend beyond the ability of his namesake to intervene in the courts or with local officials on his behalf.

Freedom did bring new opportunities for Prince and Dinah, but it did not release them from the control of their former masters, who now assumed the role of their patrons. Prince and Dinah certainly understood the important social, economic, and legal protections that white patrons brought them. They could not enjoy these protections on their own, even with their freedom and a questionable claim to citizenship. They knew from the painful experiences of other African American families in New England, even of other black veterans of the Continental Army, that their ability to hold property, to remain a resident in their town, or even to keep their family together, depended on their maintaining a close personal relationship with a white man of position and influence.

Many accounts of Prince’s postwar life note that his former owner, William Whipple, granted Prince use of a “small corner patch” of the yard behind his house where he and his brother Cuffee erected a small house in which they, their spouses, and their children lived. Few note that in New England at this time it was common for black families to be “warned out” by town officials and forced to move west or to one of the larger cities in the region. None observe that it was also common for town officials to force black families to surrender their children to neighbors as “apprentices,” meaning that they would be worked as unpaid servants until they reached maturity. When Prince and his brother accepted William Whipple’s offer of settling their families in his backyard, they were also accepting his protection.

Prince and his brother Cuffee Whipple were technically free, but clearly dependent on their former master’s family. This situation was common in a world where freedom was a matter not so much grounded in law but in practice. Prince worked odd jobs, including some manner of dining service at a local ballroom, and was known as a jack-of-all-trades. Cuffee also worked as a servant, and earned additional money entertaining guests with his violin.

Most remarkably, Dinah taught black children, first out of their small home, and then more formally under the sponsorship of a white benevolent association, the “Ladies Charitable African Society.” Dinah’s school, like other black schools in New England, faced constant threat from those who believed the existence of such institutions would induce other black Americans to settle in the town. Dinah was still operating her school when Connecticut prosecuted Prudence Crandall, a white teacher, forcing her to close her school for black children in 1834 or the following year when a mob attacked and destroyed the Noyes Academy, an integrated school in Canaan, New Hampshire. Dinah’s ability to educate several generations of Portsmouth’s black children depended on her family’s subservient relationship with the leaders of the town.

But patronage had its limits. Later in life, in her seventies, after Prince, Cuffee, and Cuffee’s wife had all passed away, Dinah still lived in the little house she didn’t own in her husband’s former master’s garden. After William Whipple’s widow died in 1832 and the property was passed to her children, Dinah was moved to a house the heirs owned in a black neighborhood. Perhaps it is not unreasonable to speculate that even though social pressures were not enough to break the Whipple’s long-standing feelings of noble obligation to their former black servants, they were enough to shuffle them out of sight.

In 1851, the German artist Emanuel Leutze debuted his epic, life-sized painting “Washington Crossing the Delaware,” which quickly became one of the most iconic portraits of both the father of the nation and of the Revolutionary War. In that famous image, Washington stands tall over the soldiers rowing across the icy river, one of whom is a black man. Prominent historians still mistakenly believe that this man was Prince Whipple, an African American whose image was adopted as the emblem for all black soldiers of the Revolutionary War. 

It is now known that Leutze had probably never heard of Prince Whipple. Rather, he included the image of a black rower because Washington’s flatboat symbolized the American nation and Leutze strove to represent a variety of ethnic types to complete this metaphor. Additionally, Leutze was influenced by the much earlier depiction of Washington’s army’s crossing by Thomas Sully that also included a single black figure among those poised around the great general. Sully, painting his canvas in 1819, was much closer in time to the events depicted and knew that Washington was accompanied throughout the war by one of the men he enslaved, William Lee. Sully surely had seen John Trumbull’s portrait of Washington with Lee poised on horseback in a fantastical turban as he worked for him as a studio assistant. In the end, the figure of the black soldier drawing his oar was partly an artistic trope that Leutze was repeating rather than an attempt at historical accuracy. 

Nevertheless, soon after Leutze’s masterpiece appeared, several writers identified Prince Whipple as the rower. William C. Nell, a writer and assistant editor with Frederick Douglass’ newspapers, published Colored Patriots of the American Revolution in 1854 and wrote:

In the engravings of Washington crossing the Delaware . . . a colored soldier is seen, on horseback, quite prominent, near the Commander-in-Chief,–the same figure that, in other sketches, is seen pulling the stroke oar in that memorable crossing. This colored soldier was Prince Whipple, body-guard to Gen. Whipple, of New Hampshire, who was Aid to General Washington.

Curiously, Nell himself identified another black soldier who took part in that crossing, though he chose not to associate him with images of Washington on that occasion. In his book, Nell quotes a newspaper clipping about Oliver Cromwell, a black soldier who served with New Jersey’s Second Regiment. Cromwell fought battles from the beginning to the end of the war and even remembered seeing the last soldier fall at Yorktown. Like Prince Whipple, he also paddled across that frozen river and fought at Trenton. But because Prince was the property of a man Nell thought was close to Washington, he credited him with being the actual figure made iconic in paint. 

The debate over who was the man Leutze depicted in his masterpiece of Americana faded once Currier and Ives rendered the painting as a lithograph and it was republished in many of the illustrated magazines that rose to popularity in the Jim Crow era. Catering to white audiences, Currier and Ives chose to remove the black rower from the scene. Interest in the man so plainly visible in the actual canvas still hanging in New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art only revived in the 1960s when the NAACP distributed newspaper features extolling the exploits of America’s black soldiers of the revolution. 

Emanuel Leutze depicted a black man carrying the father of the nation across the Delaware into battle for his nation’s freedom. Whether or not that man was in fact Prince Whipple, Prince metaphorically never stopped paddling that boat. America to him, and to men like him, was a land of freedom only as far as the powerful white man standing over them allowed.

 

Further Reading

Elliot Bostwick Davis, Thomas Sully: George Washington and the Passage of the Delaware (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 2016).

Karsten Fitz, “Commemorating Crispus Attucks: Visual Memory and the Representations of the Boston Massacre, 1770-1857,” Amerikastudien / American Studies, 50:3 (2005): 463-84.

William Lloyd Garrison, The Loyalty and Devotion of Colored Americans in the Revolution and War of 1812 (Boston: R. F. Wallcut, 1861). The quote by Dr. Harris appears on p. 6.

Glenn A. Knoblock, “Strong and Brave Fellows”: New Hampshire’s Black Soldiers and Sailors of the American Revolution, 1775-1784 (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co., 2003).

William C. Nell, Colored Patriots of the American Revolution (Boston: Robert F. Wallcut, 1855).

Mark J. Sammons & Valerie Cunningham, Black Portsmouth: Three Centuries of African-American Heritage (Lebanon, New Hampshire: University of New Hampshire Press, 2004), pp. 68-70, 93-94.

Natalie Spassky, American Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, vol. 2, ed. Kathleen Luhrs (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1985), 16-24.

Judith L. Van Buskirk, Standing in Their Own Light: African American Patriots in the American Revolution (Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 2017).

 

This article originally appeared in August 2024.

---

Timothy Messer-Kruse is the author of Patriots’ Dilemma: White Abolitionism and Black Banishment in the Founding of the United States of America (Pluto Press).