Colonial Newspapers as the Social Media of their Day by Robert A. Geake

     In recent years, many of us have bemoaned the rampant posting of extreme memes, misinformation, and outright lies ad nauseum on social media platforms, especially during an election season. Many among us may worry that the development of these platforms and their technology have altered the way in which we receive and digest news and opinions, and that the spread of misinformation and accusations of scandal perpetuated on these platforms are almost certainly a threat to our democracy and fair elections.

An example of an early newspaper in the United States

In fact, a remarkably similar atmosphere, created by the exponential growth of technology occurred in the years of our early elections, when newspapers throughout the colonies grew in great number, some of them published by party affiliates to forward their political agenda, others printed independently, and thus prone to publish and republish any titillating piece of political gossip or stories with a hint of scandal that would increase readership.

 As a result, newspapers of the day were crammed with political opinion, both from local writers and national “correspondents”, as well as stories of the candidate’s personal lives, real or imagined; and rumors that sought to compromise not only a candidate’s integrity, but sometimes threatened the new country’s national security.

 As our first president, Washington was mostly immune from direct criticism in the press. His cabinet members however, and fellow founders of the union were not immune. Their actions and behavior both in government and in their private lives would come under scrutiny, often to create a scandal among both the readership and the social scene that evolved around the political elite in Philadelphia, and elsewhere throughout the young nation.

 Alexander Hamilton was first targeted by anti-Federalist publisher James Thomas Callender in 1797. The newspaper publisher and printer had been sitting on a story for some years, ever since the revelation of an affair that Hamilton had undertaken with Marie Reynolds, a woman married to James Reynolds, a financial speculator, while he was Secretary of the Treasury. Reynold’s husband had known of the affair all along, later attempting to blackmail Hamilton. He would later make use of the tryst when he was investigated by Federal agents for an unrelated financial scandal. Reynolds not only revealed the affair, but also accused the Secretary of being involved in illegal financial dealings.[i]

Hamilton had been forced to confess the affair to members of the cabinet, showing them love letters from Madam Reynolds to exonerate himself of any illegal activity. The matter was placed under the carpet for some years, until the letters were conveyed by unknown persons to the publisher Callender, who printed them in a pamphlet. Embarrassed by the letters published and the unflattering light in which these cast his character, Hamilton penned and published a pamphlet of his own in response, against the advice of cabinet members and allies, admitting his “amorous connection” with Maria Reynolds, but refuting all claims of financial impropriety.

The pamphlet saved his political career, but the stain of infidelity would never quite fade from his reputation. It would not be the first time that Hamilton would refuse the advice of colleagues and print for public consumption what might have been better left to private correspondence.

 Callender for his own efforts would later be arrested and charged with sedition for these and other stories he published, after the passage of the Aliens and Sedition Act, and serve nine months in prison.

 As the nation moved beyond the presidency of Washington, the mantle of the office being above any attacks from the press fell away, especially as the nation’s capital moved from the refined streets of Philadelphia to the swamp ridden outlands of Washington, D.C. where the muckraking began in earnest.

As re-examined in Lindsey M. Chervinsky’s recent biography of President John Adams, the election of 1800 pivoted on the war between the Federalist and Republican parties in the press.

 The election process was quite different then, to summarize; candidates were put forward by parties for voters to choose as now, but the election process was more like today’s primaries, stretched out over several months rather than voting on one day[ii]. There might be three candidates on one ticket, two on another. Voters chose two candidates from either ticket. The popular vote-getters among the white property owners who could vote, were then turned over to the State legislatures. The dominant party in the legislature would then decide the candidates who would receive the votes in the Electoral College.

 As it remains now, the Electoral College was a factor from early on, and much effort was devoted to winning those “swing states” that could propel one party’s candidate over another. The candidates themselves did not “campaign” as we know it today. They might make appearances at parades and memorials, but generally left the politicking to allies in Congress and in their home states.

 This meant that local elections were all important to control the outcome of the national election. While candidates might receive a popular vote in one state, the electors might be told to cast their votes for the candidate of the party that controlled the state legislature. It also meant that candidates from both parties could and did serve as President and Vice-President within the same administration.

The political machinations of the 18th century were all performed by letter. Correspondence was the means by which any criticism of a politician or their policies was conveyed. Usually, such letters were passed along to several influential individuals who would in turn make sure its contents were passed to others, and that those contents or a summary thereof, would appear in local newspapers.

 As he looked towards running for a second term, President John Adams faced what seemed to be an uphill battle. Plagued with a cabinet that held several Federalists who attempted to undermine his policies, namely, maintaining neutrality in the war between Great Britain and France; he was also the victim of backlash from the Aliens and Sedition Act of 1798.

Adams as portrayed by John Trumbull 1798

This was a measure forwarded by Adams and the Federalists for fear of a popular uprising in the young nation. Fueled by unparalleled immigration, republican enthusiasm for the French Revolution in the press, and the published suspicions that Adams wanted to install a monarchy and name his son John Quincy as heir to the throne; the law soon became a tool for personal vendettas.

 When Secretary of State Thomas Pickering took the act to its most extreme and began arresting newspaper publishers, Republicans established another fifteen broadsheets around the nation.

 As early as June of 1800, the party had resuscitated the claims of Adams favoring a monarchy. In response, Federalist papers championed the Republican candidate as more attached to France than his own nation.[iii]They accused him of turning the Republican party into a “French party in America”, and viewed him as “the greatest villain in existence.”[iv] As Jefferson was famously tolerant of religions differing from Christianity, and supported the separation of any church and the state, Republicans called into question his own beliefs and morality. During the “election warfare” months of September and October, the leading Federalist newspaper published each day an article with the headline “The Grand Question Stated” which challenged Americans to swear “allegiance to GOD – AND A RELIGIOUS PRESIDENT; or if they would dare shed their faith, and vote for JEFFERSON – AND NO GOD!!!”

 Federalists also spread fears that if Jefferson were victorious, the Republicans planned to raid people’s homes and seize their Bibles. Writers urged the God-fearing populace to bury their religious texts to protect them from being confiscated.[v]  Substitute Guns for Bibles in today’s rhetoric, and you begin to see the similarities.

official presidential portrait of Jefferson by Peale

     Republicans on their part, produced an extraordinary political organization to promote their agenda and distribute anti-Adams propaganda. They set up committees of correspondence as had been instituted in the Revolutionary War, with which to pass correspondence, pamphlets, and newspapers. By 1800, the party owned forty percent of the nation’s news publications, which would guarantee wide distribution of their strategic attacks against the Federalists and Adams in particular.

 The Republican’s leading newspaper the Aurora, centered on the influence of Thomas Pinckney, Washington’s former ambassador to London, and Charles Cotesworthy Pinckney, the present envoy. The president’s relationship with the family was called into question, especially after the newspaper printed a letter Adam’s had written while Vice-President expressing his concern about the “long intrigue” the family had waged with Washington to obtain a diplomatic posting, and the “British influence” evident in choosing Pinckney for that posting. The paper asserted that Adams and Pinckney had cemented their relationship through licentious behavior, alleging that Adams had dispatched the envoy to find four “pretty Girls two of them for my Use, and two for his own.”

 Republicans also saw danger in those Arch Federalists, like Alexander Hamilton who had favored war with France, built up a large standing army under his influence, and favored the taxes the Federalists had imposed on the people. In short, they viewed the Alien and Sedition Act, the standing army, and imposition of taxes as evidence that the Federalists had trampled upon those liberties fought for in the American Revolution and betrayed the Constitution. If the Federalists remained in power, America was sure to see an increasing aristocracy, with a tyrannical president supported by a standing army.

 In fact, the greatest threat to Adam’s bid for a second term came from within his own party, and in the form of General Alexander Hamilton. Having received little aid from the President in building the formidable Army he wished for, Hamilton had seethed as Adam’s attention had focused on the build-up of the American Navy, the prospect of war with France notwithstanding. Hamilton, while often prone to public displays of indignation, penned his grievances as a gentleman, and circulated them among friends. Those friends urged caution, and advised he put the sentiments aside, but Hamilton believed the better idea to have those thoughts published in a damning pamphlet.

 On October 24, 1800, the New York newspaper the American Citizen included a notice that they had printed copies of “A letter from ALEXANDER HAMILTON, concerning the public CONDUCT and CHARACTER of JOHN ADAMS Esq. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.”

The advertisement advised readers they could purchase a copy at 136 Pearl Street in the city.

 Other newspapers like the Aurora began immediately to publish a series of excerpts from the fifty-five-page diatribe.

 In the fall that year, as elections were being held in New England States, the General of the Army of the United States made a tour of the region, openly outspoken in his dislike of Adams as a candidate. He personally put forth the name of the recently fired Secretary of State, Thomas Pickering; but his efforts to dislodge the president as candidate were met only with open disdain by fellow Federalists.

 In Rhode Island, chasing the chance of an electoral vote, he was scolded by Governor Thomas Fenner for his meddling in the election. The Governor knew Adams personally and was not to be swayed to another candidate. Furthermore, any attempt to undermine the President was an attempt to sway the election toward Jefferson, whose policies might well revive the once popular Agrarian party, whose tactics had fought taxation and federal oversight for years in the State’s formative years.

 When the votes were counted in the National election of 1800, the Republican candidates Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were tied with forty-seven electoral votes each. Adams had lost his bid for a second term, but his present term ended in March, and Congress was officially not scheduled to return until the fall of 1801. Adams as president, called back the Congress in spring to settle the outcome.

After weeks of negotiation and back-door meetings, Jefferson was declared president. To his eternal credit, Adams immediately placed into motion the peaceful transfer of power once Congress had determined the winner.

 For perhaps the first time in our history, the press had altered the course of an election.

Jefferson himself would fall under the same scrutiny as President, and face a scandal raised by the same individual the Adam’s administration had imprisoned. As noted earlier, Jefferson and the Republicans were outraged at the wide berth Secretary of State Pickering had been given in applying the law. One of his first acts as president had been to pardon James Brown, a boy convicted under the Act for the crime of erecting a liberty pole, and a sign that harkened back to the days of pre-revolutionary protest.[vi]

 In March of 1801, he sought to pardon James Thomas Callendar, who had served the entirety of his nine-month sentence, and also been forced to pay a $200.00 fine before his release. On March 16th, Jefferson signed a formal pardon, and the Attorney General Levi Lincoln dispatched a letter to the Federal Marshall in Richmond, Virginia, instructing him to refund the fine paid by Callendar.

 Unfortunately for Callendar and the President, the Federal Marshall was a man named David Randolph who detested Jefferson and balked at carrying out the Administration’s orders. Callender, meanwhile, was convinced that Jefferson himself was behind the delay, and became further infuriated when letters he had written to the President went unanswered.

 The publisher had put those long weeks of waiting to good use, digging deeper into a story that had first surfaced in 1797, of an enslaved mistress of Jefferson’s who had given him several children.

 By April of 1801, he had gathered enough information about the President’s “black family” in Monticello to demand, through James Madison, the position of Postmaster of Richmond, in exchange for keeping the considerable information he had gathered under wraps.

Jefferson should have been concerned. His mistress Sally Hemings was heavily pregnant at the time of Callender’s demands. In May 1801 she would give birth to another daughter. The child was quickly named Harriet in honor of an earlier daughter who had died in 1797 as the first rumors of then Vice-President Jefferson’s dalliance with a woman enslaved in his home first came to light.

Such arrangements in Virginia and other Southern states were not uncommon, and even more popular among the plantation owners in Barbados and other West Indian isles. In fact, the rumor caused little stir among the planter elites who supported Jefferson politically. A number came to his defense, vehemently denying the charges in letters to Republican papers. Almost no one was deceived, though there were still few details that the press could print beyond speculation.

Over a year would pass before Callender published the material he had. The publisher had received his refund by then, and had been hired by the Richmond Reporter, a Federalist paper begun by publisher Henry Pace the previous year.

 Believing he had been unfairly cast as a common blackmailer, Callender now printed the material he had held in secret for many months. On September 1, 1802, the first of a series of article’s began:

Illustration depicting Jefferson as a “cock philosopher” circa 1804

 “It is well known that the man, whom it delighteth the people to honor, keeps and for many years has kept as his concubine, one of his slaves. Her name is SALLY. The name of her eldest son is Tom. His features are said to bear a striking resemblance to those of the president himself…By this wench Sally, our president has had several children. There is not an individual in the neighborhood of Charlottesville who does not believe the story, and not a few who know it…”[vii]

 Once more, Republican loyalists defended the president and swore the story wasn’t true. Meriwether Jones in his letter to the Richmond Examiner put forward the notion that another person was responsible for fathering Sally Heming’s children, a defense later taken up by Jefferson’s descendants for many years, before the irrefutable documentation published in the 20th century by Fawn Brodie and more extensively by Annette Gordon Reed in her work The Hemings of Monticello.

 Newspapers since that era have both striven as in this case, to expose the truths about a candidate’s hidden life beyond public office, and to increase readership with stories both true and questionable that stir some degree of controversy. To a large degree, mainstream media outlets have followed this pattern to accomplish ratings in an ever-challenging market. The truth often seems more difficult to discern when bombarded with the smoke and fog of edited sound bites and video designed to convey only part of the story, or support one point of view.

 The good news is that Americans remain highly literate, and highly engaged in the debates. If we feel that social media is overwhelming us, it may ease our mind to know that only 9 % of adult social media users post or repost political content, or posts about social issues.

 That means many of us are still engaged in the debate over the important issues and concerns that should motivate one to vote in each election.

[i] Andrews, Evan 8 Early American Political Scandals History blog, October 18, 2023, http://history.com/news

[ii] Voting began in September and ended with votes expected to have been delivered from all the states to Congress by December 2,1800.

[iii] Chervinsky, Lindsay M. Making the Presidency: John Adams and the Precedents that Forged the Republic Oxford University Press 2024 p. 181

[iv] Ibid, p. 182

[v] Ibid.

[vi] Brodie, Fawn M. Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History W.W. Norton & Co. 1974 pp. 339-340

[vii] Ibid. p. 349

Slavery and The Making of the US Constitution by Mark Burnham, Esq.

I invite you to come with me, using the Smith’s Castle time machine, back to the summer of 1787. To a hot and humid Philadelphia as 55 male representatives of 12 of the 13 former colonies gathered in constitutional convention to create a document that would ultimately describe the functions of a new government. A unique form of government at that time in world history. But why were they gathering?

During and after the Revolutionary War, it had become obvious to many that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate. Adopted by the Continental Congress in 1777 it became official in 1781 and operated until the new Constitution was ratified in 1789. But, the Articles were too much a collection of separate sovereign powers and had little to no method of enforcing it’s will on the states. It was considered by many incapable of creating a single, unified country from 13 states jealous of their newly acquired independence. Some of the men coming to Philadelphia wanted to simply tweak the Articles but most wanted to throw them out entirely and start fresh. And ultimately, that’s what happened.

Historian Robert Darton wrote in his book The Revolutionary Temper :

“Events do not come naked into the world. They come clothed ~ in attitudes, assumptions, values, memories of the past, anticipations of the future, hopes and fears, and many other emotions.” (End quote)

We could say the men involved in this constitutional project brought with them their own baggage. Looking at that “baggage” can help us understand what they wrote and why they wrote it.

Slide #2. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity….”

Here, in the first sentence we find some of those hopes expressed. But I want to focus on the first three words ~ “We the People”. Who were “the People" in 1787 who were to be included in that expression: “We the People”? That is a question that this country has been trying to answer for the past 237 years, and is still trying to answer.

As we take a closer look at who was involved in this constitutional convention, we will see that some of the “baggage” these men brought with them, involved two institutions: Slavery and the International Slave Trade.

It is important to understand that in their minds Slavery and the International Slave Trade were two very different issues. It may seem counter-intuitive to us today, but for them it was possible to be against one and not the other.

There was a much broader consensus in 1787 against the International Slave Trade itself. The actual mechanics of that trade, while profitable to many, clearly required a system that inflicted unspeakable horrors on millions of enslaved people. And was becoming increasingly objectionable to many living in the 8 northernmost states.

But as to the question of abolishing slavery totally, that was a complete deal breaker for at least 5 of the 13 states: Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia. It is absolutely clear from southern state arguments in the summer of 1787 that the issue of the existence of slavery itself could not be threatened. And they would never participate in a new Union if that were proposed.

The type of slavery we are discussing called Chattel Slavery. Here is a 21st century definition by Michael Harriot:

“…[A] perpetual, race-based, constitutional, human trafficking enterprise that legally reduces human beings to chattel [things or objects] through the means of violence or the threat thereof.”

Many of us were taught, myself included, to consider the US Constitution to be a near sacred document. I can assure you that George Washington, who presided at this convention, did not bring it down from the top of Mount Vernon inscribed by God on sheets of vellum in beautiful 18th century cursive. At times its provisions were remarkable and farsighted and have stood the test of time very well. But, it should not be sacrilegious to suggest that the Founding Fathers were human beings with clay feet, like the rest of us.

A close examination of the process creating our Constitution, shows it to be, one that involved a great deal of “horse-trading”. But of course, it wasn’t “horses” that were being traded was it? It was the lives and fortunes and futures of human beings. I am not the only person to have suggested the Constitution is not perfect in all respects.

Of the 55 men involved in this convention, only 39 actually signed the Constitution in the Fall of 1787. Only one that we know of, George Mason of Virginia, did so because it codified and protected slavery and the slave trade. Others, including Mason were also upset it did not originally contain a Bill of Rights.

Here are two other well known critics.

Many of you are familiar with William Lloyd Garrison, who famously advocated for the abolition of slavery in the years leading up to our Civil War. Obviously, he was not a fan of the US Constitution.

In 1987, during the 200th anniversary of the creation of the US Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first Black American to sit on that court said that the US Constitution was “defective from the start”. He noted the majority of Americans were not a part of that document, despite the famous opening of “We the People”. Because of the accommodations made for the institution of slavery, he accused the initial framers of “consent[ing] to a document which laid a foundation for the tragic events which were to follow.” He was referring to the Civil War, the Jim Crow laws, the rise of the KKK and the Civil Rights struggle of which he played a major part in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Historian Ari Herman noted in his book, Minority Rule, who didn’t vote for this Constitution.

“Not a single woman voted for or against the Constitution. Nor did any African Americans or Native Americans, or a large number of poorer white [males]. Three quarters of adult males did not vote in [the] elections to choose the state delegates that would debate [ratifying] the Constitution…. The final text was approved by less than one sixth of the country’s [white] adult male population.”

Let me introduce one of our Founding Fathers. “Gouverneur” was his first name not his actual title. He was 35 in 1787 and present on behalf of the state of Pennsylvania. And, because most of the language used in the final version of the Constitution is his, he is often referred to as the “Penman of the Constitution”. And it was he who wrote that famous first line, beginning “We the People…” Mr. Morris was born to a prominent New York family, he attended what would later be called Columbia University and was known for his very active romantic life with many women some of them married, his clever wit, and his good looks despite having a “peg leg” as the result of an accident when he was 28. Mr. Morris was definitely one of “the people” referred to in “We the People”.

He was an eloquent speaker and gave more speeches during the convention than anyone else, 173 in totaL He was also one of the loudest voices against the issues of slavery and the slave trade at the convention.

However, Mr. Morris felt, and many present that summer of 1787 agreed with him that government, and therefore any document creating that government, is about power, politics and property: who has the power, how will that power be used, and how will this new government protect that property. And as we know, property in 1787 included enslaved human beings.

The original US Constitution contains a total of 84 separate clauses. 6 are directly concerned with slavery or the slave trade, and at least 5 others had important implications for slavery.

We will look at two of the most important clauses directly involving slavery and one indirectly involving slavery. Of the 11 slavery clauses only 1 pointed towards a future time when the international slave trade by Americans might, not would be, but might be stopped in 1808. The other 10 clauses served to protect the institution of slavery. Remember, in their minds, these were two separate issues.

Philadelphia, circa 1787 Courtesy of Wikipedia Commons

The delegates meeting in Philadelphia had varied backgrounds. Most had served in some official capacity in local colonial or wartime governments or in the military during the Revolution. They were all well educated and well off financially. There were 2 farmers; 13 businessmen, merchants or shippers; 6 major land speculators; 11 large scale securities speculators; and 12 owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms. They all certainly considered themselves, and those like them, “the people”included In the phrase “We the People.”

You’ll remember that I said 12 of the 13 states sent representative’s to the convention in Philadelphia. Rhode Island sent no one to this convention and was the last state to ratify the Constitution ~ not until 1790. In fact, when George Washington was sworn in as our first president on April 30, 1789, neither North Carolina (November 1789) nor Rhode Island (May 1790) were officially a part of the United States. They had not yet accepted the terms of the Constitution. George Washington was not amused.

Why that attitude? Many Rhode Islander’s were rabidly anti-federalist, in other words, concerned that the Constitution gave too much power to a central government at the expense of the states. An argument that has often surfaced throughout the subsequent history of the United States. They were not alone in that fear.

An example pf paper money issued by Rhode Island through the 1780’s Courtesy of Wikipedia Commons

Slavery was also an issue. Many RI voters were rural farmers whose economic interests didn’t include the slave trade, Quakers in RI were against slavery at this time, however many of the leading merchants and shippers in RI were still heavily invested in it. Rhode Islander's also feared the state’s lucrative practice of printing paper money would be made illegal and heavily mortgaged farmer’s money would become worthless. And, they were right, many went bankrupt as a result of the Constitution’s giving that power to create currency solely to the new federal government.

Rhode Islanders also wanted a Bill of Rights that would protect religious freedom, a core Rhode Island principle introduced by Roger Williams and protected in its Royal Charter. Other states wanted a Bill of Rights as well and extracted a promise that the first Congress established under the new Constitution would immediately propose one. But, Ii wasn’t until the other states, having ratified the Constitution, threatened to treat RI like a foreign country that they eventually voted at their own convention: 34 to 32 in favor of it.

It is occasionally stated that the US Constitution has nothing to do with slavery because nowhere in the document is the word “slave or slavery” written. The delegates to the convention, many of whom were enslavers themselves, were not stupid, they understood public relations and so they found other less offensive words to refer to “slaves” as, for example, persons “held to Service or Labour”.

As delegate John Dickinson representing Pennsylvania noted in his diary in July of 1787, “The omitting [of] the Word [slavery] will be regarded as an Endeavor to conceal a principle of which we are ashamed.”

The constitutional convention was held in secret. No formal record was kept of the proceedings except for notes of what was voted on and what the votes were. We only know some of the “original thinking” behind the creation of this document because a few men, notably James Madison, but several others as well, kept detailed notes of the proceedings. A word of caution about those notes. We know that James Madison was still editing them many decades after the events.

But, the delegates felt they needed secrecy to keep outside pressure to a minimum, and to enable all the participants to argue freely. So, all formal hearings were held behind locked doors.

As you can see from this quote, Mr. Madison recognized right away that the big divide between the states involved slavery. James Madison was the 4th President of the US (1809 to 1817) and is often referred to as the “Father of the Constitution” because of his influence on both the structure and the general philosophy underlying the document. Though he often argued that enslavement was not compatible with Revolutionary principles of freedom and liberty, he nevertheless enslaved over 100 people on his Virginia plantation and actually brought some of them with him when he was President.

The divide Mr. Madison referred to grew out of the two very different economies of these two regions. An economy is the growth and acquisition of property. Property was wealth. And in the 1780’s the economies of the 5 southernmost states were based on the production of agricultural products that could be exported. Things like tobacco, rice, and indigo .. and soon, cotton. It had very little manufacturing. A very small merchant marine industry and had to import most of its manufactured goods. So their economies required labor and lots of it. It’s labor was enslaved which is what made their economies profitable. Hence, their belief that they would be committing economic suicide by agreeing to limit or abolish enslaved labor.

The 8 northernmost states had more diversified economies. They relied more on shippers and merchants and manufacturing industries. They did not require enslaved labor to grow their economies and create wealth. But ironically, it was their own close ties providing their goods and services to the Southern states that helped bind their economies to slavery. You could say both regions had a love/hate relationship when it came to slavery. That is why the southern states would discuss ending the international slave trade but NOT the ending of slavery itself. And why not representatives from the northern states were sent to the convention with instructions to abolish slavery.

And now, finally, the clauses themselves. The Direct Protections of Slavery from Article One, Section 2 - Now referred to as the 3/5’s Clause. There was more debate over this issue than any other at that convention.

“Representatives [of the House of Representatives] … shall be apportioned among the several States … according to their respective Numbers [I.e. population] which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years [indentured servants], and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons [well who else is left? Only enslaved persons].”

This clause laid bare for all concerned the importance of the institution of slavery to the Southern states. The argument over the influence of property/wealth on who would run the government had been intense.

Mr. Morris had spoken against this decision along with a number of other northern representatives. He said:

“Are they [meaning the enslaved] men? [If so] then make them citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why then is no other property included? The houses in this city are worth more than all the wretched slaves which cover the rice swamps of South Carolina.”

It was approved on July 12, 1787 and in response John Dickson of Pennsylvania wrote in his diary about the supreme irony of this clause, and I quote:

“What will be said of this new principle of founding a right to govern Freemen on a power derived from Slaves … themselves incapable of governing yet giving to others what they have not,”

So, for every 5 enslaved people the enslavers would get credit for 3 additional voters. Of course, none of those 3 “voters” could actually cast a vote. Only their enslavers could do that.

The result of this was that these “slave states” had a bonus number of voting representatives in the House of Representatives and therefore votes in the Electoral College. Article Two Section One is one of the indirect clauses where slavery made a big difference.

A number of historians believe that many of the pre-Civil War pro-slavery laws, such as admitting Missouri into the Union as a slave state or enacting the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 would not have passed without that southern electoral advantage. Thomas Jefferson would have lost his election to John Adams as President in 1800 but for the Electoral College advantage held by the Southern States. Because of that, Jefferson was often referred to as the “Negro President”.

Historian Lawrence Goldstone in his book Dark Bargaiin, Slavery, Profits and the Struggle for the Constitution noted: “…the great irony in ALL the debates that led to the 3/5’s rule [was] southerners, who insisted that blacks were [only] property, had to [agree]…that they were at least partly people, and northerners, who regularly denounced the enslavement of their fellow human beings, [now] had to acknowledge blacks as at least partly property.”

The arguments over this provision were long and very contentious. The southern states continually threatened to “walk” if they didn’t approve anything remotely connected to the institution of slavery. Were they bluffing? Ask the men, women and children who suffered and died during the Civil War. This clause was all about power ~the power of property/wealth. Power for enslaving whites derived from enslaved blacks who would be denied any power themselves.

It was a major compromise, but even after it was approved, northern states still felt it cheated them of power in Congress and the Presidency. In 1804 Massachusetts proposed that the measure be repealed. However, only Connecticut and Delaware voted in favor.

How did this clause operate in the real world. Some results from the first nationwide census of 1790.

This remained the law of the land until the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868 ~ 81 years later.

By 1820 this clause was providing 18 additional representatives for the Southern states in Congress. Of the first 12 Presidents of the US, 10 were enslavers. Four of the first five were from Virginia. Did that shape the nation?

Presidents nominate Federal judges and Supreme Court Justices. The Senate confirms or denies them. We know ourselves how important those selections can be for the future of the country. Federal judges are on the bench until they retire voluntarily or die. Their attitudes, their prejudices, their opinions on the law can become controlling for the country. These two Supreme Court Chief Justices controlled the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1864. Their decisions show how hard they worked to make sure that enslavement and its racist justification were and remained the law of the land.

For example, the legendary Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (1801 to 1835), John Marshall - enslaved over 200 people. He wrote the majority of the Supreme Court decisions while in office and never once took the side against enslavement.

The last chief justice of the Supreme Court before the Civil War was Roger B. Taney (1836 to 1864). A former slave owner who had freed his enslaved people in 1818 but as Supreme Court justice never once sided with the enslaved. And even during the Civil War itself was actively working as a southern sympathizer against President Lincoln His attitude can be best summarized in his own words from one of the worst decisions in the history of our Supreme Court, Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). (And I quote)

Image from Anti-Slavery Almanac Courtesy of Wikipedia Commons

“They [meaning the “black” race] had for more than a century before [the founding of the US] been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit…. It is too clear for dispute that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted [the Declaration of Independence}…”.

He also affirmed in that decision that “The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution.”

Article One, Section 9 Powers Denied Congress Subsection 1 Now referred to as The Slave Trade Clause.

“The Migration or Importation of such Persons [who was being imported into the country, only enslaved Africans] any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”

By the way, there was never a tax imposed. That was a red herring used to modify critical northern representatives.

Note that this clause does not require Congress to actually ban the slave trade in 1808, though they ultimately did. As a result of this clause being added to the Constitution, it is estimated at least 40,000 new enslaved persons were imported by American vessel/owners between 1803 and 1808. And another 50,000 between 1808 and 1860. This illegal trade was something a few Rhode Island merchants were intimately involved in. For example, the DeWolf family in Bristol, Rhode Island did the majority of their “slave trading” when it was illegal both under State and Federal law. It made them very wealthy. Of course, laws are only as good as their enforcement.

The slave state delegates to the constitutional convention believed that southern states would grow faster than northern ones and that by 1808 they could prevent the banning of the slave trade. Ironically, by 1808, Thomas Jefferson - then President - and others in the southern states realized that the closing of the slave trade would actually enhance the value of their current enslaved people. They saw a great opportunity in selling some of their enslaved to the southern states now developing cotton as a major exportable crop.

When Congress did outlaw the African slave trade in 1808, the U.S. domestic slave trade grew such that the numbers of enslaved here almost tripled over the next fifty years. Breeding human beings as opposed to trading for them became the new norm. There was what has been called a 2nd Middle Passage - enslaved workers from Virginia and Maryland marched further south and west to meet the fast growing cotton plantations.

Quote from Aaron O’Neill a research expert covering historical data on STATISTA.com as of September 2024

“There were almost 700 thousand slaves in the US in 1790, which equated to approximately 18 percent of the total population, or roughly one in every six people. By 1860, the final census taken before the American Civil War, there were four million slaves in the South, compared with less than 0.5 million free African Americans in all of the US. Of the 4.4 million African Americans in the US before the war, almost four million of these people were held as slaves; meaning that for all African Americans living in the US in 1860, there was an 89 percent* chance that they lived in slavery.”

One other point - as 1808 approached and bills were introduced in Congress to eliminate the US participation in the International Slave Trade, the votes for and against them (you will be surprised to learn) lined up exactly as they did 52 years later with pre-Civil War era pro- and anti-slavery representatives in Congress.

As historian Sean Kelley notes in his book “American Slavers”: And I quote:

“Rhetorical themes of the 1807 debate included states’ rights, natural rights, biblical sanction of slavery, fear of Haitian-style rebellion [which began in August of 1791], and secession and civil war.… the debate exposed the incoherence of maintaining that slavery as an institution might be justified while simultaneously holding that the slave trade was wrong.” End quote.

I will conclude with remarks made by Frederick Douglas in a speech he gave in March of 1860 in Glasgow, Scotland entitled “The Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-Slavery?”

“[The constitution convention] debates were purposely kept out of view, in order that the people should adopt, not the secrete motives or unexpressed intentions of any body, but the simple text of the paper itself. Those debates form no part of the original agreement… It must stand, or fall, flourish or fade, on its own individual and self-declared character and objects….

What will the people of America a hundred years hence care about the intentions of the scriveners who wrote the Constitution? These men are already gone from us….They were for a generation, but the Constitution is for ages….

If slaveholders have ruled the American Government for the last fifty years,, let the anti-slavery men rule the nation for the next fifty years. If the South has made the Constitution bend to the purposes of slavery,, let the North now make that instrument bend to the cause of freedom and justice….now let the freemen of the North … who can make the American Government just what they think fit, resolve to blot out forever the foul and haggard crime, which is the blight and mildew, the curse and the disgrace of the whole United States.”

I have tried to show in this brief look at the creation of our Constitution, that compromises were made, primarily by northern states, because they believed that time was on their side. That economics and moral suasion would gradually overcome the southern reliance on enslavement as an economic way of life. They were terribly wrong. And by 1860 the economic argument for southerners in favor of enslavement was stronger than ever and the racism that morally justified enslavement had percolated throughout the country and the state and federal governments for another 73 years in ways that would continue to haunt the country until today.

This just scratches the surface of this subject. As a shameless plug, for those of you who want to learn more, I will be teaching a 3 session class on this subject at URI’s OLLI program during the coming Winter term. We’ll look in more detail at the lead up to the 1787 convention, more of the men involved in the creation of the document itself, and further repercussions for the country in its wake.

Another "Black Regiment" in the Revolutionary War By Robert A. Geake

  Above portrait of Henri Christophe by Richard Evans 1816

  I have spent much of the last decade writing of and giving talks about Rhode Island’s historic attempt to raise a “Black Regiment” that would serve in the War of Independence.

The Act of the General Assembly in February 1778 was historic because it was the first attempt to raise such a force of enslaved men in America, though free blacks and other men of color had enlisted in previous wars and militia. Lesser known is the regiment of black soldiers who served with the Lègion de Lauzun of France.

 That year of 1778 also was the beginning of the important alliance with the French government, one that assuredly increased our chances of winning independence from Great Britain with much needed “money and material” as well as both naval and military support.

The alliance however,  began in disarray when after weeks of naval battle with the British Fleet, the French ships off Newport were battered by a hurricane and retired to Boston for repairs during the attempt to wrest Rhode Island from British hands. Without the French fleet or soldiers to support troops, the already stalled campaign fell to a day-long skirmish with Hessian troops before a retreat off the island.

 The resultant anti-French feelings among American commanders caused the fleet under Admiral d’ Estaing to sail to the Caribbean, where he spent much of 1779 playing cat and mouse with British vessels and recruiting militia from the islands. He also successfully launched an attack that captured Grenada, but by August was recalled to North America to provide support for the siege of Savannah.

 D’Estaing arrived in Charleston harbor on September 3, 1779 with his fleet of 33 warships, equipped with 2,000 guns and holding an army of 4,450 men. Among these were a group of some 941 men of color recruited from the Islands of Guadeloupe and Granada as well as other  “Mulattoes, and Negroes, newly raised in St. Domingo[i].“ 

  These Chausseur-Volontaires had a long history on the island. Both free blacks and free mulattoes served in the militias and the marechasee’, the rural police force.[ii] Still, in their own native land they were forbidden to ride in coaches, become midwives or surgeons (physicians), or even to travel to the mainland, less the “purity and beauty” of the French nation be “disfigured.”

 The Chasseurs arriving with d’Estaing were called the Fontanges Legion after their French commander Major General Viscount Francois de Fontanges, and included numerous men who would become famous in the later Haitian Revolution, including twelve year old Henri Christophe, the future king, Henry I.[iii] The young Henri was signed on as an orderly to a French naval officer.

 On arrival, three divisions of the French Army joined the 2,100 men under Major General Benjamin Lincoln, and set up separate encampments along the Savannah River. Another large contingent of  French troops and 545 of the Chasseurs were landed on Tybee Island for a siege on the British outpost there.

 Initially, the French did much damage to the British fleet, capturing the warship Experiment and her 50 guns, as well as the frigate Ariel and two store ships carrying the payroll for the Savannah garrison, and Brigadier General George Garth, who had been scheduled to take command of the British forces in Georgia on his arrival.[iv]

  On land, the Fontanges Legion scouted the British fortifications on 8 September. A few days later, the off-loading of cannon and mortars some five miles from the siege site began in a heavy rainstorm on the night of 11 September. The remainder of the French troops began landing at Beaulieu, on the Vernon River that night. They unloaded more artillery that would have to be hauled fifteen miles to their emplacement. The British meanwhile, continued to build fascines and fortify their defenses on the mainland. They sank six of their ships in Savannah harbor to blockade the French fleet from getting close to shore and bombarding the city beyond the garrison.

 Lincoln moved his men south to Cherokee Hill, just west of Savannah by 15 September. On the following day d’Estaing wrote to the British Major General Augustine Prevost, demanding the surrender of the city. Given twenty-four hours to respond, he delayed replying as he knew reinforcements were arriving soon with 800 regulars from the garrison at Beaufort, South Carolina under Col. John Maitland, and the 1st Battalion of de Lancey’s brigade from Sunbury under command of Colonel John Harris Cruger.

 Provost chose a redoubt built upon Spring Hill, off the southwest border of the town, as his strongest position of defense.

 With his manpower significantly increased, the Major General declined to surrender, and instead sent out a sortie of some 200 regulars on the morning of 17 September to attack the French battery near the barracks. The British were repulsed and pushed back into their own redoubts with the loss of 53 men killed, including their commander, Col. William Campbell, and two other officers. Another 100 British regulars were wounded.

 The French too suffered the loss of twenty-six men, and the wounding of 84 soldiers, including ten officers; largely the result of British cannon fire during the counter attack on the redoubts.

  The following day, the Continental troops sent the Legion of recruits under Brigadier General Pulaski, and members of the 1st Regiment Continental Light Dragoons to stake out any movement of troops or supplies to Ogeechee Ferry, and that day they trailed and overcame a party of Loyalists driving a large number of “horses, cattle, and Negroes to St. Augustine.”[v]

 Pulaski’s troops captured 50 men, along with livestock and slaves.

 Sorties continued in the coming days from both sides. On the night of the 22 September, a regiment of fifty grenadiers under Lieutenant M. de Guillame of the Viscount de Noilles division launched an attack upon a British outpost five miles from the city at a place called Thunderbolt Bluff. Rather than take the post by surprise as instructed by the Viscount, Lieut. Guillame drove his force in a head-on attack that was easily repulsed; leaving six men killed and several wounded with the first volleys. Supporting troops had little choice but to retreat.

  The following day, the siege of Savannah began in earnest. The French and American forces began digging trenches and preparing to bring the artillery into place. A British sortie on the newly dug trenches the following day resulted in the loss of seventy Frenchmen killed or wounded. The attackers had lost little with four killed and fifteen wounded by comparison. The allied soldiers persevered, getting cannon into place along the siege line by 3 October, and the bombardment of the town from land and sea began the following day.[vi]

 The bombardment last several days, utilizing 10 mortars and some 54 pieces of heavy artillery. Provost had pulled down his barracks and used the wood to construct a large and formidable battery. As the bombardment continued, some French gunners fired into their own lines. They were reprimanded when found to be drunk, but continued the assault with little improvement in accuracy.

The Allied plan had been to weaken the British defenses with the bombardment, finish the trench lines, then by a systematic approach, make an assault upon the town. News of coming bad weather hastened d’Estaing  to prepare for an immediate attack. Brigadier General Lincoln begrudgingly agreed to bring up his 5,000 troops and prepare them for battle.

 The plan then became to launch a two-pronged assault on the Spring Hill redoubt, a formidable task.  A line of smaller redoubts and earthworks connected with the main post, and dense swampland protected the western flank of these defenses. In addition, the British had the brig Germain anchored with her guns in the Savannah River to provide enfilade fire along the allies northwest flank.[vii]

 Around 4:00 a.m. on 9 October, the allied plan was put into motion. Five hundred South Carolina and Georgia militiamen under Brigadier General Isaac Huger began the assault with a diversionary attack on a redoubt at White Bluffs road, manned by troops under Lt. Colonel John Harris Cruger.

The French troops under command of General Arthur Count de Dillon planned to emerge from the swamp in a secondary assault but became lost, and then bogged down under a blistering attack from the entrenched British forces. While in this weakened condition, British marines and grenadiers charged, leading to fierce hand to hand combat in which many of the French grenadiers were killed with bayonets. The Viscount de Castries later reported that “in less than half an hour more than 2,500 men were killed on the spot.”[viii]

D'Estaing was wounded in the leg, attempting to regroup French forces. This resulted in further losses when a column under Col. Lachlan McIntosh were diverted into Yamacraw Swamp where they came immediate fire from the guns of the Germain.

 The South Carolinians, Georgians, and French cavalry fought “a long and bloody battle in the ditch outside the Spring Hill Redoubt.” The allies pressed the assault three times in an effort to gain the parapet but were repelled each time. The assault led by General Pulaski and his two hundred cavalry led to his death, and d’Estaing was wounded in the leg while trying to regroup his forces. After these efforts, Lincoln retreated his forces, and the Fontanges Legion stationed as the rear guard, “fighting the English troops with obstinacy and boldness”,  prevented the allied forces from annihilation.

 The Americans lost approximately four hundred and forty-four men. Eighty dead were found in the ditch below the redoubt, and another 93 on the battlefield outside the trench.

The French dead included a significant number of the Fontanges Legion. Another 650 of the ranks were wounded in the battle.

 Following the defeat, d’Estaing and his troops boarded their ships on 20 October and departed once again for the West Indies. Some units of the Fontanges Legion were taken to support garrisons at Grenada and St. Lucia.[ix] Others remained with Major General Lincoln, tending to the wounded as he marched the remainder of his troops back to Charleston. Those wounded in the battle, including Henri Christophe and Martial Besse were returned to St. Dominigue.

 Of these surviving Chasseurs, a significant number would contribute to their own Revolution.

  Among them, Jean-Baptiste Mars Belley would become an important leader as a delegate for his people, especially those enslaved as he had once been. As a young man, he had been sold into slavery from Senegal and spent the rest of his life, both enslaved and as a free man in Cap Francais, a bustling port and market town surrounded by numerous plantations. Though not the capital of the Island, the city was the seat of the governor, and held a large government compound, a large hospital, a parish church with an impressive colonial colonnaded façade, and several squares with elaborate fountains. A eighteenth century writer termed it the “Paris of the Island.”[x]

 Saint Domingue was the wealthiest of the colonies in the Caribbean. The three regions of the Island,: North, West, and South were abundant with sugar and coffee plantations, as well as farms that grew indigo. In Cap Francais, there were also more than one hundred jewelers working in gold or silver for the market. The grande blancs, or wealthy white planters often held enslaved people in excess of their needs. Such was their need to show off their status that an entourage of enslaved paraded with them or their mistresses through the streets whenever they entered the town.[xi]

 In this sophisticated urban setting, Belley mixed in with the many other urban enslaved who labored as drivers of coaches or wagons, filling barrels of coffee or sugar to be rolled to the wharves, others worked on the docks or in the holds of the ships as carpenters and mechanics.

 Belley was also literate and well read. By 1777 he was enlisted with one of the five black militia units associated with the city, and part of a military leadership group who formed an important, if not symbolic presence in the community. As historian Christine Leveque notes:

 “…blacks associated with the military not only knew each other but formed a kind of pseudo-kin family that provided support and also participated in many of the other members important life events. They acted as godfathers at baptisms, witnesses at marriage ceremonies, mourners at funerals, and cosigners of manumissions and other economic transactions.”

 Belley participated in at least fifty of such ceremonies. These acts of support and solidarity, she argues, kept them separate from the white and mixed-race world.

 On his return to St. Domingue, Belley worked with other veterans of the Chasseur-Volontaires to improve their status at home. The alliance with American troops had surely changed the way they viewed their lives. As Leveque points out,

 “The values of freedom, patriotism, and civic virtue had now been placed in a context of international and interracial collaboration, even as he was constantly reminded that he served at the whim of white officials.”[xii]

 It is entirely possible as well, that word of the American’s offer of freedom to blacks who served in the Continental Army had made newspapers in Paris, that were passed along to the population in St. Domingue before the Fontanges Legion had been formed.

 In March 1780, the Governor of St. Domingue put out orders that a new unit, the Chasseur Royaux, would be formed. Service would no longer be voluntary, but young men from each parish would be conscripted to serve. The plan met immediate resistance. The Captain of a mixed-race militia in Le Cap wrote to the Governor in no uncertain terms that the Chasseurs were “…free men who have the ability to choose the Company in which they will do their service.” Conscripts for the new unit refused to enlist, and long-standing officers of the Chasseurs issued a complaint to the Crown. The measure was soon abandoned.

 Through the tumultuous decade that followed, Belley and other veterans of the American campaign continued to fight against oppressive measures in their homeland, which only worsened with the advent of Revolution in France.

 In 1788 when King Louis XIV had issued a call for representatives from the Empire, planters in St. Domingue quickly worked as a collective of white colons to exclude citizens of color from political life. Nine white delegates thus represented the Island when the General Assembly met in Paris on 20 June 1789.

  As events erupted in the capital that summer, the white colons attempted to consolidate their power. Fearing that the Assembly would raise the issue of slavery, the planters worked with the King’s deputies in his final months as ruler, to approve the formation of assemblies in the colony; which would of course be wholly tied to the interest of white planters, big and small.

 In August as the National Assembly in Paris moved to create a Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, free men of color in St. Domingue were organizing their own advocacy, creating the Société des Colons, declaring their equality with the white planters who sought to oppress them. The Société still had to select a white spokesperson, the attorney Etienne Louis Hector Dejoley to address the National Assembly on their behalf.

On 22 October 1789 a delegation appeared before the representatives in Paris as their spokesmen read aloud the statement the free blacks had composed:

 “There still exists in one of the lands of this Empire a species of men scorned and degraded, a class of citizens doomed to rejection, to all the humiliations of slavery: in a word, Frenchmen who groan under the yoke of oppression.”

  Still, these were free blacks who were arguing for representation. The following month the Assembly heard from a group of enslaved blacks, issuing their contention that as “pure blacks”, not of mixed race as with many of the Société Colons, deserved not only their freedom, but a status above those of mixed race.

 The advocacy by both groups only heightened the efforts of whites to prevent black citizens from gaining legitimacy. When the Credential Committee of the Assembly put forward a report favoring the free black request, members were pressured by the white colon, and the report was never presented to the full Assembly.

 A massive and damaging slave uprising in the southern region of the Island in 1791, prompted the French, now under a constitutional monarchy to make concessions to the previous demands. On 4 April, 1792, the new Legislative Assembly voted to extend citizenship to all free people of color. Three commissioners and a regiment of troops were sent to distribute the order, quell the riots, and restore slavery to the plantations that had been destroyed in the revolt. Even as these commissioners landed on Saint Domingue, the revolution in France continued to evolve. Just days after their arrival, the Legislative Assembly of which they were part, was dissolved; and replaced by a National Convention that declared France a Republic.[xiii]

 Among the commissioners that had arrived from France was Léger Félicité Sonthonax, an idealist lawyer who had embraced the revolution and would have an impactful role on men like Belley who sought equality in their society. In Paris, Sonthonax  had joined the Jacobian club, a social male salon of delegates from the National Assembly which became increasingly more radical and progressive. In his own writings, the attorney wished for “a torrent that will sweep away the old abuses, and that a new order of things will rise…Yes!”

He foresaw the day when “we will see an African…without any other recommendation than his common sense and his virtue, come to participate in lawmaking in the midst of our national assemblies.”[xiv]

 Those ideals would be tested, and reach some fruition with a handful of measures, first freeing blacks who had fought for the Republic, and then in June 1793, issuing a general  abolition, and ordering the election of representatives from the local assemblies.

On 24 September 1793, Jean-Baptiste Mars Belley, or “Citizen Belley”, was the first to be elected a representative to the National Assembly. Five other deputies were elected, among them two black men, two whites, and one of mixed race.

Belley and the other delegates who had travelled with him to Paris were admitted to the National Convention on 3 February 1794 with open arms. Representatives rejoiced that the “old Aristocracy of the skin”  had given way to liberty and equality. The following day, the Convention abolished slavery in all the empire’s remaining colonies.

  The young Henri Christophe’s life paralleled Belley’s in many ways. Born to an enslaved woman and a freeman in Granada or St. Kitt’s, Christophe was brought as an enslaved boy to Saint Domingue’s northern region.

 After his participation in the battle of Savannah, he was returned to St. Dominigue to recover from his wounds. He may then have worked as a waiter, or billiard marker at a hotel in Cap Francais, a later popular story told of his skill in dealing with wealthy clientele. Christophe earned enough income to enable his sister to join him on the Island as a free black, where she later married and raised a family. He was also a freeman by the time of the enslaved uprising of 1791 when he, like Belley; was part of the local militia.

 Christophe is said to have distinguished himself as an officer during the years of revolution, and fought in numerous battles in the northern region under leader Toussaint Louveture. He was reputedly promoted to Commander-in-Chief of the forces at Cap Francais after Louveture seized power in 1801 and then to General shortly before Louveture’s deportment the following year.

 He continued fighting under General Jean-Jacques Dessalines against the 20,000 French forces sent  to restore order under the brutal Vicomte de Rochambeau.

  Donatien-Marie-Joseph de Vermer  Vicomte de Rochambeau, son of the Commander who had led the French forces that aided Americans in their Revolution, had actually been an aide de camp to his Father; arriving in Boston on the frigate Concorde on the 8th of May, 1781[xv]. He would spend a little more than a month at the encampment in Newport, Rhode Island before marching with the French and remaining soldiers of the Rhode Island Regiment on 18th June, and remained with the combined forces at Yorktown where he would have witnessed, and perhaps overseen the work of those formerly enslaved men of the Rhode Island Regiment; as they secured the American lines and batteries leading up to the battle.

 The younger Rochambeau remained with his father through the winter encampment at Williamsburg, Virginia until the following spring.

  Reportedly appointed to lead the expedition against the uprisings because of his intense hatred for blacks, Rochambeau waged a war of extermination against the rebellious enslaved workers. In March 1803, the ship Napoléon brought with the remainder of it’s cargo, one hundred Cuban dogs, a breed similar to one found on Santo Domingo, whose size was compared to the largest Russian greyhound, with a terrier like head. These were well known as man-hunting dogs, and to prove to point, Rochambeau set up a grisly display in one of the main market squares.

 Starved for days before the event, Rochambeau had the enslaved servant of his chief-of staff paraded to the town arena, and tied to a pole. Teams of dogs were then released, and the enslaved man cut open to incite the beasts to tear him apart.[xvi]

 Other stories tell of Rochambeau releasing slaves into nearby swamps so that the dogs could hunt them down for sport. The younger Rochambeau also hold the reprehensible distinction of operating the first “gas chamber” when he order sulfur dioxide to be thrown into the hold of a ship full of enslaved captives.

 Christophe continued to fight under General Dessalines until the French retreated in late 1803 and the General declared independence from France in 1804.

 In his retreat from the fall of Cap Francais, the brutal Rochambeau fled aboard the frigate Surveillante but was captured by a British squadron under command of Captain John Loring. He was brought to England where the Vicomte de Rochambeau lived as in exile, a prisoner on parole for nine years.[xvii]

  Saint Domingue would be renamed the island of Haiti, the name the indigenous Taino people had called the island before Columbus’ arrival.

 In the ensuing months, Dessaline and other leaders waged an extended war of revenge, herding the remaining white Frenchmen into captivity, or torturing and killing them outright.

Reportedly, Christophe used his influence t persuade the General to spare the lives of non-French whites in Cap Francais, as well as those Frenchmen who had treated blacks honestly, and those who served the community such as priests and surgeons.[xviii]

Dessalines then took on the role of Emperor, proclaiming himself Jean-Jacques the First, Emperor of Haiti. Over the next two years, he would solidify his role as sole ruler of the island. Haiti was still volatile, and unrest only grew under the new regime that shrugged off and attempt at separation of powers, and ignored the basic rights of individuals. An attempted invasion by the Emperor’s forces to quell rebellion on Danto Domingo failed miserably in 1805, and by the fall of the following year, he would die at the hands of his own troops, attempting to corral another uprising. His body was mutilated and dragged through the streets of Port-au-Prince.

 Four months after the death of Dessalines, An election was held by the two factions of blacks and mulattoes that still contested control of the island. Henri Christophe was elected as leader of the “State of Haiti”, comprising the north and west, while Alexandre Pétion, the leader of the mulatto faction was named leader of the “Republic of Haiti” in the south. The two factions would rival each other for the next fourteen years.

 Henri Christophe had always favored a complete break with France, even advocating a change to the English language in the wake of British architects, teachers, and protestant missionaries arriving on the island.  The mulatto faction under Pétrion  favored continued relations and material and cultural relations with France.

 Despite their differences, as historian Wim Klooster points out, there were many similarities. Both regimes emulated European politics, banned the practice of voodoo, and supported organized religion. A new constitution of 1811 made his state a kingdom, and proclaimed Christophe as King Henry I. The constitution also allowed for the creation of a court society, similar to Versailles, with former slaves elevated to princes, dukes, counts, and chevaliers.[xix]

A democracy, as those Chasseurs had helped to fight for in North America was not to be. A statement written by the new ruler attempted to persuade the world why the revolution in Haiti had ended in monarchy.

 “Although we are also a new people” the document stated, “our needs, morals, virtues, and vices are those of the people of Antiquity. We recognize therefore, with the great Montesquieu, the excellence of paternal, monarchial government.”[xx]

     A plaque commemorating the sacrifice of the Fontange Legion was dedicated at the Cathedral of Saint Marc, Haiti by the United Sates Secretary of State Cordell Hull in 1944.

 In 2007 a monument commemorating the contributions of the Chasseur-Volontaires de Saint Domingue was unveiled in Savannah, Georgia. At its unveiling, the monument was constructed of four bronze statues. Two additional sculptures were added in 2009 to complete the monument which depicts a group of five uniformed and armed soldiers with rifles at the ready. One soldier is seated and slumped with his hand to a chest wound. Beside the armed soldiers stands a young drummer boy, representing the twelve year old Henri Christophe.

 A plaque on the base of the octagonal monument reads:

 “The largest unit of soldiers of African descent who fought in the American Revolution was the brave “Les Chasseurs Volontaires de Saint Domingue” from Haiti. This regiment consisted of free men who volunteered for a campaign to capture Savannah from the British in 1779. Their sacrifice reminds us that men of African descent where also present on many other battlefields during the Revolution.” [xxi]

[i] Desmarais, Norman America’s First Ally: France in the Revolutionary War Casemate Publishers, 2019 p. 201

[ii] Klooster, Wim Revolutions in the Atlantic World: A Comparative History New York University Press 2009 p. 89

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Desmarais, p. 201

[v] Ibid, p. 202

[vi] Ibid, p. 204

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] Leveque, Christine Black Cosmopolitans: Race, Religion and Republicanism in an Age of Revolution University of Virginia Press 2019 see https://open.upress.virginia.edu/read/black-cosmopolitans/section/b2fd2f1e-bfb2-48ae-9768-e25c602c58d8 accessed 8/11/2024

[x] Leveque,  see https://open.upress.virginia.edu/read/black-cosmopolitans/section/b2fd2f1e-bfb2-48ae-9768-e25c602c58d8 accessed 8/11/2024

[x] See https://www.slaverymonuments.org/items/show/1169

[xi] Klooster, p. 87

[xii] Leveque, Christine, Black Cosmopolitans

[xiii] Ibid.

[xiv]

[xv] Rochambeau, Memoirs of the Marshall Count de Rochambeau Paris, 1838 p. 42

Disappointingly, Rochambeau’s memoirs mention nothing of the Col. Christopher Greene or the “black regiment”, by 1781 merged with the 2nd Rhode Island by the time of their departure from Newport and Providence.

[xvi] Girard, Phillipe R. War Unleashed: The Use of War Dogs During the Haitian War of Independence La Review Napoleonica, No. 15, 2012

[xvii] Mobley, Christina A War Within the War from Haiti: An Island Luminous Duke University, July 31, 2020 see http://islandluminous.fiu.edu/part02-slide11.html

[xviii] Klooster, p. 111

[xix] Ibid, p. 114

[xx] Ibid.

[xxi] See https://www.slaverymonuments.org/items/show/1169

The Billingtons: One Colonial Family’s Struggle to Take Root in Southern New England By Robert A. Geake

Mayflower in Plymouth Harbor by William Halsall

     When Joseph Billington  lay near death in a neighbor’s home in South Kingstown, Rhode Island in October 1790, he might have prayed that his life, after the death of his oldest, errant son, would be the end of a long trajectory of tragedy, poverty, intransigence, and indenture that had fallen over several generations of the family. All under the long shadow of his great grandfather’s legacy as being the first man executed in Plymouth Colony.

 That man, John Billington, had arrived in Plymouth with his wife Elinor and their teenaged sons John Jr. aged about 16, and Francis, aged about 14 years old in the hold of the Mayflower.  From the start, they were viewed as having come from “ a bad lot”, John and his sons being among those who had often been punished during the journey.

As the ship lay offshore, he distinguished himself by becoming the first charged with the criminal complaint of “contempt of the Captain’s lawful command” by refusing to obey orders, and given the punishment of having his heels drawn up behind him and his ankles tied to his neck[i].

 While the Mayflower lay anchored off Cape Cod in December 1620, Francis Billington fired a gun near a barrel of gunpowder, setting off a fire that could easily have become catastrophic, but as Bradford recorded, ‘through God’s mercy was quickly put out”. This was but the first of a series of inconveniences the family brought to authorities in the new settlement of Plymouth Plantation. The Billingtons in fact, seemed to have gotten off on the wrong foot from the moment they stepped ashore

 Young Francis went missing one afternoon in January 1621, resulting in a search party being formed and finding him some three miles into the woods. As recorded in Mourt’s Relation,

 “This Day Francis Billington, having the week before seen from the top of a tree on a high hill a great sea, as he thought, went with one of his master’s mates to see it. They went three miles and then came to a great water, divided into two great lakes; the bigger of them five or six miles in circuit…They are fine fresh water, full of fish and fowl. A brook issues from it; it will be an excellent place for us in time[ii]”.

 His older brother John had also caused a stir when he went missing while exploring the following summer. After surviving for five days on berries, plants and water, he had been found by a band of indigenous people and taken to Nauset on Cape Cod.

Despite these early transgressions, John Billington signed the Mayflower Compact and seemed to have settled into establishing a homestead, that is until 1630 when he found himself accused of murder. As Governor William Bradford recorded in his journal,

 “This year John Billington the elder , one that came over with the first, was arraigned, and both by Grand and Petty jury found guilty of willful murder, by plan and notorious evidence. And was for the same accordingly executed. This, as it was the first execution amongst them, so it was a matter of great sadness…They used all due means about his trial and took the advice of Mr. Winthrop and others (of) the ablest gentlemen in the Bay of Massachusetts, that were then newly come over, who concurred with them that he ought to die, and the land be purged from blood.

Image of Billington’s confession

     He and some of his had been often punished for miscarriages before, being one of the profanest families amongst them; they were from London , and I know not by what friends shuffled into their company. His fact was that he waylaid a young man, one John Newcomen, about a former quarrel, and shot him with a gun, whereof he died[iii]”.

 Billington had many friends among the small community who protested that the confrontation with the victim came about because Billington suspected that Newcomen was stealing from his traps. His reputation as a good hunter also belies the facts about the shooting as the victim was shot haphazardly in the shoulder while fleeing the scene, though the accused reputedly would let no other take responsibility. His written confession sealed his fate and he was the first man to be hung in the colonies.

   His brother Francis remained in Plymouth and married Christian Penn Eaton, widow of Mayflower passenger Francis Eaton in July 1634. Among their nine children, were Elizabeth 1635-1707) their first, then Joseph (1637 -1685), Martha (1638-1723), and Mary(1640-1717). By 1640, the family was struggling. Despite inheriting his mother’s property in 1637, Francis had made land investments that he could not afford to maintain. The family fell into debt, and on 2 January 1640, it was ordered by the court in Plymouth that

Illustration of early Plymouth

“Francis Billington & Christian, his wife, shall give Jonathan Brewster & Luke Brewster possession of her thirds the lands bought of them; and then Jonathan Brewster to pay him in corne the remainder…[iv]”.

 In April of 1642, the court recorded that the Billingtons had “put Elizabeth their daughter, apprentis to John Barnes and Mary, his wife, to dwell with them and to do service until shee shall accpmplish the age of twenty years, (shee being now seaven years of age July next), the said John Barnes & Mary, his wife, finding her meate, drink, & cloathes during said term.

 The following January, the parents were forced to bound out their young daughters Martha and Mary, aged five and three, along with their only son Joseph who was  six years old. By Court order, he was bound out to one Joseph Cook of the town. Almost immediately, Joseph began to run away from his master, most often returning home. By July of 1643, authorities took the parents to court and declared that

 “Whereas Joseph, the sonn of Francis Billington, accordint to the order of the Court, was by the towne of Plymouth placed with John Cooke the yonger, and hath since beene enveagled, and did oft de(spi)te his said masters service…doth order and appoint that the said Joseph shalbe returned to his said master again immediately,and so shall remaine with him during his terme[v]”.

 But the court went further, issuing a warning to the parents as well as a stepbrother living in the home that

 “if either the said Francis, or Christian, his wife, do rescue him, if he shall againe dept from his said master without his lycence, that the said Francis, and Christian, his wife, shalbe sett in the stocks every…day during the time thereof, as often as he or shee shall so rescue him[vi]”.

  Historically, the poor of any community relied upon family or neighbors for assistance. Plymouth County instructed towns to keep a herd of cattle that could be farmed out to those in need so they would be provided with milk and other dairy products, as well as birthing calves while the cows were in their custody[vii].

 Other towns bid out the oversight of elderly and infirm inhabitants, a system that left many of the most vulnerable at risk. Boston had established a poorhouse as early as 1660, but by the 18th century adopted the system of venue, auctioning off their poor to the lowest bidder.

 But for the tragedy that fell upon the family in these early years, the saga of the Billingtons would be similar to many poor to middling families that arrived with the hope of a better life in the colonies. For the Billingtons, having limited family, and a notoriety with authorities in the town likely made finding work and seeking relief from such hardship difficult.

 Their saga then, also gives us a glimpse into how communities within the growing colonies and then states, struggled to support growing populations of indigent citizens, while passing laws that kept other transients who would likely become “chargeable to the town” from settling in, and adding to the poor population.

 Francis and his wife continued to live in Plymouth, he swore an oath as a freeman in 1657, and they had five more children. Those children who had been bound out however, left the County behind when their indenture ended.

 Francis and Christian also left Plymouth and settled in Middleboro, Massachusetts where their means were provided by their second son Isaac who petitioned the court in 1704 to “have his father’s land settled on him as recompense for having taken care of his father. He states that his father had become impoverished following the Indian Wars and had begged him to move to Middleboro. He did this, uprooting his family from a comfortable life in Marshfield, and cared for his parents…for 7 years until their death[viii]”.  The sisters would provide for themselves by signing a deed that let them earn income from the lands they had received from their parents estate.

 Elizabeth Billington would marry three times and ultimately settle with third husband Thomas Patey in Providence. Her sister Mary would wed Samuel Sabin and settle in Rehoboth, Massachusetts where they raised six children. Joseph too would marry Grace Phillip and settle on Block Island sometime before 1676 when their first son Francis was born. Tragedy would strike the family again in 1680 when a second son named Elisha was born, and Grace died shortly after.

 Francis Billington II would return to Plymouth as an adult, marrying Abigail Churchill in 1702, and having their first child Sarah in December of that year. The couple would have six more children, one named Elisha who died in childbirth, and two more, Abigail and Joseph, who lived but a year or less, Their remaining children, Marcy, Jemima, and Content, along with Sarah would have twenty-two children among them.

 Elisha Billington  would also leave the Island, marrying in 1712 and settling with his spouse in South Kingstown, where their first child Daniel was born the following year. Their second son Joseph was born in Kingston, two years later, and daughters Sarah, and Mary were born within the next four years.

Old view of Kingston, RI

  Daniel and Joseph remained in South Kingstown into adulthood, raising families there. Daniel married Mary Austin in 1736 and they raised five sons: John, Joseph, Samuel, Elisha, and Thomas, as well as daughters Sarah (Croucher) and Jemina (Granger).  Joseph married Abigail Brahmin in 1737 in South Kingstown, their first son, Joseph Jr, was born in 1747 and four more children, Sarah, Jane, Elisha, and Abigail were born between 1758 and 1768.

 By 1773, Joseph had become insolvent. Even more troubling was that his wife was pregnant yet again. The Town Council voted that he appear

 “before ye towne council with all his Children under his care in order ye ye council may bettore Know how he maintains & Supports himself & Children[ix]”.

 The following year, Abigail gave birth to a son, but died from the complications of childbirth. The Town Council voted

 ”…that Elisha Billington (an infant son to Josph Billington), being one of the Poor of this Town be Bound out as an Apprentice to James Gardner of this Town until he shall arrive to ye age of Twenty one Years[x]”.

 Gardner was charged as the boy’s master to teach him to read and write, to lodge, feed, and clothe him throughout the agreed term, and most practically for the town; to trade him in the art of weaving so that he might be a contributing participant in the town’s economy one day.

 The Town Council also bound out Jane Billington to Rowse Potter “utill she arrive to ye age of eighteen” with the stipulation that Potter “Learn her to Read & to be Dismist...with one new sute of apparel…[xi]”. Unfortunately, the twelve year old girl died on December 19, 1774 before she had served even a year of her term.

 Abigail, the youngest daughter was also taken from the family to “be taken care of by ye overseer of ye poor George Gardiner & that he endeavor to find a suitable place to take her as an apprentice as soon as may be”.

 In August 1776, she was bound out to Peleg Gardner on the same terms as her sibling. The town awarded Gardner thirty shillings  “to cloath sd Girl with at this Present Time[xii]”.

 The council minced no words when it came to twenty-seven year old Joseph Billington Jr. The body voted for George Gardner to

 “take care and Bind out Joseph Billington Junior (who is an Idle indolent Person & likely to become chargeable to ye town) to some suitable person for one Year on ye best Terms he can, or Ship him a voige to Sea agreeable to ye Laws of this Colony[xiii]”.  

 By 1781, the Council was forced to address his welfare again:

 “Wheeras this Council hath had many and Repeated Complaints of The Eregular Life of Joseph Billington Jr. upon which this council vote and hereby Require Daniel Shearman Jr. one of the Overseers of the Poor…to keep the said…Billington to Laboour Or bind him to some Sutable person to be kept in Labour for the Support of himself and his Aged father Joseph Billington[xiv]”.

       By this time, South Kingstown along with many towns adapted the practice of “warning out”, or evicting those who had not proven means of support. While many came to join families in communities, they were still given a timeline in which to establish or find work in a trade. Often families vouched for members, and some. Were given reprieve; but for those who were without family or someone to vouch for them, they were given notice to leave town.

 As the law required, those “warned out” were removed to the town of their last legal residence which by the law was responsible for their welfare. This sometimes resulted in disputes between towns, and in one case, an episode where a sickly woman was carted from one Rhode Island town to another, being refused at every refuge sought.

 These “warning outs” increased in the years leading up to the Revolutionary War. In South Kingstown, Rhode Island, between 1772 and 1776, the town council spent much of its time allotting the care of infirm persons to relations or neighbors, but also brought before the Council an increasing number of transients. Most were “removed” to the town of their birth, such as Joseph Larkin, “removed to Charlestown” in 1772, or Joanna Brown, “removed to Providence” in that same year. From then on, the Town Council saw an increasing number of indigent person brought before them, some twenty-nine cases in the next three years, involving both individuals and entire families.

 The town supported those who were established inhabitants, such as Content Lee, “an aantient woman belonging to this town”, or widow Marberry Potter, whose brother was paid for her care.

As the Billington’s had been raised in South Kingstown, it seems the Council did all they could to support the family.

  Joseph’s brother Daniel Billington’s family had also fallen on hard times. In December 1774, Gardiner had been sent under town order to

 “fetch all ye goods belonging to Daniel Billington who is now under ye Care of this Town[xv]”

 The census of 1774 shows that his household contained himself, his wife Mary, presumably listed with two other females over sixteen, and two males under sixteen[xvi]. These were likely grandchildren living with the family.

 At the April 1776 meeting of the Town Council, a list was presented of “all the Inhabitants & other persons now residing in this Town who are unable to eqip themselves[xvii]”. The list contained some fifty individuals.

 In June 1777, the town voted to pay for the expenses of Dr. William Chase for his treatment of the ”Daniel Billington family”.

Mentioned also in that Town Meeting was that Daniel’s wife Mary Billington  was now listed in the care of overseer Gardner who was later paid thirty pounds for his keep  from the 15th of February until the 10th of May 1779[xviii]. Mary was still living in the Gardner household through November when the town paid for flannel cloth to be provided for her.

 It appears that Gardner, as an Overseer of the Poor was running a profitable home for transient people at this time, having within the household during these months Freelove Shearman, long a dependent of the town, as well as Mary Marshall. He would later take in George Helme and Mary Campbell.

 In April of 1780 the town awarded him an additional two hundred and thirty-three pounds, eleven shillings for their care[xix].

 Mary Billington continued to live in the Gardner household through September 1781, when she and George Helme were moved to the home of Daniel Shearman who was paid five shillings a week for their care[xx]. Helme was later taken in by Job Watson while Mary continued to live at Shearman’s home at 3 shillings per week expense. Within a year she was back at Gardner’s, records show he was paid ten pounds for her care in September 1782[xxi].

 The town continued to provide for her, paying for cloth for shifts, continuing to pay Gardner as well through 1783. By March of 1784 however, she was back in Shearman’s home, sharing a household with Freelove Shearman, and Penelope Fisher, who would soon give birth. Likely believing that Mary might be useful in such a situation, Shearman agreed to keep Mary for “what the Town shall think reasonable[xxii]”.

 By May however, Mary and Freelove were back in the Gardner home. Penelope Fisher and her infant child had been sent to the home of Thomas Braman.

 By 1785, Daniel Billington was listed as living in the household of Amos Baker. The town agreed to pay Baker eight dollars rent for his time there[xxiii].

 Within two years, Mary Billington was again at the Shearman household at the expense of eighteen shillings per week. With her was husband Daniel, giving the couple what seems to have been their first opportunity in a decade to be under the same roof. But it was not for long for them to remain in South Kiingstown. By March  the Town Council had warned out the parents, paying William Little six pounds for “transporting Danl Billington and his wife to the Town of East Greenwich…[xxiv]’.  The couple had been wed there forty-one years before, on March 10, 1736.

The town appears to have received them, but by September, Mary was back in the home of Shearman, and the town is paying 18 shillings a week for her care. In November, the town paid for a thick jacket, petticoat, flannel for a shift and 1 pair of shoes for her comfort, and paid seven pounds for her care through the months she lived there.

 In December she was moved to the home of Paris Gardner at the expense of twelve shillings per week. The following February she was moved to the home of Rowse Potter at eleven shillings per week[xxv], and by April, back with Paris Gardner.

 The following year Mary was sent once more to the home of Rowse Potter, where she seems to have found a stable home; continuing to live there until 1794[xxvi].

  Joseph Billington also remained dependent upon the town. He had lived in the home of Rufus Sweet from January to March of 1787[xxvii]. That same year the Council awarded Lawrence Pearce for ”providing for Joseph Billington & Son”. It was also voted by the town to grant Pearce the right to “dispose of all the goods belonging to Joseph Billington to the best advantage he can” to defray the town’s longstanding expense.

 The following month, the elder Billington was moved into the house of Thomas Champlin, an apparent humanitarian gesture as it was at Champlin’s own expense

 So poor was Joseph, that in October to town provided for him 2 flannel shirts, a thick coat, one long pair of breeches, one pair of stockings, shoes, and a “thick Cap[xxviii]”.

 By mid-November, he was boarding in the house of Mr. Christopher Hazard, who was paid accordingly for rent through December. He continued to live in the house through March 1788.

 After that time he seems to have been moved once again, to the home of Jeffrey Champlin and remained there until November 1788. Champlin would be paid thirty-one pounds ten shillings for boarding Joseph for thirty-five weeks per order of the Council meeting of April 1789[xxix]. He would subsequently be paid eight pounds, and in November of that year “Thirty five Bushels and twenty five quarts of corn” as well as providing Billington with 2 shirts and a pair of trousers[xxx]. Champlin was paid expenditures of eleven pounds, eleven shillings, and one pence at the close of the year. Joseph seems to have been moved once again to the home of Thomas Champlin.

  Joseph Billington and his son Joseph Jr. appear in the town records one last time in October 1790[xxxi] when the Town Council voted to pay Dr. Joshua Perry for medicines and visits to both men, among other poor of the town.

 Did the children of the brothers fare better?

 Of Joseph’s children, Sarah Billington who had been spared indenture as the oldest child, would marry William Tourgee Sr. on January 8, 1775. They would raise six children, losing two others in childbirth. She died in South Kingstown in 1836[xxxii].   

 Abigail Billington would serve her term of indenture and continue to live a long life in South Kingstown. She is listed in the 1840 United States census as a single female 60-69, living alone in the household[xxxiii].

 Elisha Billington, who had been bound out as an infant married Abigail Brown in December 1, 1796[xxxiv]. By 1810 the couple were living in Newport and had raised at least two sons.

 Of Daniel’s offspring,

 Sarah, the oldest daughter, had married John Croucher on 2, February 1772 before the collapse of her family would continue to reside in South Kingstown. The couple had one son named John Jr. in 1774[xxxv].

 Her sister Jemina would marry Ithema Granger of Hampden, Massachusetts and raise four children, Lucy, George Washington Granger, Daniel,  and Mary “Polly” Granger who would all grow into adulthood, marry, and contribute to the next generation of that community[xxxvi]. There is evidence that when her father Daniel was warned out of South Kingstown, and apparently rejected as well by East Greenwich, he spent his last years in his daughter’s Hampden home.

 Less is known of his sons. Daniel Jr. appears to have died sometime around 1774, Details of John’s life are even scarcer. Joseph, (born 1741) is also listed as dying “after 30, March 1774” at the age of thirty-three. The life of Samuel, (born 1742) is equally bereft of information.

 Of the two youngest sons, Thomas would marry Mary Smith of South Kingstown and the couple would have three sons, James, Daniel and Robert, as well as daughter Harriet Byron Billington[xxxvii].

 Elisha would marry South Kingstown native Sarah Tennant on 22 January 1775[xxxviii]. They had one son named John together, and both could be said to have lived a long and content life, even as he met an unfortunate end. On one Saturday evening in August 1821, the nearly eighty year old Elisha set out with his friend John Simmons to retrieve some lobsters from traps around the harbor. Somehow their boat overturned or they were cast overboard. Come sunup the boat was found, sunken but upright in the shallow waters off Rose Island, the masts standing upright above the waterline[xxxix].

Illustration of early Newport, RI

His body was later found and interred at Brenton Neck[xl]. Sarah would outlive her husband by five years, dying sometime after 1836 at the age of eighty-seven.

 Though it had taken four generations, the Billingtons had risen above poverty and the ties to a system of indenture that had bound members of the family for so long. More importantly, they had avoided the desperation and indignity of dependence that their ancestors had faced and established roots in South County for future generations.

[i] General Society of Mayflower Descendants, The Billington Family https://themayflowersociety.org/passenger-profile/passenger-profiles/the-billington-family/ accessed 12/12/22

[ii] Mourt’s Relation, p. 27

[iii] Morison, ed. Bradford, William Of Plymouth Plantation 1620-1647 Knopf 1970 pp. 156-7, 234

[iv] Shurtleff, Plymouth County Records, Vol. 2 p. 6

[v] Ibid. pp. 58-59

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] A Poorhouse in Each New England State New England historical Society http://newenglandhistoricalsociety.org Accessed 9/28/22

[viii] Wikitree, Francis Billington, Research notes https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Billinton-2

[ix] Stutz, Jean C. ed., South Kingstown Rhode Island Town Council Records 1771-1775 Pettasquamscutt Historical Society, 1988 p. 32

[x] Ibid. p. 48

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Ibid. p.70

[xiii] Stutz, ed. South Kingstown Rhode Island Town Council Records 1771-1775 p. 48

[xiv] Ibid, p. 126

[xv] Stutz, ed. Stutz, ed. South Kingstown Rhode Island Town Council Records 1771-1775 pp.47-48

[xvi] Bartlett, John ed. Census of the Inhabitants of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 1774 Genealogical Publishing Co. 1999 p. 84

[xvii]

[xvii] Stutz, ed. South Kingstown Rhode Island Town Council Records 1771-1775 p. 66

[xviii] Ibid, p. 79

[xix] Ibid, p. 113

[xx] Ibid, p.124

[xxi] Ibid, p. 134

[xxii] Ibid, p. 154

[xxiii] Stutz, ed. South Kingstown Rhode Island Town Council Records 1771-1775 pp. 178-179

[xxiv] Ibid, pp. 200, 202

[xxv] Ibid, p. 219

[xxvi] Ibid, p. 305

[xxvii] Stutz, ed. South Kingstown Rhode Island Town Council Records 1771-1775 p. 205

[xxviii] Ibid, p. 210

[xxix] Ibid, p. 242

[xxx] Ibid, p. 249

[xxxi] Several genealogical websites have Billington dying in 1782, but the clear delineation of the elder and junior Billingtons appears to refute that date.

[xxxii] https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Billington-5  accessed 11/15/22

[xxxiii] National Archives, United States Census 1840, South Kingstown, Rhode Island https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/3384678:8057 accessed 11/15/22

[xxxiv] Arnold, James A. Vital Record of Rhode Island 1636-1850: Births, Marriages, Deaths First Series Narragansett Historical Publishing Co. 1891 p. 7

[xxxv] https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Billington-517 accessed 11/16/22

[xxxvi] https://www.geni.com/people/Jemima-Granger/6000000000463295105 accessed 11/16/22

[xxxvii] https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/70604272/thomas-billington accessed 11/16/22

[xxxviii] https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Billington-518 accessed 11/16/22

[xxxix] Published in the Providence Patriot August 29, 1821. The story was also reported in the Newport Republican.

[xl] As reported in the Newport Mercury August 25, 1821.

“The Greatest Mischief…that would Befall My Country”: Washington Refuses To Be King By Robert A. Geake

     With the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1790, Washington and his Cabinet could breathe a sigh of relief that they had secured “a republic”, as John Adams had wryly observed, “if you can keep it.”

Ironically, Rhode Island which many believe had instigated the separation from Great Britain with the conviction of Lt. William Dudingston of the HMS Gaspee in 1772, had been the last state to ratify the Constitution, and by a thin margin at that; believing the Federal government to be grabbing powers from the States that had run their affairs separately, before the war. The “Union” as state leaders had seen it, was to function mainly as it had before, though changes were necessary to improve upon the problem-plagued Continental Congress and its Articles of Confederation.

Had he been so inclined, General Washington was presented several occasions during the American Revolution when he could have seized absolute power. As Richard Lim has observed, after his stunning victories at the end of 1776, Congress gave Washington virtually dictatorial powers to prosecute the war effort.[i]

Rather than taking a crown and scepter from the Continental Congress, Washington wrote,

“Instead of thinking myself free’d from all civil Obligations. By this mark of their Confidence, I shall constantly bear in Mind, that as the Sword was the last Resort for the preservation of our Liberties, so it ought to be the first thing Lain aside, when those liberties are firmly established.”

Again in 1777, when Congress was forced to abandon Philadelphia Washington was granted virtually unlimited powers to preserve the war effort and the civil society, not unlike those powers given to roman emperors. Washington shouldered the responsibilities placed upon him, but gave the authority back as soon as possible.[ii]

Near the close of the war, many saw Washington as a rightful monarch should he place himself in that position. Philadelphian and physician Benjamin Rush gushed in correspondence that “There is not a king in Europe that would not look like a valet de chambre by his side.” Moreover, some officers of the Continental Army felt the same.  In 1782, Colonel Lewis Nicola wrote to Washington and suggested that if the young nation were to survive, the General had to assume the mantle of Monarch. This was more than hero worship or wishful thinking on a young officers part. Nicola had been a merchant in Philadelphia and then a public official. He had worked diligently to improve the city’s defenses and written a manual entitled A Treatise of Military Exercise Calculated for the Use of Americans. In 1777, Nicola had been given command of the Corps of Invalids for the Army. [iii]

 Washington was mortified that he, in any part, had led the officer to this conclusion.

A return letter to Nicola on 22 May 1782 makes his position clear:

“Sir,

     With a mixture of great surprise & astonishment I have read with attention the Sentiments you have submitted to my perusal. Be assured, Sir, no occurrence in the course of the War, has given me more painful sensations than your information of there being such ideas existing in the Army as you have expressed, & I must view with abhorrence, and reprehend with severity…

I am at a loss to conceive what part of my conduct could have given encouragement to an address which to me seems big with the greatest mischiefs that can befall my Country…

Let me [conj]ure you then, if you have any regard for your Country, concern for yourself or posterity – or respect for me, to banish these thoughts from your Mind, & never communicate, as from yourself, or anyone else, a sentiment of the like nature.”[iv]

In early 1783, Washington faced a greater challenge to a constitutional outcome when a band of Officers colluded to use the military to threaten Congress in order to ensure payment to those who had served.

Without the power to levy taxes under the Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress was forced to needle and beg the States for revenue throughout the war. The resulting inability to meet financial obligations continued in its aftermath; the quagmire aptly described by newly appointed Congressman James Mitchell Varnum in a letter to his friend, Governor William Greene of Rhode Island in1780:

“…Without entering…into the infinity of circumstances which at present form the embarrassments of our system, it will be sufficient to observe, that the want of money and credit involve Congress in perplexities, which cannot be fully removed till the operations of new plans shall be equally felt throughout the Union. The want of a fixed consideration frustrates almost every measure, and the dull, inergetic mode of procedure resulting from the long habits of insipid formality, render our efforts too feeble and dilatory to effect the greatest objects.”[v]

 That same year of 1780, Congress had approved half-pay for retired soldiers. Still waiting for State revenues due the following year, the Superintendent of Finance Robert Morris, along with his assistant Gouverneur Morris, and fellow New Yorker Alexander Hamilton supported and promoted an amendment to the Articles that would allow Congress to raise revenue through taxes in order to support the Army and pay its debt overseas.[vi]

The State legislatures overtly rejected the impost amendment, and as the threat from Great Britain decreased, became reluctant to fill quota’s, and increasingly bitter about the Congress’ increasing demands.

In 1782, most of the men in the encampment at Newburgh, Connecticut were uncertain if they would ever receive the pay and bonuses promised to them during the war. Officers were equally uncertain, as this inquiry from Washington to Morris concerning the pay of General Baron Von Steuben on 4 March, 1782:

“Well knowing the difficulties in which you are involved it ever gives me pain to make application to you on the score of Money.” Washington wrote, “But as I cannot give the Baron Steuben an answer without knowing whether it will be in your power to comply with the terms he asks, I am under the necessity of inclosing his letter to me on the subject of the arrearages of his Pay.I am with great Respect Sir Yr most obt and hbl servt.” [vii]

By early 1783, much of the Army had reached a boiling point. On 10 March, a meeting of officers was anonymously called for the next day at Newburgh , and an inflammatory address circulated to the troops, reportedly given by Major John Armstrong, the aide-de-camp to General Gates in Philadelphia.

The Nationalists, as they called themselves, intended to enflame the Army, as did some members of Congress who hoped such an action would bring about a stronger Federal government. Hamilton, among them, hoped that Washington would join them and lead the effort, but he was rebuked by his Commander-in-Chief, and scolded that “the Army is a dangerous instrument to play with…”[viii]

 Armstrong’s circulated address called for the Army to abandon the moderate tone of Washington’s entreaties for pay, and give Congress an ultimatum; if the Continental Congress failed to promise payment to the veterans, they would either disband the Army, leaving it unprotected and lawless, or refuse to disband after a peace treaty had been signed. This last was a thinly veiled threat of a military takeover.

In his General Orders the following day, Washington declared the impropriety of the meeting, and implored the men to cool their “passions”. He asked them to meet again in four days at the Temple of Virtue, a large hall near his headquarters in New Windsor, Connecticut. At the given hour, Gen. Horatio Gates stepped forward to chair the meeting. Gates had been a critic of Washington, and some have suggested that the Newburgh Conspiracy, as it came to be known, was a foil for an attempted coup by Gates to take command.

Gates stepped aside however, when Washington entered the meeting room. His appearance reportedly surprised the troops as did his impassioned address to them that noon.

While submitting that the author of the address had made some excellent points, he knew as much as any man how much they had suffered, the sacrifices they had made in leaving their wives and children, and their property unprotected for months, if not years at a time. But would they now “sully the glory” they had won on the battlefield and march as a mob on Congress?

Washington denounced the plan as destructive to the very foundation of republican government and expressed his “utmost horror and detestation” of those men who would “open the flood Gates of Civil discord, and deluge our rising Empire in Blood.”[ix]

The move by the Officers was quietly quelled in the wake of the speech. In his General Orders on 18 April, he announced the Cessation of Hostilities between the United States and Great Britain, and praised the officers and men for their service, as well as offering his gratitude:

“The Commander-in-Chief far from Endeavoring to stifle the feelings of joy in his own bosom, offers his most cordial Congratulations on the occasion to all the officers of every denomination, to all the Troops of the United States in General, and in particular to those gallant and persevering men who had resolved to defend the rights of their invaded country so long as the war should continue. For these are the men who ought to be considered as the pride and boast of the American Army; And, who crowned with well-earned laurels, may soon withdraw from the field of Glory, to the more tranquil walks of civil life.”[x]

Laurels and praise for the soldiers however, could only carry a veteran so far. Even as Washington worked to bring a Constitutional Convention together, little was accomplished for the men who had won the war.

On December 23, 1783 General Washington appeared before the Continental Congress and in a highly symbolic, anti-monarchial act, surrendered his sword and resigned his commission as Commander of the Grand Army of the Republic.

The moment was later portrayed in a painting by Jonathan Trumball, and would become an iconic symbol of American republicanism; indeed it hangs in the rotunda of our nation’s capital. As described by historian Matthew Moten:

 “Washington stands before a chair, one a little larger than all the rest and draped with a cloak—the throne will go unoccupied. Returning his commission, Washington becomes not Caesar but Cincinnatus, forsaking command, the military life, and a potential claim on executive, perhaps dictatorial, power. Like Cincinnatus, Washington has sheathed his sword and will return to the plow at his Mount Vernon estate.”

While Washington could return to the relative comfort of his estate, “the veteran soldiery who had exposed themselves to tempests and battles through the whole contest, and whom peace had dismissed with laurels, returned to their families penniless and clamorous.”

Pressure on the States from Congress to collect individual taxes as well as on trades led to outright rebellion.  When European merchants refused to extend credit to American merchants and demand payment for goods with hard currency after the war, the resulting domino effect meant that American merchants placed the same demand upon customers, even those in rural market towns, such as Springfield, Massachusetts.[xi]

Rural farmers found it increasingly difficult to meet the demands of the merchants, and by 1785,  the increased efforts to prosecute those in debt, meant that farmers throughout the States began to lose their land to creditors and tax collectors who utilized the courts to gain seizure of properties.

 This caused great resentment against the tax collectors and the courts and precipitated attacks against them in 1786 ,with what became known as “Shay’s Rebellion.”

Led by Daniel Shays and Luke Day, on 29 August a well-organized band of protestors successfully prevented the Northampton County Court from sitting in session.[xii] The Governor issued a proclamation denouncing the mob action, but by September, the active shutting down of court houses spread throughout mid to western Massachusetts. When the Court in Worchester was shut down on 5 September, the local militia refused to turn out against them, being sympathetic to their cause. Court houses in Concord, Great Barrington, and Taunton were shuttered by mobs of protestors in October.

James Warren wrote to John Adams, fearing the outbreak of civil war. Courts in the larger towns began to have militia present, and the protest divided some old Patriots, turning some into harsh caricatures of those whose laws from which they had fought to be free.

Samuel Adams joined others in condemning the protests. Under the misinformed notion that British emissaries were stirring up trouble among the citizens and leading them to participate in these treasonous acts, he helped draft a Riot Act, which suspended habeas corpus, allowing authorities to easily round up the instigators and throw them in prison without benefit of a trial. In time, Adams would also advocate for the death penalty for those who waged “a rebellion in public”.[xiii]

The legislature to which he belonged soon passed acts prohibiting speech that was critical of the government, and another offering pardons to those who surrendered and were willing to take an oath of allegiance.

The president of the Continental Congress wrote to Washington after the outbreak of courthouse closings, asking him to exert his influence over the troops and help to quell the rebellion. Washington returned his letter on 31 October from Mount Vernon:

“I am mortified beyond expression whenever I view the clouds which have spread over the greatest morn that ever dawned upon any Country…  when I behold what intriegueing; the interested views of desperate characters; Jealousy; & ignorance of the Minor part, are capable of effecting as a scurge on the major part of our fellow citizens of the Union:for it is hardly to be imagined that the great body of the people tho’ they will not act can be so enveloped in darkness, or short sighted as not to see the rays of a distant sun through all this mist of intoxication & folly.

You talk, my good Sir, of employing influence to appease the tumults in Massachusetts—I know not where that influence is to be found; and if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is no government. Let us have one by which our lives, liberties, and properties will be secured, or let us know the worst at once.”[xiv]

The rebellion was put down in early 1787 after the Governor of Massachusetts raised an Army of some three thousand men under command of former Continental General Benjamin Lincoln. The issues that caused the uprising continued to be debated.

Washington was clearly frustrated that his years long attempts at reform had yet to come to fruition. An attempt to gather in Annapolis in September 1786 received such a poor turnout that delegates could do little more than raise hopes for a national convention, and sent invitations to the States for the following spring.

The Constitutional Convention then, was held in the Philadelphia State House from 25 May through 17 September 1787 in a concerted effort to amend the Articles of Confederation, but within weeks, had determined that the Federal government itself, needed to be reformed.

The states had chosen some 74 delegates, but of those only 55 attended, Rhode Island, once again, refused to send any delegates. As the members worked out a framework for a Constitution, speculation was rife, and the debate spilled from the shuttered windows of the State House into the newspapers around the country.[xv]

Washington was elected unanimously as president of the Convention and throughout that stifling summer he presided, and shepherded the delegates through the debates and voting on measures.  Some 85 essays on those debates would be written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison and published anonymously in New York papers between October 1787 and  May 1788 to spur the legislature into ratifying the new Constitution.

Undoubtably for Washington, the most important article of the Constitution was the Guarantee Clause which provides for majority rule; creating a Republican government in which the people governed through elections. As Hamilton phrased it in the Federalist Papers, “the elective mode of obtaining rulers is the characteristic policy of republican government.”[xvi]

The Guarantee Clause requires the United States to guarantee the states a republican form of government, and provide protection from foreign invasion and domestic violence. The clause also provides that the United States prevent any state from imposing rule either by aristocracy, monarchy, or a permanent military occupation. All states would be constitutionally required to govern by electoral processes.    

As Hamilton and Madison wrote in an article that appeared in the New York Packet on 19 February 1788:

 “The electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States. They are to be the same who exercise the right in every State of electing the corresponding branch of the legislature of the State. Who are to be the objects of popular choice? Every citizen whose merit may recommend him to the esteem and confidence of his country. No qualification of wealth, of birth, of religious faith, or of civil profession is permitted to fetter the judgement or disappoint the inclination of the people.”

Delegate to the Convention James Monroe would credit Washington, whose “influence carried this government”, especially when it came to shaping the office of the Presidency, whose vast powers would not have been made so great, “had not many of the members cast their eyes toward General Washington as president, and shaped their ideas of the powers to be given to a president by their opinions of his virtue.”[xvii]

In the young nation’s first election, Washington would be unanimously elected president by the first Electoral College. His two terms as president would bring innumerable challenges, and at least on one occasion, he would be accused of exacting “monarchial” powers in using Federal troops to put down the Whiskey Rebellion of 1797. As President, Washington set the precedent for future leaders, while setting a strong example of a robust presidency, he guarded the prerogatives of office while remaining acutely aware of his limits of authority.

When he stepped down after his second term as President with a peaceful transfer of power to the newly elected president John Adams, he legitimized the Constitution he had worked so hard to render the law of the land. His actions proved that a Republican government could hold sufficient power to function, but also limited that power, ensuring liberties and freedoms that we still enjoy today.

Washington’s relinquishment of power with dignity provided proof that such a government could not only be a noble idea, but could also be a reality. Such precedent remains the greatest of our democratic traditions.

[i] Lim, Richard Could George Washington Really have Become King if he Wanted To? This American President Podcast

[ii] Spaulding, Matthew The Man Who Would Not Be King The Heritage Foundation https://www.heritage.org/node/6513/print-display

[iii] Mount Vernon, Lewis Nicola https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/lewis-nicola/

[iv] Letter from George Washington to Lewis Nicola, 22 May 1782 Founders Online, National Archives

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-08501

[v] Bartlett, John Russell Records of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Providence, 1864 Vol. 9, p. 42

[vi] Mount Vernon, Newburgh Conspiracy https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/newburgh-conspiracy/

[vii] Letter to Robert Morris from George Washington 4 March 1782 https://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=FOEA-print-01-02-02-1915

[viii] Spaulding, p. 3

[ix] Ibid.

[x] General Orders of George Washington, April 18, 1783 https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/general orders-2/

[xi]  Richards, Leonard (2003). Shay’s Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania 2002 p. 88

[xii] Szatmary, David, Shays' Rebellion: The Making of an Agrarian Insurrection. University of Massachusetts Press 1980 p. 56

[xiii] Zinn, Howard, A People’s History of the United States New York, Harper Collins 2005 p. 91

[xiv] From George Washington to Henry Lee Jr. 31 October 1786 Founders Online, National Archives

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-04-02-0286.

[xv] Chin, Gabriel J. & Hawlet, Erin M Interpretation & Debate: The Guarantee Clause National Constitution Center, https://constitutioncenter.org

[xvi] Hamilton, Alexander & Madison, James,  The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many Considered in Connection with Representation, Federalist No. 57,  The Federalist Papers

[xvii] Spaulding, p. 2

RI’s Colonial Legal System 1603 to 1757 by Mark Burnham

  “The Whipping Post” watercolor on paper by the author. From a series presently featured in the exhibit “Anchored in Rhode Island”

  In the early 1600’s, as English men and women were leaving England to come to the New England shores to begin colonizing that area let me tell you something that was NOT happening. William Bradford and others, as their ships of Pilgrims were weighing anchor in England and other harbors, did not look around, throw up their hands and yell:  “Wait a minute! We need to take some lawyers!” America has always had a love/hate relationship with attorneys and it started at the very beginning. Today I want to talk about the development of that relationship in RI from the time of its founding in 1636 to just before the American Revolution - which according to John Adams began in 1760. I’m going to tell this story by referencing two men, Roger Williams and Daniel Updike, Esq. whose work in RI intertwined in developing RI’s unique version of The Law.

 From 1636 to 1757 this area we call Rhode Island, had three groups of peoples living here, trying in one way or another to create a society they could at least endure. There were indigenous tribes, enslaved africans, and immigrant europeans (mostly from England or who considered themselves “English”). The law that developed here - whether it happened by force of argument, will or violence was created by the immigrant English for all inhabitants - everyone had to abide by it but Africans and indigenous tribes did influence how that law was shaped. However, it was seldom shaped in their favor. I’m going to give away the plot of this story at the beginning. To have a smoothly functioning government and economic “engine” it requires a fair amount of “grease”. Law and Lawyers provide that grease. To put it another way: ‘There is no law without lawyers.” [Nathan Roscoe Pound - most cited legal scholar in the 20th century. Dean of Harvard Law School 1916 to 1936.]

 It has been said that two conditions are necessary for the rule of law as we understand it today.

            “Firstly, a class of professional - expert, skilled and properly trained - lawyers cannot possibly flourish until there has been developed something resembling a distinct and consistent body of laws, a distinct and consistent procedure, and a settled jurisdiction, including regular courts manned by a trained and competent personnel.

            Secondly, the society in which the lawyer works or intends to work must, to some degree, accept him as a professional man, call for his professional services and generally honor and respect him as well as permit him to find his livelihood in the practice of law.”  [I would note that’s a quote from a 1957 law review article, hence the shocking lack of reference to females in the law.]

 English colonizers in North America brought with them some familiarity with what was being called the English Common Law. They didn’t always approve of it. Puritans and Quakers were very skeptical having been, in their opinion, badly used by the King’s law and lawyers in England. And the colonies didn’t have a whole lot in common initially.

            ~          the colonies were formed at different times, founded separately, had different foundational goals, principles and purposes.

            ~          no common policy

            ~          no parallel development

            ~          each had its own form of government

            ~          each had very little contact with the other

            ~          each had different geographies, different European immigrant groups, different indigenous tribes, different groups of enslaved Africans, different climates, different economic strategies, even different social groupings within the “English” immigrants.

            ~          You could fairly argue that some of these differences are still present in this country and still provide a challenge to the rule of law. That’s another subject.

 Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634) Responsible for the US Constitution’s 4th Amendment protecting Americans from unreasonable government searches and seizures. Roger Williams clerked for this famous English judge and legal scholar who is credited with the foundation and development of English Common Law, judicial record keeping, and the idea of “precedent” (of judicial prior decisions shaping future decisions). Roger Williams was a well educated man by the time he came to the colony of Massachusetts, maybe too well educated for their taste, and ended up in what would become the RI colony in 1636.

 RI was pretty small potatoes in 1636. Its initial population just a few hundred “English”. By the time Roger Williams had died in 1683, the colony still had just four primary towns  (Newport, Providence, Portsmouth, and Warwick) and just over a 3,000 non-indigenous population [“English” and “African/African American”].

Roger Williams like many of those trying to create a law abiding society, generally felt that the New World represented new situations and the English Common Law could be a guide but had to be freely adapted to the new surroundings. That was an argument that continued until after the American Revolution.

        “Their colonial charters provided that all colonial law must conform to English law, but deviations began to appear in several areas almost from the first moment of colonization.” from Law America by Sally Hayden, Western Michigan U. (2018)]

  In 1637, the men of Providence (for themselves and their families) signed a Compact where they all agreed to obey “…all such orders or agreements as shall be made for public good of the body in an orderly way, by the major consent of the present inhabitants, masters of families incorporated together in a Towne fellowship, and others whom they shall admit into them ONLY IN CIVIL THINGS.”

By 1640 they amended the original compact, moving further away from a “pure democracy” by agreeing that there would be five men selected from among the inhabitants called “disposers”, i.e. people who could legally make “dispositions of land, stock and all general things.” The plan for government was a “government by way of arbitration” and a Town Clerk to keep records. Records which were likely destroyed in during King Philipps War and the sacking of Providence. Portsmouth and Newport and Warwick had similar compacts which were modified every few years. Until 1644 when the Parliamentary Charter for RI was created. That more formally drew the 4 towns together.

 In these early days of the colony many disputes were disposed of within each of the four main towns. Churches and merchants served as arbitrators  and mediators to resolve problems because there were so few trained lawyers and judges (I.e. anyone with legal training.)

 A downside to the four towns being so loosely connected as a political body is found in this example. In 1652 Providence and Warwick passed a law forbidding slavery of any person, including indigenous and blacks. However, Portsmouth and Newport (where the “slave” trade was already becoming an economic benefit for them) failed to do so. The 1652 law was ignored and in 1703 slavery was officially recognized in the colony.

 Just a short word on the formal charters RI functioned under until they wrote their first Constitution in 1842.

            ~          Charter of 1644 gave RI the authority to exist as a colony. Incorporated the 4 original towns. Was a Parliamentary Charter (not granted by the King - Charles I had fled power, no monarch).

            ~          Royal Charter of 1663 - King Charles II on the throne in 1660 - entitled: “The Governor and Company of the English Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, in New England, in America”. RI became the first and only colony allowed to elect every governing official, including Governor.

            ~ 1686 to 1688 King James II revoked all colonial charters from New Jersey to Maine called the Dominion of New England under one appointed governor. Thankfully, James II was forced to abdicate the throne, the governor was arrested in Boston and all those colonies returned to their prior legal state.

 In RI, as in most of the English colonies, most men holding themselves out as attorneys had no professional training, no experience in practicing the law; and were held to no ethical standards. As one legal historian has said about them: “Those who acted as  attorneys or lawyers were overwhelmingly sharpers, spellbinders and pettifoggers; and they frequently stirred up litigation solely for the sake of fees. It was the sharp trader or the clever land speculator, the man of easy penmanship and clever volubility who, as a rule, ‘practiced law.’” (p. 59 — “Legal Profession in Colonial America” law review article). Here are just a few of the things that hampered the development of lawyering as a respected profession in the colonies:

            ~          no college level lectures on the law given before 1780

            ~          no law schools before 1784

            ~          hardly any printed material available for study

Five ways you could become a Colonial lawyer:

            1.         By your own efforts, gather whatever scraps of legal information you could, mostly a few books in private libraries. 60% of male population considered “literate” meaning able to read, fewer could both read and write.

            2.         Serve as a scribe, copyist or assistant in the clerk’s office of some court, as check into those books in private libraries.

            3.         Enter the law office of an experienced attorney (hopefully with a law library); prepare pleadings, other legal documents, attend court and make notes.

            4.         Go to England and become a member of one of their four Inns of Court. About 30 to 40 men sought this method of becoming a lawyer before 1760. None from Rhode Island. 

            5.         Attend a college in one of the colonies and then do numbers 1-4.

  As we get into the early 1700’s the need for better legal training in a growing economy became apparent. As RI entered into the International Slave Trade, their merchant politicians recognized the law and lawyering in RI needed improvement. That brings me to Daniel Updike, longest serving attorney general for the RI colony at 24 years.

 He was tutored in his father's house here at Smith’s Castle. As a 21 year old [1715] he went to the island of Barbados - where family and business connections lived and worked. Barbados was a very active part of the International Slave Trade. In 1661, Barbados became the first English colony to pass a comprehensive slave code. When Updike returned to RI a year later his knowledge of those laws would be important as RI needed to create its own version of Black Codes to deal with their trading and control over domestic enslaved Indigenous and Africans. RI colonists had to create legal explanations for their ongoing enslavement of Native Indians and then Africans and African-Americans.

Black Codes were a fairly dramatic example of how the English Common Law had to be reworked ignored to justify the enslavement of entire groups of people and to manage them within colonial society. In 1703 the RI General Assembly adopted an early, what they called, “Negro Code” to restrict the activities of FREE and SERVANT Negros and Indians. One of the interesting aspects of this is its application to ALL people within those two groups. Free or Enslaved - these codes applied equally.

An example:  “If any negroes or Indians either freemen, servants, or slaves, do walk in the street of the town of Newport, or any other town in this Colony, after nine of the clock of night, without certificate from their masters, or some English person of said family with, or some lawful excuse for the same, that it shall be lawful for any person to take them up and deliver them to a Constable.” (1703)

A very important phrase in that law is “lawful for ANY PERSON to take them up”. This law, like all the Black Codes did two very important things that would have lasting consequences down to today: (1) it criminalized entire groups of people based on appearance and background - not on individual acts; (2) it required the participation of the entire “English”/white population to act as enforcers of these laws. So regardless of your personal views on enslavement, you were required to ensure the laws were applied. Failure to do that could result in legal repercussions for you.

An example of that was in 1714, RI enacted a law prohibiting ferrymen [a very important way for people to travel within and out of the colony, from transporting an enslaved person [i.e. anyone who looked like they could be enslaved] “without a certificate in their hand from their master or mistress or some person in authority.”  And, of course, one way to keep laws like this enforceable was to restrict the teaching of reading and writing to the enslaved.

When your economy requires enslavement to function you have to restrict the activities of the enslaved. Everyone knew being a “slave” was a bad thing, something to be avoided and fought against. If you don’t believe me, read anything written in the colonies leading up to the American Revolution. They rail against being made “slaves” by the King and/or Parliament. They knew the enslaved would try to find ways out of slavery. Hence laws like this passed in 1750 preventing “all persons keeping house within this Colony from entertaining Indian, Negro or Mulatto slaves or servants.” Again, a law forcing freemen (English/white) or freedmen to enforce the Black Code.

Parenthetically, its in the early to mid-1700’s that words like “mulatto” begin to appear as the population of enslaved begins to include more and more people born from white/black parentage - usually, white fathers and black/indigenous mothers.

In 1722, at the age of 28 Daniel Updike wins his first election as attorney general for the colony. In 1723 he’s directed by the General Assembly to collect delinquent fees on imported enslaved Africans. He got to keep 10% of whatever he could collect as well as 5 shillings for ALL imported enslaved.

In 1729 he and three others were appointed to a committee to revise and print the laws of the colony. First compilation of RI’s laws published in 1719. But not organized. Redone in 1730. Digest and Supplement in 1745, printed by the widow of James Franklin, brother of Benjamin. It would not be until 1750-55 that a bound collection of the legislative actions of the General Assembly were published. Updike and others felt this hard to come by books limited the growth of the legal profession.

In 1730, he was one of the founders of the literary institution in Newport, later known as the Redwood Library. Between 1741 and 1763 the library was built with the participation of enslaved and free African skilled labor.From 1741 to 1743 he was an attorney for Kings County (now Washington County), and during the same time he was appointed on a second committee to revise the laws of the colony. He and others recognized that a lack of legal materials held back the development of new lawyers and judges and apparently had his own extensive law library. Sadly, at this time we only have one volume of that, a law dictionary.

He was attorney general for two periods of time: 1722 -1732 and 1743 - 1757. In between he had a very active private practice, involved in over 250 civil cases.  In the 1720’s civil litigation increased dramatically. Most cases were economic inn nature, especially debt collection. In 1736 he signed on to a petition attempting to help create and protect those trying to make a living full time as attorneys. The “petition was brought by ‘all who are that deserve the name of attorneys in the colony’ and ‘Practicers of the Law.’ The attorneys sought to limit the practice of law in the colony to RI residents so that attorneys would be ‘the more desirous of a just and faithful exercise of their calling to the good of mankind in general.’ Economic concerns were the motivating factor for the petition. The attorneys wished to ensure they could make a living from the practice of law … and wished to exclude additional outside practitioners - primarily from Massachusetts Bay. The petition was unsuccessful.” [ p.30 law review article] (Most states still have in place some restrictions on attorneys coming in from other states/jurisdictions to practice in RI. Still an economic issue.)

From 1636 to 1760, RI (like most of the English colonies of NA) gradually created a unique legal system. They carried over what they liked from England but made changes (for good or bad) based on their unique situations.They went from being very skeptical of “The Law and Lawyers” to deciding they were a very necessary part of government and the economy and slowly developed lawyers and judges into a separate profession. But by March 22 of 1775, Edmund Burke a noted member of Parliament and legal scholar of the time said this about Americans and their “study of the Law” on the floor of the House of Commons:

            “In no country perhaps in the world is the law so general a study. The profession itself is numerous and powerful; and in most provinces it takes the lead. The greater number of the deputies sent to Congress were lawyers…. This study [of law] renders men acute, inquisitive, dexterous, prompt in attack, ready in defense, full of resources… they anticipate the evil, and judge of the pressure of the grievance by the badness of the principle. They augur misgovernment at a distance; and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.”

Laboring for Freedom: The Plight of Rhode Island's People of Color in the Wake of the American Revolution by Robert A. Geake

Lilly, an enslaved woman of Smith’s Castle as portrayed by Mark Burnham

With the outbreak of the American Revolution, long marginalized Indigenous and black Americans residing within the state of Rhode Island found that their skills and labor, even their abilities as soldiers and waggoneers suddenly made them of greater value than they had ever been before. But then, the state was made up of communities that had grown dependent upon enslaved and menial laborers who in some towns and villages outnumbered the able-bodied men fit for service.

 Rhode Island’s  passing of the Act allowing patriots of color to enlist in the Continental Line opened the door politically for other states to do the same; though both indigenous and black enlistees in militia had occurred from the war’s beginnings, especially in New England. Many historians today, see Rhode Island’s actions, and the other states public acceptance of patriots of color within their militia and Continental units as a sea change in the perception of the character, courage, and capabilities of black Americans among the citizens of the new Republic.

 At the time of the American Revolution, the majority of those enslaved men who enlisted in militia or in Rhode Island’s Continental regiments were American born, often the third or fourth generation of an enslaved couple initially brought together at a single plantation. As a result, many of those returning veterans after the war had long enslaved family members waiting for them back home.

 The younger generation of officers, and the soldiers who served in the American Revolution likely saw enslaved people differently than the previous generation. As for the officers, some were raised by  black women who served their mistress as a nanny. For those who enlisted, being largely poor and transient through the majority of the war; working alongside people of color was a common occurrence .

 But while it may have been a watershed moment in the way some white citizens viewed people of color, and certainly bolstered the efforts towards the Gradual Emancipation act that was signed in 1784; once the economic realities of independence followed those soldiers home, there was little support given for their efforts to make a livelihood and much in the way of oppression, in towns that broke up families, indenturing children while expelling parents to the town of their birth. Sometimes this was the same town for the couple. Sometimes not. Such a policy also limited opportunities for people of color who felt they had little choice to leave the town of their birth in such case their circumstances worsened.

 It is a fair statement that a warm welcome did not await those returned after being warned out of another town. It meant that the family, the individual, the single mother, would have to begin again, and prove their worthiness as citizens.

 Whether earning their freedom by placing their lives in jeopardy along with white soldiers in the Revolutionary cause, by being emancipated, or by self-purchase outright, freedom always needed to be earned and earned again for those living in the wake of the war of Independence.

Black labor north and south was often much the same as on farms in New England before the explosion of the cotton industry.

 When Stephen Hopkins was warned out of the Society of Friends or Quakers in 1772 for reluctance to free his last enslaved woman Phebe[i], he believed that while enslavement was against God’s nature, it would be irresponsible for him to free someone with little prospect but poverty before them. While Hopkin’s case is singular in that his 1760 will included instructions for the care and education of the enslaved he bequeathed to his wife Anne, his son and daughter; other owners of enslaved individuals long touted an anti-abolitionist stance that it would be inhuman to free enslaved people who had no skills, could not read deeds or documents, and would surely be unable to generate a living for themselves.

 More recently, misinformed politicians are attempting to stylize the era of slavery in a more positive light, promoting the idea that those blacks enslaved acquired skills that they could then parley into meaningful work after emancipation.

 While a small percentage of enslaved people learned new skills during their period of forced labor, plantation owners often relied upon skills already known by African people, and often sought enslaved workers with those skills. Aside from knowledge about agriculture and medicinal plants, African people hold a long history of pre-colonial skills in iron work, silver and goldsmithing, as leather workers,  and weaving[ii].

 Those individuals who were “clever” in their master’s eyes might be taught new skills, but they were taught for the plantation or the master’s business’ benefit, though some enslaved certainly learned that to compose themselves in a certain way before their master might benefit them in the way of learning these skilled tasks and if such skills were practiced in the house, such usefulness might lead to better living conditions. Another generation would pass before those who were enslaved before the Act of 1784 were either manumitted or disappear from the census rolls.[iii]

 Such skills also led to wages for some blacks by the time of the Revolutionary War. As early as 1776, we find that Katherine Greene paid wages to Sarah Sambo, Betty Quaco, Mercy Ceaser, Vilot, Black Hannah, Barbary Cuff, Betty Newport, and others for breaking, hackeling, and spinning flax, a popular cloth used to make summer shirts, jackets, as well as coarser shirts and headwear for the laborers.[i]

 The following year of 1777, Moses Brown settled the accounts of his candle works, paying his former enslaved man Tom the wages owed for three years since his emancipation, amounting to “the whole of 70 dollars”, along with separate wages to men named Yarrow and Newport. [ii]

    While free blacks and indigenous men were regularly hired as laborers, they always fell under suspicion if a rash of petty crimes were committed, no matter that there were a larger number of white veterans, displaced or transient also looking for temporary labor, room and board.

 Part of this underlying tension arose as the black population in the state shifted dramatically in the years during and after the war. While the 1774 census shows over 900 enslaved people in South County, by 1790, the number of enslaved were down to 297 individuals out of a population of over 1,700 blacks. By 1800, the number of enslaved blacks in the County is listed as 124 individuals out of a population of 1,023[iii]. Many had removed to Providence, the city seeing a jump in population from 475 individuals in 1790 to 656 a decade later. [iv]

Still, there were those, especially in South County who held onto slaves long after emancipation. In 1800 there were still 168 enslaved workers recorded in Rhode Island.[v]

    As late as 1803, Elisha Potter Jr. purchased two black children from Asa Potter Sr., both children born to an enslaved woman twelve and fourteen years respectively, after the Emancipation Act of 1784.[vi]

 Those blacks throughout the state who had earned their freedom or been emancipated after the war often lived on the margins of existence, co-existing with blacks and indigenous people still enslaved, sometimes their own wives and children. they labored at multiple jobs to keep themselves and their families intact. If they were unable to earn a living, they often faced being separated, or “warned out” to the communities of their birth; a practice many communities adapted to avoid these individuals becoming “a burden to the town”.

 In 1783, the town of North Kingstown passed a law against “the taking in of strangers”, and in particularly, the “harboring of blacks”. The town constable decreed

 “…Every black person who abides in this town not being inhabitants of this town to depart said town and direct the people who harbor them to (transport) them out of this town”.[vii]

 In 1787, resident Giles Pearce was called before the town council for “his taking a black family (into) his house…”

 Over a period of twenty years, until 1813, the town removed or indentured at least twenty-one individuals of color.

  Providence also routinely called upon people of color they believed to be transient or “chargeable” to the town, especially women of color. In July 1782, the council ordered an entire household of women of color to appear before the council for examination. The council charged Patience Ingraham with “Keeping a common, ill governed, and disorderly House, and permitting to reside there, persons of Evil Name and Fame, and of dishonest conversation, drinking, tipling, Whoring and Misbehaving themselves to the Damage and Nusance of the town and great Disturbance of the Public Peace”. [viii] Women of color who by choice or desperation used prostitution as a means to survive were held in disdain by town officials. These women were often manumitted of necessity as the economy left large and small estates struggling to maintain household staff. As women aged they often had fewer choices and became transient, shuffled from town to town by authorities.

In January 1804, the town council, not above enacting a puritan code of law,  ordered Bess Bowers, “a transient black woman”, to “leave town or be publicly whipped”. [ix]  Between 1795 and 1830, the town expelled at least twenty-nine women and children.

  Another challenge for people of color in gaining acceptance in the labor market was surely the longstanding effort by white supporters and free blacks in Newport and in Providence to emigrate from the United States. The Free African Union Society was formed in 1780 by a group of free blacks who desired to emigrate to Africa and form a colony of free blacks there. By 1789, the Newport organization addressed a letter to “all the Africans in Providence” , urging citizens to join their efforts “for the common good”.

 The letter urged blacks to take heed of the growth of slavery in the Southern states and the West Indies, even as it declined in northern states, and encouraged those blacks in Providence to come together with their peers in Newport “to consider what can be done for our good and the good of all Africans, and in the meantime we…are ready to do all the good we can, whether we are called to go there, or stay here”.[x]

 On September 22, 1789 a group from Providence responded, and developed a subordinate group in the city that included the roles of President, Vice-President, Treasurer, Deputy Secretary, a moderator, six representatives, and a sheriff. The two groups worked together on providing relief for families in both cities, and by 1794 with aid from white contributors, even financed an expedition for the colony’s potential site in Sierra Leone.

 These efforts while no doubt sincere for those people of color who shared the belief that they would never be equal to the white population in the United States, but that conviction ran counter to the majority of Rhode Islanders of African lineage who identified themselves as American.

  Indigenous veterans also found themselves constrained between two worlds. Some returned to their tribal lands and found that their property had been retaken by the tribal council in their absence and given to others. As it was also a time of extreme poverty for the Narragansett, many left the tribal reservation assigned by the state in 1700 but now dwindled by the sale of lands, and found work where they could, whether it be on whaling or fishing vessels from one of the regions ports, or dockside where there were always hands needed to be hired. Black laborers also long signed onboard Rhode Island vessels where, once at sea, they were among equals with the rest of the able-bodied seamen.

Image of a black mariner, courtesy of Wikipedia commons

 Indigenous veterans also found themselves constrained between two worlds. Some returned to their tribal lands and found that their property had been retaken by the tribal council in their absence and given to others. As it was also a time of extreme poverty for the Narragansett, many left the tribal reservation assigned by the state in 1700 but now dwindled by the sale of lands, and found work where they could, whether it be on whaling or fishing vessels from one of the regions ports, or dockside where there were always hands needed to be hired. Black laborers also long signed onboard Rhode Island vessels where, once at sea, they were among equals with the rest of the able-bodied seamen.

 People of color without the youth and needed skills for such labor naturally gravitated toward work opportunities, and often became apprentices or assistants to blacksmith’s, coopers, cordwainers, chocolate grinders, tanners, stone carvers, and other skilled craftsman in Rhode Island’s communities.

 Longtime Providence blacksmith and shopkeeper Jacob Whitman had mounted a ship’s figurehead of an Ottoman warrior on his house alongside the Providence River by 1750 as a “navigational marker[i]. The 1774 census shows the household of his blacksmith son and namesake, counted 14 people, including 6 people of color and 1 indigenous servant. A family history written by his granddaughter Jane Keeley recalled that

 “… he had a large forge near the cove. I think it was worked by a large number of hands. He was the owner of a number of slaves, the most trusty one was Baine, he had the care of the forge”[ii].

 She listed his enslaved people as “ Primmy No Nose…Cato, Pomp, Sisser, Card, Amy, Tullis, Nancy, and Dorcas”. Primmy and a “Temp” No Nose are listed as former servants of Cyrus Butler in a 1768 survey that listed 184 black men in Providence. He may well have been a paid laborer by this time along with others in the house that worked in the blacksmith shop[iii]. Keeley recalled that the enslaved “lived in a row of houses near his own that faced Westminster Street[iv].”

  The 1790 census shows that Providence still held thirty-six enslaved workers among twenty-four slave holders. The majority of these were domestic servants, fifteen of these being men of substantial means, but owning but one enslaved worker. Some prominent families like the Nightingales held eight enslaved domestics among them, while William Smith held four, Samuel Chace held three, while Ebenezer Thompson and Aaron Throop each claimed two enslaved individuals. Three women, Mary Young, Elizabeth Cozens, and Hannah Cook all claimed one domestic enslaved worker.

 That same census shows that slaves were now a distinct minority of the black population in Providence, with 26.8 % living in black-headed households.[v]

 With the advent of the industrial age, opportunities arose in the early years of its development for those who could work independently from their own homes.

  Cotton Manufacturers Almy, Brown, & Slater paid free blacks from its inception for a variety of tasks used in the manufacturing process,, often done at home.

 From 1789-1791 the firm regularly paid Providence residents and veterans Bristol Rhodes and Primus Brown, as well as Cudge Brown, Primus Hopkins, Prince Cushing, Phillis Alderedy (wife of Prince). Marge Alderedy, Providence Brown, and Phebey Shaw for spinning. [vi] In addition, early histories of the mill report a former enslaved man named Prime who was hired to turn the motive wheel for the mill.

 Blacks had been hired to make the roads going to the mill, and in the construction of the mill itself. The investors also paid an unnamed black man to make gunpowder for their use. But by 1793 all work was done inside Slater Mill on machines, and while they held the skills, no free blacks were hired for the mill, or their children;[vii]  though there is notation that the mill gave an order through 1794 to one  “John Bucklins (, a) black man, for work at Pawtucket”.[viii]

 In South Kingstown, Isaac P. Hazard established a mill and sought labor from the pool of black laborers in that town, paying wages for spinning, weaving, and carding to Ann Brown (negress), Mary Trim (negress), Sharper Boss, Betty Potter, Hetty Stanton (negress), Judith Hazard (negress), and Joseph Potter. [i]

In Hopkinton, Rhode Island,  George Hopkin, a veteran of the Revolutionary War and a local militia leader, operated a general store and relied upon several former enslaved workers for weaving. From 1794 through 1811 he paid numerous laborers, among them were veteran Sezar Babcock, his son Robbin, Rose Boss, Samson Samuel, another possible veteran from Massachusetts, and a girl named Barberry. He also paid wages to an indigenous man named Lyman Kerdan. [ii]

 These southern regions of the state were among those that once held the largest enslaved population. Daybooks and diaries reveal that many lived a hand to mouth existence, often working on three or four farms a week to earn a meagre living.

Smith’s Castle, or the Updike Plantation, as photographed by the author in 2017

 Daybooks for the Updike plantation of North Kingstown shed light on this existence. The house retained two domestic servants named “Simcco (the son of Robe Smith) who lived as a “volunteer”, or as an apprentice, and a girl named Mannie, who “came to work here by the month”  at five dollars a month. Mannie was also paid in bushels of corn, peas, bushels of rye, and in one instance, a knife[i].

 Laborers for the plantation were hired for specific, limited tasks throughout the year of 1791:

Henry Northup Jr. was hired for 4 days work in January.  

 George Fowler was hired as a laborer, his work recorded as Breaking flax in winter, hoeing and planting peas in April, cutting stalks and gathering seaweed for fertilize in summer, and helping with harvest by picking feed corn and apples.

Nathan Onion, an indigenous man, was hired for six months at five dollars a month for picking corn and cutting wood.

 James Wightman worked from November 1791 into early January of 1792 and earned wood, corn, dried codfish, and on Payment in January, 12 ½ pounds of fresh cod.

 Henry Eldred was also paid in cash and corn. One man name Will Pitt-Short, was paid in a $6 pair of shoes.

  In the ensuing years of 1795- 1801, recurring names of former enslaved workers recur in the ledger, including Revolutionary War veterans Stafford Scranton, Ceaser Updike, Bristol Congdon, and mariner Samuel Sambo.

 In 1797, Newport Hall “came to work by the month at 8 dollars per month”.  His brother Joseph also worked sporadically at the farm. Hall was also a veteran of the Revolutionary War, having served in Connecticut’s 3rdRegiment of the Continental line.

In 1800, Ceaser Northup was paid to work with Paul and Pierce Austin in building a stone wall on “the left side of the lane to the house”

Thurston Austin also worked from January through October, and included in his accounts on June 19, 1800 “lost one day for Negroe Lection”.

 Pero Gardiner also worked as a farmhand in May and June. Part of his payment included the use of ½ acre for planting his own crops.

 Black and Indigenous laborers working on the Updike plantation in 1801 included Samuel and Stafford Scranton, Samuel Sambo, and Daniel Onion, a well-known indigenous man and shoemaker.

  Elsewhere in South County, blacksmith “Nailer Tom” Hazard would record with regularity the enslaved and former enslaved workers who labored, lived, and died in the region.[i]

 On October28, 1792 Hazard records that “My wife delivered Mingo Potter two dollars that Robert R. Hazard gave me to get soum wood cut. He recorded eight years later on July 7, 1800 of an accident at John B. Dockray’s farm where “George Robonson a Negro man got badly hurt” .

Black and Indigenous  laborers continued to find odd jobs to sustain themselves. This was especially difficult for women, who lent their labor to a variety of tasks from cooking, cleaning, and laundering to being seamstresses, nannies, and wetnurses.

 An entry for December 27th reads “Else a Negro Woman washed for me. She (comes) t stay one week”.[ii]

 On January 8, 1791, he notes that “my wife paid Else a negro woman that work’t fore me all day yesterday”. [iii]

 Hazard and his wife paid at least three other women of color for washing clothes, including Robe Congdon, Jinn Jacob, and an unnamed “negroe woman” who in December 1805, “Washt here ¾ of a day the last 4 day(s) and my Wife Paid her for the saim”. [iv]

  Other skills gave indigenous woman opportunities for some employment.  In June of 1791, Hazard paid “Three (Squaws) that (bottomed) my cheers (chairs). And paid them all but one bushel of corn”. [v]

 In July of 1824 Hazard recorded that “two Indians lodged here last Night coume to bottom chares.. They bottomed foure Chares.” The next day, “they bottomed foure more Chares, paid them on an order from Isaac P. and Rowland G. Hazard’s store.”[vi]

  The journal of Daniel Stedman (1826-1859) covers a time in the regions history when many former enslaved people in the region were dying off, and their descendants as well as those still enslaved within the communities of South County continued to live a hardscrabble life. Stedman himself lived a simple life, farming in summer and making shoes during the winter. He also took day jobs and often worked beside enslaved and free blacks to earn a day’s labor.

 Stedman also hired indigenous and “colored” laborers throughout his long life, and was familiar with people of color within his community, especially John Potter, a veteran of the 1st RI Regiment,  Boston Port, James Hull, and John Brown.[vii] 

 In Warwick and East Greenwich, communities that relied upon maritime trade, black and indigenous laborers found work in ropeworks, on the docks, and providing other labor for merchants in the villages. One mercantile firm that provided work for such laborers was E&C Greene, mercantile.

  Elihu and Christopher Greene were involved in the family forge at Potowomut, and also established the mercantile partnership which included the sloop Two Brothers. The firm shipped anchors from the forge, as well as staple goods, produce, milled grain, and other stocks up and down the east coast as well as selling goods locally, including shoes, spun wool, medicine and alcohol.[viii]

 From 1786-1792, the firm consistently hired Samuel Sambow (Sambo) noting that he had lost a day’s work attending the “negroe election” in June 1790. He was hired again for a one day’s work in November 1810. Sambo was largely known as a mariner out of Wickford.[ix] His brother Job Sambow also worked occasionally for the firm, and in 1811 struck a deal to “rent” a lot in payment of “a stone wall built on the property”.[x]

 The brothers hired other blacks for unspecified labor, including “Mr. Howard & Lady”( who “lost” a total of eight days, attending the black election, Chris Sambo(w), Ceaser Brown, Cato Sweet, Fortune Dyer, George Gardner, and a “black boy” named William Thomas between 1811 and 1827.

Farm labor throughout the agrarian age was labor intensive

  Closer to Providence, laborers also sought work on the remaining farms in Johnston and Cranston, Rhode Island.

  Cesar Lockwood was paid wages for nearly a full year from 1793-1794 cutting wood on James Arnold’s farm in Cranston

 Israel Arnold would pay Sylvester Lockwood and others for work on his farm such as William Weeks (son of Bunny W.) who worked from April through July 1811 on a variety of tasks, including digging and heaping dung, heaping stones, and planting. Weeks as with others was mostly paid in corn or cider. Most of these laborers agreed to work “half the time at a rate of 13 dollars per month to be paid in corn or money to purchase corn, the other half at harvest time”.

 Arnold had paid workers for some time . In the years from 1801 to 1811, he seems to have paid cash more liberally to laborers for a variety of tasks. Samuel Profit was paid 1 dollar and 2 shillings in 1810 for six months work. A woman only named as “Bessie” was paid 6 dollars for making clothes: “short trousers and sum other workshirts”, presumably for Profit and taken out of what wages he would have earned.

 Cato Waterman was paid 3 shillings for pulling flax on July 27th and August 10th of that year.

  Despite seldom rising above menial labor, people of color were persecuted and victimized by white laborers, especially in those heavily populated towns like Providence where independent black households continued to increase in the nineteenth century. These white laborers and their threats against the black and indigenous populations were supported by both politicians and the press.

On the evening of October 14, 1824, an attack began in the area of Providence dubbed “Hardscrabble”, a neighborhood of black owned and rented dwellings that had also seen white speculators build and rent to less desirable tenants. When a group of blacks resisted moving off a sidewalk to make way for a group of white revelers, the whites gathered outside the dance hall and dwelling of black resident Henry T. Wheeler. When a mob had been drawn to the commotion and gathered, Wheeler’s house was ransacked and eventually razed by upwards of sixty people throughout the night. Others in the mob went on to attack other houses and people, using clubs and axes, and lanterns to destroy some twenty homes and businesses

 In the month leading up to the attack, the Providence Gazette had published an editorial condemning the recent influx of black emigrants to the city, and blamed them for a recent rash of “crime and mischief”. The editorial also advocated the colonization of blacks in Haiti. The defense attorney for those formally prosecuted for the mobs destruction told the jury

“…the renowned city of Hardscrabble lies buried in its magnificent ruins! Like the ancient Babylon it has fallen with all its graven images, its tables of pure oblation, its idolatrous rights and sacrifices…we must all agree the destruction of this place is a benefit to the morals of the community”. [i]

 One of those whose homes were destroyed was Christopher Hill, a widower with three children who earned a living mainly as a woodcutter. In the months after the riot he refused help from neighbors and white philanthropists and lived with his family in the cellar of their ruined home, a remnant of the roof giving them some protection. The following spring the family left Providence for Liberia.[ii]

 A second riot seven years later broke out on Olney Street and lasted through three days of brawling and destruction. By 1831, black citizens had raised a neighborhood on the west end of the street that was comprised of hard-working poor families. Closer to the city on the eastern end flourished a host of taverns, ballrooms and houses of prostitution where sailors of all color congregated, drank, and often brawled.

  On the night of September 21, 1831, a fight broke out in a dance hall with a group of white sailors taking on a black man called “Rattler” who proved to be a skilled fighter, and when he had beaten the men, other patrons and sailors spilled onto Olney Street and continued fighting. The violence only ended the first night when black sailors drove the whites from the scene. The following night, a mob of whites returned to avenge the routing they had suffered. The mob succeeded in burning two homes but dispersed when fired upon by a black resident who killed one among them. Returning a third night, with anti-black recruits from neighboring towns, the black laborers who owned houses were given warning to leave, and then tore through the street, damaging houses, businesses, and banks.

 It was only then that the State took action to quell the uprising, sending first, a paltry twenty-five man militia unit who were quickly sent fleeing from the scene. On September 24, the State sent in two companies of militia. Standing before them, a justice of the peace read a dispersal order from the Governor. When the mob pelted the justice and militia with stones, the soldiers opened fire on the mob, killing four and wounding others. The riot was finally ended, but the episodes highlighted, as historian Robert J. Cottrell would write

 “of forces that were shaping a separate and inferior place in Providence society for blacks…Providence blacks found the law reluctant to extend its protection to them. In business dealings blacks were swindled out of money, labor and property while the law provided little redress”. [iii]

 The Hardscrabble riot was certainly a factor in the decision Newport Gardner and  of thirty-one other blacks who emigrated from Rhode Island to Liberia in 1826, just eighteen months after the riot. For those who remained, unity would provide the only protection against the oppression they now faced in the city and throughout the state.

  An African Benevolent Society founded in Newport in 1807-1824, worked for the seventeen years of its existence to assist black families living on the edge of poverty, and to promote the formation of schools and education of black children. These schools, and later churches, were often constructed by donations from white supporters, both formal organizations and private individuals. White clergy in colonial Rhode Island also wrote of their success in ministering to the black population of their communities in segregated “bible studies”, as well as baptisms and visitation.

Postcard of the 1st Baptist Church in Providence whose congregation assisted black parishioners in beginning their own house of worship.

Long courted by Anglican and Quaker meetinghouses, most free blacks rejected those places where their ancestors had often been forced to attend, “pigeon-holed” in separate balconies or pews from their masters and families. Some attended Baptist churches-the enslaved held by Moses Brown did such before they were emancipated though he was a Quaker- and though blacks often found favor in such houses of worship, and were even encouraged to preach if they were found to have such a gift; such favor was limited to a handful of churches and meetinghouses in Providence and Kent counties.

  Blacks then formed their own places of worship, the first such being the  African Union Meeting House in Providence. The meeting to plan the black church was held in the First Baptist Church of Providence, partly because, explains Cottrell because the church leaders recognized that there were a majority of blacks who remained unministerial because of their refusal to attend a church where they remained segregated from the white attendees.

 By contrast, when the new church was constructed and consecrated, “a parade to the new church included Quakers and other whites who had aided in the establishment of the black church”.[iv]

 The Providence census of 1820 shows that the majority of those involved organizing the church were black heads of households, with children and young adults occupying those households. These families had raised some $800.00 out of their own pockets.  For this reason, the African Union Meeting House was also utilized as a school for black children. The forming of the school and its policies were largely influenced by the Quaker donors to the church, having adapted the Lancasterian plan-a strict, corporeal form of education then popularly used by cities struggling to educate the poor among their populations.

 The school opened under the leadership of a white Headmaster, charging parents $1.50 per quarter for tuition. Despite the cost and the cramped classrooms, 125 students initially enrolled. But the school faced difficulties almost from its inception. The Headmaster left after serving only a year, and the school was shuttered while looking for another. Teachers were also hard to find, and the school often found itself reduced to hiring itinerant teachers who would serve for a short duration and then depart. In time, two black itinerant preachers named Asa Goldsbury and Jacob Perry were hired to teach the students[v]. Despite the stabilization of the school, attendance fluctuated with the economic concerns of families. By 1828 the city had recognized its responsibility to the children of its black citizens and opened the Meeting Street School. A second school named the Pond Street school was opened in the community in 1837.[vi]

  Itinerant black ministers would become both evangelists and activists in the forming of other organizations that worked for the uplifting of their people. Nathaniel Paul was an early organizer and fund raiser for the church, and the forementioned Asa . Goldsbury was described as an “octoroon”, often mistaken for being white. He had come to Providence from a church in Woburn, Massachusetts upon the opening of the black church in Providence.

 In 1821, the dedication of the African Meeting Union House was attended by the African Grays a militia unit formed by self-titled Colonel George Barret, a veteran of the War of 1812. The Grays enlistees provided their own muskets. They mustered regularly and marched in regional military parades with other private militia units.

 Their role was not just ceremonial however, their members were part of the black militia that helped to subdue the Dorr Rebellion.

Advertising image for convention of the Prince Hall Masons one of the first black labor organizations to advocate for black workers inclusion in the American work force.

A chapter of the Prince Hall Masons was formed in Providence as well. This organization paralleled the prestigious white organization popularized during the American Revolution, and like the revolution, began in Massachusetts with chapters spreading elsewhere in the 1830’s.

 The Reverend John Lewis would form The Providence Temperance Society in 1832, further aligning black societal organizations with black churches efforts to instill self-improvement among its members. Lewis succeeded in obtaining 200 pledges for temperance from members of the black community. His dedication to the improvement of the black community in Providence included the opening of an Academy for black students in 1836, and in that same year, a “Convention of People of Color for the Promotion of Temperance in New England” a successful event that brough blacks and empathetic whites together.

  In the wake of the Hardscrabble and Olney riots, authorities tightened laws on all manner of vices popular in the city taverns. An organization of white leaders and wealthy families formed the Providence Society for the Encouragement of Faithful Domestic Servants, modelled on similar organizations begun in England and more recently formed in New York, Boston, Philadelphia and elsewhere that were based upon a reward system of servants earning bonuses for faithfulness, frugality, and job performance.

 A report on the shortage of domestic workers in the town lamented that

 “It is supposed that there are servants enough in this town, to do the work of twice its population, and yet it is well known that good servants were never more wanted. This supposition is founded in part on the last census. As for instance, it appears that of the colored population, there is rising of twelve hundred in this town alone, yet only five hundred are returned as being at service. The seven hundred, except children, if they work at all are doing “days work”.[vii]

 Notwithstanding the occlusion from mills, mercantile, and other establishments which resisted hiring black workers, the report complains that such workers resorting to day labor are often reduced to “habits of idleness and dissipation”.  

Despite a great deal of organization. And the hiring of field agents to track subscribers progress, the organization ceased functioning in its second year. 

  The founding of the Providence Shelter for Colored Orphans in 1838 began an effort by wealthy white women who desired to “provide a suitable home where the children might be placed and taught habits of industry, improve their morals, and be instructed in such branches of knowledge as would enable them respectable maintenance as domestics in families, or to acquire trades adapted to their capacities or inclination”. [viii]

 The shelter also struggled in its mission, able to only train and send eight children out as domestics of the sixty-four children received into the shelter during its first four years. While providing resources for many poverty-stricken or dysfunctional families it served as part of the “benevolent society” so sought in the 1830’s and 40’s by progressive Americans.

  Ultimately, the descendants of the enslaved would be those that built the foundations for their children and grandchildren to rise above the further marginalization caused by the economic recessions of 1837 and 1839, and the continued divisions that carried the nation into civil war. For even as the Rev. John Lewis was finding favor with whites, and funding for his advocacy of temperance and self-improvement for blacks in Providence, the idea of the education and advancement, no less the subject of enslavement itself was still an uneasy subject in South County.

 In February 1841 in the Meeting House that Daniel Stedman attended, a debate ensued upon “whither intemperance of slavery is the greatest eavle (evil)”. After “a Debate of 2 Evenings” with “A great number of arguments on Both Sides”, it was decided that “intemperance was the greatest eavle”.[ix]

 The following month, no doubt hearing of the debate, an unnamed man “came to Lecture on Slavery”, but the church objected to holding such a lecture in the meeting house as “Some was not willing (to listen) and the rest did not want to hurt the other’s feelings”.

 The unnamed abolitionist left without having been heard. “…he went off”, Stedman writes, “and did not Lecture them”.

[i] Cottrell, pp. 54-55

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid., p. 57

[iv] Ibid, p. 59

[v] Ibid. p. 62

[vi] Ibid, p. 61

[vii] Lancaster, Jane Encouraging Faithful Domestic Servants: Race, Deviance, and Social Control in Providence Rhode Island History Vol. 51, Number 3 August 1993

[viii] IBID, P. 83

[ix] Fletcher, Daniel Stedman’s Journal, pp. 188-189

[i] Hazard Caroline, Nailer Tom’s Diary or The Journal of Thomas B. Hazard of Kingstown, Rhode Island 1778-1840 Boston, The Merrymount Press 1930

[ii] Ibid, p.116

[iii] Ibid,  p.117

[iv] Ibid, p.253

[v] Ibid, p.123

[vi] Ibid, p 619

[vii] Fletcher, Cherry Bamberg (ed.)  Daniel Stedman’s Journal  Rhode Island Genealogical Society 2003

[viii] RIHS Mss. 459, 1786-1830 E&C Greene Accounts and Ledgers

[ix] Sambo would later lead an uprising of black workers against Updike cousin Daniel Eldred Updike, the Wickford harbor master on January 28, 1809. Both able-bodied seamen and dock workers had lost employment with the embargo of 1807. Harbormaster Jeremiah Olney in Providence and William Ellery in Newport sought to crack down on the resultant smuggling along the coastline. The passage of an Act against smuggling by state authorities coupled with the seizure of the sloop Betty in Pawtuxet, from where she was towed to Providence harbor seems to have set off a series of violent assaults on docks and property along the coastline, including Wickford. See Strum, Harvey Rhode Island and the Embargo of 1807 Rhode Island History, Vol. 52, no. 11, p. 59

[x] RIHS Mss. 459, Box 1, Folder 11 Accounts 1810-1814

[i] RIHS Mss. 770 Cases 2, 14 Updike Papers, Daybooks 1791-1804

[i] RIHS Mss. 483 sg12 series 2, Box 4, Folders 7, 14

[ii] RIHS Mss. 753 Box 1, Ledger 1

[i] The later location of the “Turk’s Head” building.

[ii] RIHS Mss. 9001 B. Box 1

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Cottrol, p. 48

[vi] RIHS Mss. 29 Vol. 25, 74

[vii] National Park Service, The Men Who Turned: African-Americans and the Slater Mill Story https://www.nps.gov/blrv/learn/historyculture/the-men-who-turned-african-americans-and-the-slater-mill-story.htm accessed 7/24/23

[viii] RIHS  Mss. 29, Loose Vol. 4

[i] Rhode Island Historical Society Collections Mss 9001-G Box 8

[ii] RIHS Mss. 313

[iii] McBurney, Christian The Memoirs of Cato Pierce Rhode Island History Vol. 67, No. 1. Rhode Island Historical Society 2009

[iv] Ibid, P. 6

[v] RIHS Mss. 232 sg 4

[vi] RIHS Mss. 629 sg Series 8, Box 2, Folder 24: Asa Potter Sr. (1766-1805) Deeds, Agreements, 1802-1805

[vii] RIHS Microfilm, F89. N8, Reel 6

[viii] RIHS Mss 214, sg 1, Series 1 Vol. 6 No. 2745

[ix] RIHS Mss  214, sg 9

[x] Cottrol, p. 45

[i] Hopkins listed five enslaved individuals in his 1760 will, a man, a woman, and three children. See  Bamberg, Cherry Fletcher; Hopkins, Donald R. (January 2012). "The Slaves of Gov. Stephen Hopkins". New England Historical and Genealogical Register. 33: 11–27. ISBN 978-0-7884-0293-7.

[ii] Stokes, Keith

[iii] Cottrol, Robert J. The Afro-Yankees, Providence’s Black Community in the Antebellum Era Greenwood Press 1982 p. 32

In Their Master's Stead: Patriots of Color who Served for Another by Robert A. Geake

Black militia served along white enlistees, often multiple times.

It has been my privilege for the past seven years, since the publication of “From Slaves to Soldiers”, to give presentations about the 1st Rhode Island or “Black Regiment” in many Rhode Island communities. As I wrote the book, I came to realize that a much larger story presented itself, one that was perhaps less historically significant than the attempt to raise a “black regiment”, but one that was equally important in persuading white Americans that many blacks were in league with the cause of American liberty.

 In fact, for the more than one hundred and twenty or so Patriots of Color who enlisted in the 1st Rhode Island Regiment, there were hundreds more who served in local and state militia, as well as in Continental battalions raised for campaigns in places far removed from Rhode Island.

 Some of these were enslaved men served “in their master’s stead”, or on account for another family member, or even a friend of the family. Others were paid bounties to serve in their place or paid by towns to fill the quotas demanded by the Continental Congress.

  This same practices existed throughout the colonies, and this article examines how the communities of Rhode Island responded for the need throughout the war, and how that response was remembered and memorialized.  

  Rhode Island has long prided itself that the actions taken by a group of patriots against the HMS Gaspee on the night of June 10, 1772 was the first volley fired for Independence from Great Britain. That the clamor in Providence County and the communities of Kent County for Independence rang alike in every town and village.  One might be tempted to believe that the entirety of the state was as one in supporting the cause of the American Revolution, but that was hardly the case.

      In Kings County, Rhode Island, many who were wary of such a conflict were the land holders of those large estates, whose farms contributed to the flood of goods leaving Rhode Island ports for the West Indies. These included bricks, timber, iron, and other tools and building materials, barrels of salted fish and mutton for the enslaved laborers on sugar plantations, and hay for the horses that drove the sugar mills.

It was a lucrative enterprise that brought great wealth to the region. Many of those prominent farmers known as the Narragansett Planters were owners of enslaved workers on their own plantations, and some owned ships or invested in ships that plied the triangle trade; shipping rum to the west coast of Africa in exchange for slaves sold in the West Indian ports, where the holds that once held the enslaved were bleached clean and then filled with sugar for the return to Newport.

  But it was not only these wealthy landowners who benefited from these exchanges. Many smaller farms, lumbermen, fishing crews from Wickford, masons and craftsman, and suppliers of all kinds contributed to those exports in support of Great Britain’s production of sugar and its wholesale enslavement of thousands of individuals to meet the demand.

 As one might expect, the tensions between England and the colonies of North America were of great concern to those who favored keeping such valuable economic ties to the mother country.             

         Such was the wealth in Kings County, that others loyalist leanings came purely from the fear of losing the consumer goods they had become dependent upon, the fine china dishware, tea sets, silverware, glassware, the silk for shirts, dresses, and cravats; as well as books, portfolio’s and prints, not to mention teas from China, fine port from France, and numerous other wines, spirits, and imported liquors.

 One such “gentleman” who lived in the region was George Rome. The Englishman had arrived in Newport in 1761 at a providential moment. As it turned out, a once prominent Newport cordwainer named Henry Collins had seen his firm file for bankruptcy. Collins owned a fine home in Newport and a large portion of land with a mansion house in Narragansett on Boston Neck.

                                                                                                                                                         The land there was originally called Namcook by the indigenous Narragansett people, as part of their summering encampment. Lying on the northernmost portion of Boston Neck, a 600 acre parcel had originally been purchased by Capt. Edward Hutchinson whose family held the land through three generations. Henry Collins had purchased the farm and built a mansion house for his summer retreat, but risky ventures in privateering caused his fortunes to falter, and when George Rome arrived, he took the opportunity to buy the fine home in Newport as well as the “summer residence”.[i]

 Rome subsequently went on to purchase adjacent properties that had been part of the original deed until he had acquired nearly the entire 600 acres of Hutchinson’s purchase. He improved the mansion house that Collin’s had constructed, and spent his summer’s there; entertaining guests from nearby Narragansett, but also from Newport and as far away as Boston in what he called “my little country villa”.[ii]

  Such a lavish lifestyle of course relied upon a large contingent of enslaved workers. We will learn a little more about some of them later.

 Having come so recently to Rhode Island, and perhaps by having so lavishly upheld a bachelor life of English gentility in Narragansett, many of those who favored separation from Great Britain in the fervor after the Gaspee incident, suspected Rome of being less than eager to support independence.

 In 1772, a letter Rome penned to an associate in London, criticizing the governments of Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and in effect calling for the revoking of colonial charters and new governments that would be more sympathetic to the Crown, came into the hands of Ambassador Ben Franklin. The contents were soon published in newspapers throughout the colonies. 

       Brought before the General Assembly, meeting in South Kingston in October 1775, Rome was jailed in Kingston, and then Providence before fleeing the country on the British man-o-war Rose, then anchored off Newport.

Rome’s property was confiscated and the auction of valuables left from what the state had taken for supplies was overseen by Major James Cooke.[iii] The property was largely purchased by merchant and shipbuilder John Brown of Providence, who then resold the property to Supreme Court Judge Ezekial Gardner by 1780. With these, and other holdings; Gardner then became one of the largest owners of enslaved individuals in the state.[iv]

  The enslaved individuals who had been on Rome’s farm were part of the property, and would eventually form the nucleus of a black community in Wickford. During the Revolutionary War, several of those who had been enslaved on the farm under Rome, Brown, and Gardner likely served in local militia, in Continental regiments, and even the Navy.

 Ceasar Rome, sometimes spelled Rove, or Rose in the muster rolls, enlisted in Captain John Dexter’s company of the Rhode Island Regiment in 1778 and served into the time of the consolidation, being listed as a private in 6th company of the Rhode Island regiment. Ceasar would have seen all the major battles in which the RIR took part, including Yorktown. He was one of many who died some months after the battle, having contracted smallpox in transit to Philadelphia, and succumbing to the disease on December 9, 1781 in Wilmington, Delaware.[v]

The remembrance of Pero Roome as an  “old Negro slave who was a relic of the Colonial Days” as noted by a 19th century historian George Gardiner, seems to indicate that he had served the town of Wickford in some way. He and his wife Sarah lived within the small community of black populated homes off Fowler St. near Bush Hill pond. They had a son named John who was a deaf mute, but later found employment at the Abby Updike Hotel in East Greenwich as a domestic worker. Pero and Sarah’s daughter Elizabeth would have several children with Henry Fairweather, another descendant of a long enslaved clan, but eventually marry a black culinary chef from Philadelphia named John Williams and left Rhode Island. Pero would find himself living in a squatter’s shack on a swampy piece of ground along the border of Tower Hill road owned by Robert Rodman. It became known as the “Vale of Pero”. His date of death and burial place are unrecorded, but two of his grandsons would serve in the Civil War.[vi]

   Pero’s brother Cato served during the Revolutionary War as a seaman aboard the USS Queen of France.[vii]This old ship had been purchased from France in 1777 and outfitted by American Commissioners Benjamin Franklin and Silas Deane as a 28 gun frigate for the Continental Navy. She was to have a short, but illustrious life of service. She first departed Boston on March 13, 1779 under command of Capt. Joseph Olney, as part of a squadron under Capt. James Burroughs Hopkins who sailed the length of the Atlantic Coast down to Charleston and back, in search of the small, armed vessels the British were using out of New York to disrupt American shipping.

 In less than a month the Queen of France had captured a 10 gun British privateer, whose chase led to the further capture by the American Squadron of nine more vessels. The American frigate personally escorted the captured privateer Herminia, the ship Maria, and three brigs that had been under British flag. Into Boston Harbor on April 20, 1779.[viii]

  By June 18th, she was ready to sail again, now placed under Capt. John Rathbun and in company with two other Continental vessels, the USS Providence, and the sloop Ranger. These vessels sailed to the Grand Banks off Newfoundland where some 150 ships of the British Jamaica Fleet were anchored in a dense fog. The Continental Ships stole away with eleven prizes before daylight broke the fog, and while they abandoned three during the chase, the remaining eight captured vessels whose contents were sold in Boston after their return in late August, brought the Continental Congress more than a million dollars in sorely needed revenue.

 In November, the Queen of France departed Boston on her final journey. Again, in company with the USS Providence and sloop Ranger, and with another frigate, the USS Boston the group set sail to cruise the waters east of Bermuda. They captured the British privateer Dolphin on December 5th, and brought her into Charleston, South Carolina on December 23rd. There the frigate remained, captive to the British assault on the city, and on May 11, 1780, the Queen of France was sunk to avoid her falling into British hands as the Americans fled the city.

For those who might wonder how an enslaved man came to be part of the crew of a Continental frigate, it would be worthy to note that Cato and other enslaved workers of the former Rome estate were at that time overseen by John Brown, merchant and shipbuilder in Providence.

 It could be argued that John Brown was the most influential advocate and ship builder for the fledgling Continental Navy. It’s first ships, the sloops Katy and Washington were built by Brown and commissioned by the General Assembly to patrol in defense of Narragansett Bay. He was also the man the General Assembly charged with obtaining revenue for the war effort in Rhode Island, especially from privateering prizes and confiscated estates abandoned or taken from tory loyalists. 

 In late November 1775 the Katy was ordered to Philadelphia where she arrived on December 3rd was renamed the USS Providence. While there is no indication that Cato Room served on any vessel aside from the Queen of France, it’s likely that he was given that opportunity by Brown, who was actively helping to fill the crews needed for the Navy.

After the war, Cato returned to reside in North Kingstown, and had become a respected elder of Allentown by the time of his tragic death; murdered at the hands of a mentally ill black man of the same community where Cato had lived and worked for many years.

  Of other known enslaved men of George Rome, little more is known. In some cases it may be that the change in ownership meant a change in name as well, as a sign of property[ix]; so that among those Browns and Gardner’s who served could be men that had originally been owned by George Rome, and part of the property confiscated in 1775.

 The events at Lexington and Concord in April 1775 gave greater urgency to those in King’s County. Thomas Cranston, the descendent of Governor Samuel Cranston wrote to Beriah Brown, the high sheriff of the county on April 26, 1775:

 “We are in the utmost confusion and which part we shall take is at present uncertain. I see nothing but destruction coming upon us, look which way I will..there is no person here that knows how to act or which part to take-if we should take up with the part that the government hath adopted we shall be laid in ashes-and if we take up the King’s side we shall have all the sons of liberty upon our backs”.[x]

 That same year, when the call came out for able-bodied men to join both rejuvenated and new militia units, some owners of enslaved individuals  took the opportunity to enlist one or more of their enslaved to serve in their stead, or in place of a family member. These men in these militia, depending upon their physical capabilities, would ultimately serve their term of enlistment within the local militia and State militia who were essential in the patrolling and defense of the Rhode Island shoreline and rivers.

  Beriah Brown kept his enslaved men close to his own interests. While Brown received missives from the Governor, and performed tedious tasks in his role as High Sheriff,  he was also among the most powerful men in the state. Apart from his duties as Sheriff, his own business investments had made him wealthy. In 1748 he had invested in the sloop Elizabeth, engaged for two years in the Caribbean trade, and by the time of the American Revolution, had outfitted the privateer The General Mifflin to plunder the British fleet[xi].

 As High Sheriff, no land transactions in agrarian Kings County , no probate inventory, or the sale of goods from that inventory were sealed without passing his desk[xii], including those of enslaved individuals.

 On March 7, 1774 Thomas Lawton (a negro man) Laborer and Marcy ( a mustee) his wife both of North Kingstown filed a complaint against one John Franklin of South Kingstown, who on

“the first day of November A.D. 1773 with force and Arms did take and carry away one Soloman Cezar a mulatto boy of the Age of Sixteen years & son to the PCt. Marcy and the said Isaac deceased, and still unjustly detains the said Soloman…”[xiii]

 The family claimed one hundred pounds in damages. A week later on March 14th, an agreement was signed that the said Soloman Cezar

 “…by and with the consent of his aforementioned Father-in-law, and Mother hath doth by these present put and placed himself an apprentice or Servant to the said Beriah Brown and Amy his wife with them to serve and dwell in All Lawful Imployment in Manner of a servant until he arrives at the age of twenty one years old…”[xiv]

 Conditions of his continued apprenticeship included

 “…not to be unlawfully absent from his said Master nor mischief by day or Night..Alehouses nr Taverns he shall not haunt, nor play at any unlawful games….Matrimony he shall not contract nor fornication committed within said time but the Lawful commands of his said Master and Mistress he shall gladly and Every where obey…”

 In consideration of Soloman’s servitude Beriah Brown agreed to

 “find him sufficient meat, drink, washing Lodging & apparel during said term…to Bring him up at farming business, and to learn & instruct his said apprentice to read well in the Bible, if he be capable of learning, & learn him to write and at the Expiration of his term, to give his said apprentice one good new suit of homespun cloth”.[xv]

  It’s uncertain as to the circumstances, but the young Soloman Cezar (Ceasor) enlisted in 1777, well before his twenty-first birthday, as a private in Col. James Webb’s Company of Col. Henry Sherburne’s Additional Continental Regiment through 1780.[xvi] Crucially, that means he served in the Battle of Rhode Island in August 1778.

 He re-enlisted in May 1, 1780 as a Waggoner and was assigned to Col. Henry Jackson’s regiment of Stark’s Brigade on August 9, 1780 with which he served through September 20th. That month Soloman Ceasor and others of Stark’s Brigade were Court-martialed, being accused in their zeal to collect provisions of plundering inhabitants, taking “public horses from the pastures and riding them without liberty”, as well as attempting to rescue a prisoner who had been placed under guard.

 Soloman Ceasor was found not guilty and discharged in November 1780. Recruited once again, he re-enlisted in January 1781 for three more years of service as a private in the 8th company (colored) of the Rhode Island Regiment. He was honorably discharged December 25, 1783.[xvii]

 Brown may have given his consent to Soloman’s enlistment, though he seems to have resisted letting go of any of his domestic laborers, finally giving his slave John W. Brown for service in the local militia in 1777.

The following February his enslaved man Thomas enlisted in the Continental Army when the General Assembly had passed the Act to form the 1st Rhode Island Regiment from as many enslaved men as recruits could enlist. When Brown’s younger enslaved boy absconded less than a month later and enlisted, Brown wrote urgently to the recruitment officer on March 17, 1778

 “I have heard that my negro boy Scipio has inlisted. He is but fourteen years old. I am as willing to defend my country as any man in it. But my Tom has inlisted and I have now no other boy to do anything for me. I should be very much obliged to you if you would send Scipio home again and not receive him as I have no other boy”. [xviii]

 John W. Brown served in Capt. Dyer’s Militia company patrolling Boston Neck in 1777 and 1778. [xix] Both of Brown’s younger enslaved men remained enlisted. Thomas served as a drummer in Capt. Elijah Lewis’ company throughout the war.

 Young Scipio also served as a drummer in Capt. Ebenezer Flagg’s company, Capt. John Haden’s company, and with Capt. John S. Dexter’s company in the Rhode Island Regiment. By the age of eighteen he was at Yorktown. [xx]

 Brown’s son Christopher Brown of North Kingstown had his enslaved man Joseph enlisted as a substitute for him shortly before his death in March 1778.

 Joseph Brown would serve in the local militia, and then enlist in the 8th company of the Rhode Island regiment in January 1781. He died a year later in the Army hospital in Philadelphia, January 20, 1782.

  That year of 1778 was a pivotal year for Beriah Brown’s and many families in King’s County.

 Records of the same February Assembly session of 1778 that passed the Act to form the “Black Regiment”, revealed that at least some of the local  population were loyalists and had chosen to abandon their farms and businesses. The Assembly noted that they had received notice that

 Samuel Boone, William Boone, John Wightman, son of Valentine, Ephraim Smith, Ebenezer Slocum, Charles Slocum, and Thomas Cutter, have gone to the Island of Rhode Island, and have joined the Enemy…

 Sheriff Beriah Brown was then ordered to confiscate and make a full accounting of all property. In all likelihood, their enslaved people went with them. There is no indication that any enslaved of these families served in any capacity during the war.

 King’s County held the largest percentage of enslaved persons in Rhode Island, and in fact, would contribute the greatest number of enlistees into the 1st Rhode Island regiment. In other cases, individuals served short “stints” in the Continental Army for the benefit of the town or village in which they were enslaved. The use of enslaved workers as a substitute in military service was prevalent throughout the war, and in every town and village in the state.

     Losher Hopkins was enlisted by Admiral Esek Hopkins of Providence in the stead of a member of the Society of Friends or Quakers named John Cumstock, “who refuses to bear arms”. Losher would later serve with the 1st Rhode Island regiment, but like others, his name does not appear on the monument in Portsmouth.

 Admiral Hopkins had enlisted other enslaved men he owned for the Revolutionary cause including a man named Dragon Wanton he had purchased aboard the Andrea Doria in 1776. On November 8th of that year, he penned a letter to William Ellery of Newport, asking for his assistance:

     “…take some charge of him” Hopkin’s wrote, “and either send him to me, or see that he is enlisted in the service with Capt. Biddle or in any other way as you may see fit”. [xxi]

 In Hopkinton, Rhode Island, Hezekiah Babcock’s slave Ceasar Babcock enlisted in the local militia in his master’s stead in 1775. He did the same in 1778 when the call came for more recruits. According to his pension application, “In the summer of that year was on the Island of Rhode Island where in an action with the enemy he saw a drummer by the name of Card killed by a shot in the breast while very near him[xxii]”

 Babcock’s application testified that he had seen nearly a year and a half of service, well past the six-month requirement to apply for a pension. As there was little documentation however, his pension request was rejected. In response, two fellow soldiers from the regiment wrote to testify that they had served with Caesar. The minister of the Baptist church in Newport wrote to vouch for the two men who had written in support,

     “…Being aware that the statements of “negroes” we sometimes regard with a degree of suspicion…”, and Martha Babcock wrote to the committee that

 “Ceasar was a slave to my said husband before the Revolutionary War and Ceaser served as a soldier in the militia for my said husband and went to the Island of Rhode Island with the army commanded by General Sullivan to act against the British[xxiii]”.

 Despite these testimonies, the Pension Board rejected Ceasar’s application, and he did not receive recognition for his service until his name was placed on the Monument in Portsmouth.

William Wanton, the enslaved man of Newport’s William Wanton enlisted in the RI militia in his master’s stead in 1777. Nearly two years later, he enlisted on March 16, 1779 as a private in Capt. Christopher Dyer’s Co. of Col. John Topham’s RI state regiment, and then again in 1780 when the State Regiment was consolidated, and became Topham’s Regiment and Battalion .

  Unlike those men who enlisted in the 1st Rhode Island Regiment, service in local militia, the Continental Army, or Navy in another’s stead or for the town did not necessarily mean that you would earn your freedom. While it appears to have often been promised, in many cases freedom was not granted to these men, at other times, it appears that strings were attached to promises once made.

 A revealing letter written November 3, 1777 by Oliver Whipple of Portsmouth to Major Samuel White on behalf of Primus Nelson, the enslaved man of Jonathan Nelson.

 “Mr. Nelson told him” writes Whipple, “that if said Primus cou’d get enough to pay him, he should be free; but avarice has got so strong Possession of Mr. Nelson that I fear he will violate his word with the said Primus & turn his promised freedom into dispairing Slavery”.[xxiv]

 As the war progressed, and the demand for troops grew greater, these communities struggled to recruit new enlistees and soon found the way to meet the quotas was to offer bounties for enlistment. These came from both the town, and in other cases from individuals who paid a bounty to have another man serve in their stead.

 Examining the enlistees from the July 1780 Six Month (Levies) Continental Battalion we find that many of those paid such bounties were black veteran who had enlisted earlier, served their term, and re-enlisted for the Six Months. A majority of these men would go on to serve longer terms, even unto the end of the war.

 Here are a few examples:

  Private Josiah Simons, “black and born in Richmond”, Rhode Island enlisted initially in June of 1778 serving in Capt. Christopher Dyer’s Co. of Col. John Topham’s R.I. State Regiment. He was discharged in 1779, but re-enlisted to serve “for the town” in the six-month levies, July-November 1780.

  Private Charles Daniels, an indigenous man born in Charlestown, enlisted initially on June 9, 1778 in Capt. Christopher Dyer’s “colored” company as well and was discharged in 1779. The following year, he too enlisted for the six months in the Continental Battalion for the town of Jamestown. [xxv]

 Providence merchant Nicholas Power received a bounty for “his Negro Ceaser” for six months service on June 15, 1780.

 On June 21st, Pomp Reaves was ”among those who took the oath of allegiance and were mustered into the Continental Service”.

  Private Prince Arnold of Smithfield also enlisted in Capt. Christopher Dyer’s company, and with others was discharged in 1779. He too served for the town where he was born for the six months (levies), but continued his service after November 1780. By March 1781, he is listed on the muster roll as a private in Capt. Daniel Mowry’s company of Col. George Peck’s R.I. Militia Regiment.

 Father and son, James Anthony aged 39, and Elisha Anthony, a 17 year old “molatto”, both from South Kingstown, also served six months with the Continental Battalion for the town of Johnston in 1780.[xxvi]

 Primus Atkins was born in Africa, and enslaved in Johnston. By the time of his enlistment for the town in 1781 he was forty years old. Atkins served in Capt. Joseph Allen’s company for the six month levies, and thereafter in a regiment of the Rhode Island Militia for the remainder of the war. Jeremiah Ceaser, an enslaved man owned by John Waterman also enlisted in Johnston that year.

  A bounty was paid to veteran Bristol Olney in February 1781 who enlisted on behalf of the town of Cumberland. The town sent the enslaved man’s pay to his owner Capt. Amos Whipple.[xxvii]

 The town of Barrington, Rhode Island also paid bounties to owners of enslaved men who were enlisted into local militia or to fill the town quota throughout the war. On June 20, 1777 the town approved payment of L44 to brothers Thomas and Matthew Allin,  Joseph Reynolds and Matthew Watson, stipulating that the negro Pomp Watson had enlisted on his account. On December 2, 1780, Hannah Smith of Barrington, Rhode Island was paid L15  ”as a bounty for her Negro man Pomp”[xxviii].

 Thomas Reynolds was enlisted in Capt. Thomas Reynolds company in 1777, and by May 1778 part of those that formed the “Black Regiment”. He continued to serve being listed in 1781 as a private in the 6th company of the Rhode Island Regiment.  He was transferred from the Regiment to the Corps of Invalids on May 1, 1781. [xxix]

 Pomp Watson served as a private in Capt. Thomas Cole’s Company of the 1st R.I. Regiment. After a winter at Valley Forge, he was by May 1778 listed as a private in Capt. Thomas Arnold’s detachment, which would be trained under Von Steuben, and merge with later recruits to form the Black Regiment. He served in the Battle of Rhode Island, and in patrolling Barber’s Heights in the months after. He was Honorably discharged on May 20, 1780. [xxx]

 Pomp Smith served six months Continental Batallion duty for the town of Barrington  from July to December 1780. He was 36 years old.

  As for the enslaved men of the Allin family, theirs is a fascinating story:

      Tucked away from the center of town lies an old cemetery with a cluster of well-maintained monuments at one end, and on the other; a lone, early 19th century gravestone for Scipio Freeman, a long recognized veteran of the revolution in the popular remembrance of the community.

 Though he was known as an enslaved man belonging to the Allin family, and listed on the roll of able bodied men above 16 to serve in the town militia, there is no evidence to support that he served in the 1st Rhode Island Regiment, or even in the town militia. Brig. General Thomas Allin and brother Captain Matthew Allin were both officers of the local militia but do not list him upon muster rolls kept during the revolution. Even the native born historian Thomas Bicknell who wrote the town’s history could only admit that

 ”While it is well known that this faithful slave was in the service of the town and state during the war, I have not been able to locate the Co. or Reg. ; died April 30, 1816 aged seventy years”.

 As a direct descendant of Amy Bicknell, wife of Thomas Allin who owned Scipio, the historian likely heard the family lore first hand, but by then it had become a story that had evolved from a singular incident to Freeman being a soldier in the Continental Army.

 Bicknell had a passion for monuments. Among those he left in Rhode Island were a tombstone to Canonicus, the Narragansett sachem near his seat on Devil’s Foot ledge. Another Barrington monument is to those “good and faithful slaves of the community”.

 The historian in fact, begins his chapter in the town history on “Domestic Slavery and Slaves” with the astonishing claim that

 “The Institution of slavery has never flourished in Rhode Island…The spirit of independence, of freedom of thought and of religious toleration was, in its nature, hostile to human bondage”.

 Later in the same chapter he documents family ownership and sales of enslaved men, women, and children in the town, and lists sixty-eight known enslaved individuals that were domestic workers or laborers for Barrington families during the latter years of the 18th century, including Scipio Freeman. [xxxi]

  So what of Scipio Freeman ? Was he among the ”six slaves and several men over sixty who entered the service” along with the eighty-three “effective men for service” that mustered for the march to Boston in 1775? Or is he remembered for an event that likely included some of the enslaved he shares the space allotted them in the Allin Yard.

 Somewhere among the fieldstones that lay buried around Scipio Freeman’s gravestone is the resting places of Prince Allin, who served in Capt. Thomas Allin’s Company of Col. Crary’s Regiment as the property of the Allin family.

 Two other enslaved men of the family were later given bounties to enlist on May 17, 1777.

Jack Allin was given a bounty of eighteen pounds from Levi Barnes and John Short Jr.

 Richard Allin received a bounty of fifteen pounds from Mathew Allin and George Salisbury.[xxxii]

 While these men were given monies for serving as a substitute, Thomas and Mathew Allin received forty-four pounds each in compensation “for their negroes” from the Town Council in June 1777. [xxxiii]

 All of these men show on the muster rolls under the spelling “Allen”. Prince is listed as serving as a private in Crary’s R.I state Regiment in 1776, and from May through October of 1778. Both Jack and Richard Allin would serve in Col. Thomas Cole’s Company. Jack was a private in Capt. Thomas Arnold’ detachment  of the early “black regiment”, but died on May 18, 1778 before the Battle of Rhode Island would test the recruits mettle. Richard served in Capt, John S. Dexter’s company from 1778 until being honorably discharged on May 22, 1780.[xxxiv]

 So what of Scipio Freeman and his role with the family in the Revolutionary War? What follows is my hypothesis of how this enslaved man’s actions may have earned him the reverence of the family he served, and their community.

     The Allins were descendants of William and Elizabeth Allin who had married and settled on Prudence Island sometime before 1670. The family homestead and lands were still intact on the island in the years before the Revolutionary War. Though the Barrington Allins were three generations removed from the island, the family still remained connected, and it is likely that  brothers Mathew and Thomas still held a vested interest in the agrarian opportunities the rich grazing grounds, fertile land, and protection for valued livestock the island long offered.

In the wake of the Gaspee affair in Warwick, Rhode Island in 1772, British patrol boats had plied Narragansett Bay, occasionally holding coastal towns hostage under threat of cannon fire while residents scrambled to raise provisions to save the town from destruction.

 Within two years, the British Naval Commander James Wallace had become the nemesis of Rhode Island merchant vessels. By the summer of 1774, Wallace  patrolled the Rhode Island coastline in the HMS Rose, and with sister ships the HMS Glascow, and HMS Swan; routinely raided and plundered coastal communities and islands offshore.

 One such island that had caught Wallace’s attention was the six-mile long Prudence Island.

Lying an equal mile and a half distance from Warwick Neck to the west and Bristol to the east, the island was long used by farmers to keep their livestock safe from predators. By 1774, thirty-three families also called the island home.

 On August 24, 1775 Wallace landed two hundred men on the island and plundered the farm of John Allin, stealing twenty sheep, thirty turkeys, and bushels of corn as well as hay. The following November, another raiding party stole clothing and furniture-even a large mahogany desk-from several homes, as well as two horses and geese[xxxv].

 When the impudent Captain wrote to Governor John Wanton, demanding more goods from the island, Militia Captain Samuel Pearce heard of the 2nd Portsmouth Company decided the time had come to make a stand. He ordered all women and children off the island, and all that remained were thirty-two men under his command, among them eleven enslaved African-Americans[xxxvi], most likely the property of the extensive Allin family.

These were taken into the company, given weapons, and taught to use them for the coming battle. With their forces soon bolstered by men of the Kentish Guard from Warwick, and militia from Bristol and Tiverton, they faced off, and fought the invaders on the 13th of January; driving the British back to their vessels before retreating from the island that night.

 Was Scipio Freeman and the other enslaved men of the Barrington Allins  among the eleven patriots of color who fought that day?

 The 1774 census shows that John Allen (as the name is spelled in the census) had no enslaved men in his household in Portsmouth and thus, not on his property on Prudence Island. No other Allens on the island but Ebenezer Allen held an enslaved person among them, and he had but one in a household of twelve.

 By contrast, Thomas and Mathew Allin held five enslaved persons apiece in considerably smaller households in Barrington. The census does not list blacks by male or female as it does for whites, or even categorize them under an age group as it does for white families, so we have no way of knowing what males beyond Scipio, Prince, Jack, and Richard may have been owned by the two brothers. Could it be then, that the enslaved of these militia commanders were sent to the farm on Prudence Island in preparation for the Island’s defense, and unknowingly became, the first enslaved men that were given arms for the first time in defense of the Colonies?

 If so, then Scipio Freeman, Prince, Jack, and Richard Allin are greater heroes than we understood them to be. It may also explain why, along with consideration of the other men’s later service,  they were all accordingly buried, even at a distance, in the family plot.

 If Scipio Freeman never fought another day, the family would have still held the story of his fighting for their land in high esteem. Not only as a great tale from the Revolution, but likely also as an example of the family being among those benevolent owners of the enslaved, so much so that their enslaved rewarded them with loyalty and protected their property.

 These men in fact, stood their ground with the others and were among those that drove the British back to their ships after an all-day skirmish that left a dozen British regulars dead and the Americans no worse for wear.

 It also stands to reason that if these enslaved men of the Allin family defended the property and the island with others that day, it may be why bounties were offered by men of the town, and the origin of the legend of Scipio Freeman’s service in the American Revolution.

  But again, this is mostly how the 19th century historian would want us to see the story, a version propagated for so long that it became part of the community’s remembered history. It’s tempting to believe that Scipio and others willingly defended their master’s family property that day, but that may not be true.

 Thomas Allin was a man well regarded for his capacity to “break-in “ new enslaved men, or even those who were troublesome to their owners. A receipt from Nathanial Smith of Barrington written on January 26, 1790 records payment to Allin for punishing his enslaved man Caeser as “Allin thought fit”.

  Bicknell writes of the lives of some of those in Barrington who served and returned.

 Pomp Watson continued to live in Barrington after the war. According to local history, he married a woman called Doctoress Phyllis who religiously walked from Barrington to her home church in Swansea for the “feet-washing” ceremony, that was a popular reenactment in particular of early Baptist churches, of Christ washing the feet of the poor.

 Prince Allin married a woman named Henrietta “Writty” Brown. They had a son named Pero, who became a noted fiddler. He married a woman from the coast of Guinea, and they were attending members of the Congregational Church. The couple had seven children, Hannah, Clark, Rhenkin, Stephen, Olinda, Mary, and Lurane and lived on what was later named “Jenny’s Lane”. 

 Richard Allin and his wife Margaretta had eight children, Lydia, Richard, Ceaser, Theodore, Olive, Jemima, Sarah, and Charles. Town historian Thomas Bicknell would write that his family and their descendants were among the last people of color “to pass away from our midst, within the memory of those now living. They long outlived the period of slavery”. [xxxvii]

  Despite the appearance of acceptance within Barrington and other Rhode Island communities after the Revolutionary War, these veterans often remained marginalized, having to return to work for their old masters and others as well to earn a living. As white-washed as these histories often are in their acknowledgement of black heroes, their true stories are now being uncovered in pension files and in records and written recollections that are still coming to light today.

[i] Cranston, G.T. The Whole History of Rome Point The View From Swamptown, The Independent, December 2, 2018 http://independentri.com

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Bartlet, ed. Records of Providence Plantations and the State of Rhode Island Vol 3.

[iv] Independent, December 2, 2018

[v] Popek, Daniel M. They Fought Bravely…But Were Unfortunate: The True Story of the 1st Rhode Island Regiment 541

[vi] Cranston, G.T. The View From Swamptown: From Slaves to Soldiers, the Roome family left a legacy The Independent February 17, 2019

[vii] Grundset, Eric G. ed. Forgotten Patriots: African American and American Indian Patriots in the Revolutionary War (Washington D.C., National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution 2008) see Miscellaneous Naval Service Records, p. 655 See also Claims Barred by the Statutes of Limitation, 11thCongress, 3rd Session, No. 216 American State Papers, Vol. 9 (Washington D.C.: Gales and Seaton 1834), 397

[viii] Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, see Frigates: USS Queen of France. The American ship was named for Queen Antionette

[ix] An example of this are the deeds of sale concerning two enslaved workers owned by Thomas G. Hazard to Rebecka Martin reading in part “a certain Negro boy named Newport Martin now the property of Rebecka Martin…and the same for “a certain Negro woman named Bettey”. RIHS Mss 1026, Folder 14, Legal documents.

[x] Beriah Brown Papers, Box 4, Folder 7 Rhode Island Historical Society

[xi] Stattler, Rick Finding Aid Beriah Brown Papers

[xii] A desk that has resided for years in the small summer “law office” of Daniel Updike. Brown may not have known that he was related to the Updike’s through the marriage of Kathryn Updike Goddard whose family donated the desk to the historic house museum.

[xiii] Beriah Brown papers Box 3 Folder 6 1774

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] Popek, p. 450, 667-668

[xvii] Ibid.

[xviii] Beriah Brown Papers, Box  4 Folder 7 Rhode Island Historical Society

[xix] Popek, p. 665

[xx] Ibid, p. 423

[xxi] RIHS Mss 491, Box 2 Folder 2, Hopkins Papers Vol 1. (letterbook) 1776-1777

[xxii] Pension Application 339, National Archives.

[xxiii] Jack Darrell Crowder African Americans and American Indians in the Revolutionary War McFarland & Co. 2019 pp. 16-17

[xxiv] RIHS Mss 9001, Box 9

[xxv] Popek, 325

[xxvi] Grundset, 204

[xxvii] RIHS Mss 673 sg 2, Series 4, Subseries E, Box 3, Folder 101: Subscriptions for Bounty

[xxviii] Bicknell  p. 365

[xxix] Popek, 702

[xxx] Ibid., 716

[xxxi] Bicknell, Thomas History of the Town of Barrington, Rhode Island 409

[xxxii] Ibid., 362

[xxxiii] Ibid., 365

[xxxiv] Popek,  658=659

[xxxv] Geake, Robert A. New England’s Citizen Soldiers: Minutemen and Mariners The History Press 2019 p. 39

[xxxvi] Grandchamp, Robert From Fence to Fence: The Battles of Prudence Island Journal of the American Revolution Oct. 18, 2017

[xxxvii] Bicknell, 405

Murder in Wickford 1670 , Chapters VII - XI by James T. Murphy Esq.

Having been examined by the Assembly and having given his side of the story, the Council ordered that Flounders be “committed to close prison till next Generall Court of Tryalls…

VII.              The Matter of the Constables

But, the Council in Newport still had other items on its agenda that session. Specifically, the Connecticut-appointed Constables for Wickford, Samuel Eldridge and  John Cole.  The Council demanded of Eldridge to explain why he had interfered with Rhode Island’s Conservators of the Peace, Wilson and Bull. The Conservators had reported not only that Eldridge prevented them from “inquiring into the cause of the death of Walter House,” but also that they were told that if they succeeded in capturing the suspected murderer, Eldridge “would take him from them, and send him to Connecticut.” The Council had also been informed that Eldridge “warned” the Conservators that they must “serve on a jury in obedience to the Colony of Connecticut.” [2]

Eldridge did not deny any of these allegations. Instead, he admitted that “hee did soe act.” He said that he acted “in obedience to the Colony of Connecticut” and that the Conservators of the Peace had “nothing to do there” in Wickford. Instead of shipping Eldridge back to Connecticut without further ado, the Council ordered that he be held on “baile in the sum of twenty pounds to answer for his said acts at the next Generall Court of Tryalls in October next.”[3] If he did not post bail, he would have to “remain in durance [imprisoned] till that time.”

Bail was posted for Samuel Eldridge and he returned to Wickford, the front line of the dispute between Connecticut and Rhode Island. No doubt he was not chastened by his experience in Newport. 

His fellow arrestee, John Cole, was not so fortunate. When examined by the Rhode Island authorities in Newport, Cole at first denied that he had “yett taken an engagement to any office vnder Connecticut.” But he also made his sympathies clear, stating that he “did not know how soone hee might.” Cole “alsoe did owne that hee did forewarn” the Rhode Island conservators from acting in his Majesty’s name with respect to the murder investigation. Having heard this, the Council ordered that Cole be “committed to the Serjeant till next Court meet, or alsoe to putt in bayle in twenty pounds to answear for his said contempt.”[4]

Unfortunately for him, Cole was not able to post bail. Therefore, he would remain in jail at least until the October court session. He did not take this well.  Rhode Island Constable Henry Palmer, who had arrested Cole, later reported that Cole told him that his wife was very sick and that if she died, “hee would spend his whole estate but hee would bee revenged vpon him, the said Henry, for fetching him from Narragansitt” to Newport. Cole also threatened that as soon as he got home, he would “make a voyage to Connecticutt to take his engagement to the office which was proffered him.”[5]

News of the arrests of Eldredge and Cole by Rhode Island authorities quickly traveled to Connecticut. On July 21, 1670, the General Court of Connecticut assembled and learned details of Eldridge’s seizure by the Rhode Island authorities. It appointed Samuel Cheesebrough “Constable protempore” of the Narragansett country, specifically including Wickford.  John Allyn, secretary of the General Court also “empowerd” and ordered Cheesebrough to take “sufficient ayd and apprehend the persons” of Rhode Island’s constables Samuel Wilson and Thomas Mumford. This was to be a “tit-for-tat” response. Once seized, the Rhode Islanders were to be brought either to Stonington or to Wickford to answer for their “contempt” of the Connecticut colony.  Allyn added that it was Connecticut’s intention to let Rhode Island know that its “authority will not be baffled.” Nevertheless, he wisely cautioned the constable Cheeesebrough “to avoyd all hazard of shedding blood.”[6]

VIII.           Uncommon Common Sense

As Connecticut and Rhode Island escalated their jurisdictional brinksmanship – and as the possibility of peaceful debate darkened under clouds of potential violent conflict – one man questioned whether the “King’s Province” was a prize really worth pursuing. He was a Connecticut man, John Mason, from Norwich.[7]  Mason had a long history of service to his colony.  In the summer of 1670, Mason acted as an intermediary between Roger Williams and the Connecticut government regarding the boundary dispute between Rhode Island and Connecticut. On August 3, 1670, he wrote to Captain John Allyn and the other commissioners appointed to deal with the Rhode Island jurisdictional “business.”  He prefaced his letter with a reference to discussions he had with “Mr. [Roger] Williams” and others “of his sect.”  While Mason acknowledged that he personally was “apt” to believe that the “proper right of the Narragansett country belongs to Connecticut,” he offered some practical insights. These were along the lines of the age-old caution to “be careful what you wish for – you just might get it.”

Mason observed that when it came to attempting to interpret the intent of the competing royal charters, there was “much twisting in the matter.” Indeed, the interpretation might be “doubtful and uncertain.” Furthermore, management of the dispute risked the “effusion of blood.”  But his most compelling and common-sense argument was based on a cost-benefit analysis. Or, as Mason put it, “the toll may proue to be more than the grist.” If this was not clear enough, he suggested that “the wise man reckons the cost before hee builds his house.” In other words, he counseled that even if Connecticut was correct in its claim of right, the cost of enforcing its jurisdiction over the Narragansett Country would likely exceed the value of the territory it gained. As for the quality of the territory in issue, he described the land as being “barrane in the generall.” The best land was “already gone,” and “taken vp by severall men” in ffarmes and  large tracts of land. What was left, he described as nothing but “rocks, swamps and sand heaps.”

Mason also questioned whether the populace of the Narraganset Country was even suitable for governing, should Connecticut prevail in its jurisdictional quest.  In his view it was a territory inhabited by “a people that will come under noe government, neither ciuill or eclesiastic.”  He warned the commissioners that even if they succeded, there was “noe likelyhood of any tollerable Christianlike society to be settled amongst them.”  The risk to Connecticut was that great expenditures of time, money might gain them “a nothinge, nay truly, that which is worse than nothinge.”

Sensing that his colony of Connecticut might choose to pursue a litigious approach to the matter, Mason offered the example of two cases he personally knew of in England.  “The one of them cost many thousand pound, and seuerall men's lives. The other had cost many hundred pound, and was not issued nor like to be when I came out of England.”

Perhaps it was Mason’s well-reasoned letter that averted an escalation of the jurisdictional dispute to outright use of arms and bloodshed. Perhaps the authorities in both Rhode Island and Connecticut decided that discretion should be the better part of valor. In any event, a sort of cold-war wariness marked the relationship of the colonies over the next few months. At times it heated up to a simmer. While cautious to avoid violence, Connecticut and its agents and constables were equally loath to concede their jurisdictional claims over Wickford and the rest of the Narragansett Country. Connecticut had long repudiated the 1663 decision of a Board of Arbitrators in London, which set the boundary at the Pawcatuck River. Connecticut’s practical motivation was to secure as much territory as possible for the colony. The Assembly in Hartford already had a well-established expansionist reputation.  By 1670, Connecticut had laid claim to Long Island and parts of Massachusetts and had already absorbed the independently founded New Haven, Saybrook and Stonington lands into its governance before 1670.  

Of greater concern to Rhode Island, the Connecticut colony proceeded to establish the town of Wickford and appoint officers to oversee activity there.  Later, in 1674, on the eve of King Philip’s War, the Rhode Island General Assembly fortified its own claim by formally incorporating the town of King’s Towne in the Narragansett Country (present-day North Kingstown, South Kingstown, Narragansett and Exeter). It subsequently set the town’s boundaries in 1699. But it was not until 1703 that a Board of Commissioners finally upheld the arbitrators Decision of 1663. Thus, for decades the question of whether the boundary line between Connecticut and Rhode Island was the Pawcatuck River or Narragansett Bay remained in dispute. [8]

IX.        The Trial Date Approaches

As summer faded into autumn, the October court session in Newport approached. Thomas Flounders remained in jail. In their efforts to prepare for trial, the authorities approached Walter House’s widow, Mary, for assistance.  Governor Arnold, Captain John Cranston and William Carpenter “did issue under their hand fowre severall summonses.”[9] The summonses were directed to “certaine persones inhabiting at Narragansitt.” If timely served upon them, the summonses required the witnesses “to appear at the next Generall Court of Trialles … the 19th instant to give testimony on his Majesties behalf concerning the death of Walter House.”  

 The summonses were given to Mary House as “relick of Walter House, who did engage she would convey them as directed.”[10] No doubt she had a strong interest in securing the witnesses, who could assist in convicting her husband’s killer. As unorthodox as it may seem today – for the court to enlist a victim’s widow as process server – perhaps the prosecutors believed this to be an effective and diplomatic approach. At least it potentially could lessen the possibility of conflict between Rhode Island’s constables, such as Mumford and Gould, and Connecticut’s officials, who were still present in the Wickford area.

Whatever the intent of the Newport court officers, the Connecticut men had their own agenda. The records of the Court of Trials relate that a Connecticut agent, one “Capt. William Hudson of Boston, meeting with the said Mary House at Narragansitt… took said summonses from her.”[11]Nevertheless, the mill wheels of justice, though seemingly  meeting opposition, continued to grind.

X.          A Busy Day In Court

On October 19, 1670, the Court of Trials convened in Newport. The assemblage included Governor Arnold, Deputy Governor Easton, General Sergeant James Rogers and the colony’s Attorney General, John Sanford. The court record also identifies twelve “assistants” and other officials. A twelve-man grand jury was installed. Undoubtedly, several crimes were to be investigated during the session. The record also lists the members of several twelve-man petit juries that would hear and decide the various civil and criminal cases on the court’s docket.[12]

The jurors selected to sit on the murder case against Thomas Flounders included:

William Smiton

Peter Easton

John Pepodye

Thomas Cornall

John Almye

John Gorton

Edward Marshall

Richard Knight

Thomas Ward

Lieutenant John Albro

Ralph Earl

George Layton. [13]

Suffice it to say, for such a small colony – with such a decidedly small population – a proportionately great many people (all or mostly men) must have been on hand for the judicial proceedings.

The first trial of the day was a civil lawsuit. William Almye had filed an action against William Baulston for “unjust detaynure,” otherwise known as an eviction proceeding. The jury found for the defendant.

The next matters of substance on the docket involved three Connecticut men who had been indicted for unlawfully “exercising authority within this Jurisdiction not being Legally Called thereto.”  Two of these men were the aforementioned Connecticut constables, Samuel Eldred and John Cole. The third alleged officious interloper was John Frincke of Stonington.

Frincke had been arrested by Rhode Island constable James Badcock on June 7th and released on bail the following day, pending his trial. The jury convicted Frincke. Cole did not dispute the charge against him. Eldred pleaded “not guiltye and upon much debate the Court doth sentence him to be bound to appeare at the next court and in meane time to be of good behavior, &c.”  By the end of that day, all three men were released on bond and upon their promise that they would refrain from exercising any authority in the King’s Province on behalf of the Connecticut colony.[14]

After the Connecticut matters were adjudicated, the next item on the docket involved a recalcitrant – and apparently inconsistent – witness, John Porter of Pettaquamscutt, King’s Province. Porter had been summoned in the name of the governor to appear at the General Court of Trials “to give Evidence for the King Concearning the death of walter house &c.” Not having obeyed the summons to appear in person, he instead sent his “testimony written in such words as Renders [his] former and Later declaration to Clash one against the other…” The court’s concern was that if the written declaration were to “pose as Testimony in soe high Concerne [it] will Render the Court in a dangerous Condition and the matter Intracate beyond our power to Cleare it.”  Accordingly, the court issued an order requiring Porter “immediately” and “without delay” and “laying aside all excuses” to appear in Newport to give his testimony “personally in open Court.” The court also appointed Edward Richmond “high constable by special order” to go immediately to Porter’s house and bring him to the court. Special provision was made to ensure that High Constable Richmond had “saficient ayd” and  a “saficient boat” to accomplish the mission.[15]

Given the logistical hurdles confronting the high constable, it is doubtful that Porter ever timely appeared in court. For, that day also was the date scheduled for the murder trial of Thomas Flounders.  However, any delay in bringing John Porter to the courthouse did not interfere with the commencement of Flounder’s trial. The trial itself must have been brief, considering all the other legal business transacted in the court that same day. Certainly, the record of the proceedings is brief, as was the custom of the time. There is no transcript. There is no extant list of exhibits. No testifying witnesses are identified.

We can surmise no further than the scope of mere conjecture what evidence was presented at the trial. But we do know that when Flounders first appeared in court in July, he presented his own version of the events. We know that young Lodowick Updike was an eyewitness. Perhaps he testified at the trial. But did he help or hurt Flounders’ defense?  We know that Walter House’s body was exhumed and that the report of the Connecticut-appointed coroner’s jury indicated there were many more serious wounds than one would expect if Flounder’s story had any credibility. Perhaps one or more of the men who examined the corpse came to Newport and testified.

In 1670 England and its North American colonies an accused had no constitutionally guaranteed Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. There was no Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The burden of proof was not so much on the prosecution to prove its case “beyond a reasonable doubt” as upon the defendant to explain away the allegation. Without a transcript we can imagine, but never really know, what it was like for Thomas Flounders to stand in the dock while his trial unfolded before him.

The record of the trial court gives us only this slimmest of summaries:

 “Thomas Flounders being Indicted for felonioues murdering walter house Inhabetant in the Kings province on the 11 day of July 1670 by severall strockes or blowers &c and being Called before the Court and his Indictment Read before him and being asked whether guilty or not guiltye plead not guiltye and puts himselfe upon the Triall of god and the Country Juryes verdict guiltye of manslaughter.”[16]

The decision of the jury was unanimous. At first blush it might seem that Thomas Flounders had won a small, but important, victory. Although he was charged with murder, he was found guilty of the lesser offense of manslaughter. In modern times this outcome might have saved his life. But that was not the case in 1670.

In its earliest years, the General Court of Electors of the fledgling colony of Rhode Island met in Portsmouth and promulgated the “Acts and Orders of 1647.” In doing so, they consciously adopted the existing common law of England. The Acts and Orders specifically addressed such crimes as treason, murder and manslaughter (as well as whore-mongering, adultery and fornication). The crime of manslaughter was defined as “the killing of a man feloniously, to wit, with a man’s will but without malice-fore-thought.” For this crime of manslaughter, the law’s prescribed punishment was “death.” [17]

And so, it was ‘unanimously” adjudged that Flounders “be hanged until his body be dead.” The sentence was to be carried “executed” on Wednesday, November 2, 1670 between the hours of “nine in the morning and two in the afternoon.”[18]

A week later, the General Assembly of Rhode Island re-convened in Newport. There was much business on its agenda, including receipt of a letter from the Connecticut government in Hartford, dated October 18, 1670 – the day before Flounders’ trial, conviction and sentencing. Once again, the Connecticut authorities proclaimed their jurisdiction over the Narragansett Country. Once again, they complained about Rhode Island’s officers “entering into our jurisdiction and seizing our officers” who, Connecticut asserted, were simply “officiating [in] their respective places by our order.” The letter concluded with the following complaint:

“We haue only to add (to cleare our hands from blood) that we vnderstand  that one Flounders that hath committed murther (as is alleged) within our jurisdiction and is fled, is with you. Our hue and cry is out for him, and we desire you would take effectuall and speedy course that he be safely convaied into our jurisdiction and be deliuered to some officer that may conuey him to be secured to a legall tryall;  where he ought to be tried, which we judge to be but a neighborly duty.[19]

Needless to say, by the time Connecticut’s letter arrived, the accused prisoner already was being held securely in a Newport jail. The jury verdict finding Flounder guilty of manslaughter had already been rendered in a Rhode Island court. A Rhode Island judge had imposed the death penalty. The “legall tryall” sought by Connecticut had been fully preempted by her sister colony. Connecticut’s expressed concerns were moot.

XI.           Aftermath

On October 26, 1670, the Rhode Island assembly hammered the final legal nail into Flounders’ coffin – and in Connecticut’s plea. There would be no transfer of the prisoner to Connecticut (even if that would have saved his neck). There would be no appeal. There would be no reprieve. The General Assembly’s first item of business that day was to declare:

Whereas in our body of lawes, in that part concearning the administration of justice, there is a passage concearning such that are found guilty of death, to be reprieved vntil the next Court: this Assembly doe declare, for preventing mistakes and disputes about the matter, that the intent of that clause is only to give liberty in such case to the judges in the Court of Trialles for to reprieve if they see cause; but not to injoyne them soe to do, vnless they see reason.[20]

The Court of Trials saw no reason to grant a reprieve. Thus, Thomas Flounders’ fate was sealed. His rendezvous with death remained scheduled for November 2, 1670.

In the meantime, there were some important housekeeping matters that required the General Assembly’s attention. First, the Assembly was cognizant of English statutory law by which the estate of a condemned man would be “forfitted vnto our Soveraigne Lord, the King.” It also believed that the royal grant to the Colony of Rhode Island gave it “the free disposall of all such fines and forfeitures.” Therefore, it ordered that all of Flounders’ estate be seized by the General Treasurer, John Coggeshall. The estate would then be disposed of by the Assembly “for defraying the charges that hath necessarily arisen in and about the apprehending, imprisoning, trying and executing the said Thomas Flunders, alias Flounders.”[21]

This was, in fact, done. On January 30, 1671, the governor and magistrates of the colony met in Newport. The specific purpose of the meeting was to address and allow “the severall debts due from the Collony to particular persons.” Many of these debts related to the boundary dispute between Connecticut and Rhode Island, including the expenses incurred for lodging, boats, horses and other items necessary for the diplomatic missions.  Other debts were specific to the Flounders/House murder case. For example, Nathaniel Dickens was ‘allowed” four shillings for his service to the colony in the matter. This was “to be paid out of the Thomas Flounders estate.”  A Sergeant Rogers was to be reimbursed from the estate for costs he incurred in the amount of thirty shillings (approximately $415 in 2023 U.S. currency).[22] In all likelihood, he was Flounders jailer.  Similarly, John Coggeshall was to be paid ten shillings from the estate. [23]

But, what about the widows?  There is no record of any money from Flounders’ estate ever being paid to Mary House.

As to Sarah Flounders, action on her behalf was initiated quickly, even before the execution date. Her father, John Greene, of Potowomut and Edward Greenman of Newport, who was a Deputy to the General Assembly, petitioned the Assembly on her behalf.  The Assembly was receptive, “commiserating the solitary and poore estate and condition of Sarah, the late wife of the forenamed … Flounders, give all the remainder of the said estate unto the said poore widow, for the reliefe and comfort of her and her poore infant… and farther doe order, that… she shall have all the bedding and household stuffe, and one cow and one hogge, together with the corne ... and the remainder of the rest afterward.”[24]

The name and age of Sarah’s “poore infant,” once known, has been lost to history. It may well be that the child did not long survive.

Sarah’s sad story did not end with the death of her husband Thomas or the loss of her infant child. Within two years of the trial, Sarah remarried. Her new husband was a Pettaquamscutt farmer named Joshua Tefft.  In 1672 Sarah gave birth to their son, Peter Tefft. The child survived, but within two days Sarah died – probably of childbirth fever. She was buried in Warwick. In January, 1676, in the midst of King Philip’s War, her widowed second husband, Joshua, was wounded and captured by the Providence militia while fighting alongside a band of Canonchet’s Narragansett forces. Tefft was tried by court-martial for high treason, convicted  and then hanged, drawn and quartered in Wickford.[25]

As for Thomas Flounders, he met his fate, on time and as decreed. He was hanged in Newport on November 2, 1670. His grave is not listed in the database of Rhode Island Historic Cemeteries.[26]  He may have been interred in one of Newport’s burial grounds, such as the Common Burial Ground, without a headstone or, at best, an uninscribed stone to mark his grave.

Finally, the ill-fated Thomas Flounders, has his own special, if not infamous, place in Rhode Island history. He is remembered as the very first person to be prosecuted and hanged for a crime committed within what are now the settled boundaries of Rhode Island.[27] Forty-seven others followed, including pirates (32), murderers (9) and assorted other felons. The last execution in Rhode Island was in 1845, when John Gordon, an Irish Catholic, was hanged for the murder of industrialist Amasa Sprague. The trial and execution took place during a time of anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic hysteria. The likely miscarriage of justice resulting in his execution was a motivating factor in Rhode Island’s abolishment of the death penalty in 1852.[28]

With respect to the boundary dispute between Connecticut and Rhode Island, one would think that the 1664 decree issuing from King Charles himself would have ended the matter. But it did not. Fortunately, the dispute between the two colonies, though tense, never erupted into armed conflict or partisan bloodshed.  

 Arguably, the events surrounding the death of Walter House and the apprehension and trial of Thomas Flounders mark the high water mark of this colonial-era territorial disagreement.  Perhaps the observations and counselling of John Mason convinced the leaders of Connecticut that the cost of the “toll” exceeded the value of the “grist.”  Eventually, in 1728, the dispute concerning the border between Westerly, Rhode Island and Stonington, Connecticut was settled, with the Pawcatuck River being the agreed upon dividing line, at least that portion nearest the sea. But it was not until 1746 that Connecticut finally accepted the boundary terms as laid out in Rhode Island’s royal charter.[29]

The historical “what if” question presented by the events of 1670 is this: What if Thomas Flounders turned himself in to the Connecticut authorities instead of being brought to those sitting in Newport, Rhode Island? Thomas Flounders most likely would have been tried and hanged in Connecticut following conviction by a Connecticut jury.  But that is not the only “what if.”

What if the “hue and cry” arising from Walter House’s brutal death had resulted in Thomas being apprehended and taken into custody by the Connecticut constables while they were attempting to exercise their authority in Wickford? What if Governor Arnold and his deputies and General Assembly had acquiesced to the demands of the Connecticut government and turned Flounders over to that other colony’s jurisdiction? What if Connecticut set up its court in Wickford and installed its judges and magistrates there?  What if the counsel of calmer and wiser men like John Mason had been in vain? What if Rhode Island chose forbearance instead of resistance? Would any of these have resulted in sufficient precedent by which Connecticut could declare itself the de facto jurisdictional master of the Narragansett Country?

What if? – By asking these questions and by formulating potential answers to them, we can perhaps see how easily history could have turned. The Connecticut flag might fly today over the village of Wickford and over all of what was once known as the King’s Province in the Narragansett Country.  Rhode Island’s own Washington County, comprising roughly one-third of the state’s land mass, might be known today as Washington County, Connecticut. The loss of so much land, so much population and so much jurisdiction may have proven fatal to the long-term survival of the smallest colony – indeed there might never have been a “State” of Rhode Island. And so, the events surrounding and arising from the 1670 murder in Wickford can be seen as having significant and complex long-term consequences.

For us today, trying to discern how seemingly small events of the past can actually trigger larger historic developments, another question remains. How do our own actions on what may seem to start out as an ordinary day potentially have significant impact on the larger world? How does what we do today affect our tomorrows? Perhaps these are questions to ask ourselves the next time we walk into a local shop on a sunny summer’s day.

[1] Ibid.

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid at pp. 342-344.

[4] Ibid. at p. 343.

[5] Ibid.  The colonial records also document that Henry Palmer’s report was corroborated, at least in part, by one William Moore.

[6] Ibid at pp. 347-348.

[7] John Mason was a leading citizen of the Connecticut Colony.  Born in England, he emigrated to Massachusetts Bay Colony and thence to Connecticut. He served as a military officer during the Pequot War, was a former Deputy Governor of the colony and was founder of the town of Norwich. He passed away in 1672.  See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mason_(c._1600%E2%80%931672)#:~:text=John%20Mason%20(October%201600%20%E2%80%93%20January,known%20as%20the%20Mystic%20Massacre.

[8] “Rhode Island Boundaries 1636-1936,” John Hutchins Cady, Rhode Island Tercentenary Commission, Rhode Island State Planning Board, 1936 at pp 10-13.

[9]  Records of the Court of Trialls. at p. 351.

[10] Ibid.  According to Black’s, supra, at p. 1404, a relick, or more properly, “relict” is defined as a “surviving spouse, esp., a widow.”

[11] Records of the Colony of Rhode Island at p. 351.

[12] Ibid at pp. 94-109.

[13] Ibid at p. 97. Five other juries were empaneled for the October 19th session. Several men, but by no means all, served on more than one jury that day.

[14] Ibid at pp. 96-97.

[15] Records of the Court of Trials at p. 100.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Acts and Orders of 1647, General Court of Electors, held at Portsmouth 19, 20 and 21 May, 1647 at p. 4.  Emphasis supplied.

[18] Record of the Court of Trialls, at p. 98.

[19] Records of the Colony, pp.355-57.

[20] Ibid, at pp. 356-57.

[21] Ibid. at pp 363-64.

[22] See, Calculator, supra.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid.  

[25] Joshua Tefft was interrogated before Roger Williams in Providence shortly after his capture. His story was recorded by Williams in a letter to Massachusetts Bay Colony’s  Governor Leverett, dated January 14, 1676. See “The Complete Writings of Roger Williams” Vol. 6,  (Wipf &Stock, Eugene, Oregon, 2007) at pp. 379-84. Tefft’s activity during the Great Swamp massacre and his trial and execution were documented by Captain James Oliver of Massachusetts in a letter. See, George Madison Bodge, “Soldiers in King Philip’s War,” (Boston, 1906) at pp. 174-75.

[26] See, www.rihistoriccemeteries.org.

[27] http://smallstatebighistory.com/list-of-executions-in-rhode-island-1670-to-1845/

[28] Ibid.

[29] https://seewesterly.com/the-pawcatuck-river-and-the-colonial-border-conflict/#_ftn1

Murder in Wickford-1670...Parts IV - VI by James T. Murphy

IV.             The Cold War of the Constables

The escalating cold-war between the two colonies prompted a meeting of Rhode Island’s governor, Benedict Arnold, with his council (being “all the magistrates of the Island, at Newport”) on July 20, 1670. The assembly determined that it had sufficient“information that some persons vnder pretence of authority audibly read in the presence of the people there assembled. from his Majesties Colony of Conecticott, are goeing about to erect a Court, or to exercise jurisdiction within the Nayhantick and Narragansitt countries granted vnto the Governor and Company of this his Majesties Colony.” The Council empowered its constables, Thomas Gould and Thomas Mumford, amongst others, to go to forthwith to the Narragansett Country “with all possible speed.” Once there, the constables were to find out if there were any persons “exercising jurisdiction vnder pretence of any such authority derived from the Colony of Conecticot.”   Upon encountering any such interlopers, the constables were duty bound to “require them to leave off such actions which are contrary to his Majesties express will and pleasure.”[1]

In the event any Connecticut person refused this demand and continued to “persist in such illegal proceedings,” the constables were directed to “seize such persons and bring them before vs or some other Generall Assistant or Assistants of this Colony, to be proceeded against according to law.” Recognizing the possibility that the intruders from Connecticut might “by force resist,” Constables Gould and Mumford were instructed not to engage in violence but rather to deliver a prepared “prohibition” or pre-prepared proclamation, “audibly read in the presence of the people there assembled.”[2]Governor Arnold then ordered the Sergeant to procure a boat, belonging to Robert Carr, and to hire two men, Thomas Langford and Jacob Pender, to transport the constables to the mainland.[3]

While the Rhode Island government was meeting, Connecticut’s was moving– specifically, to Wickford.[4]   Its purpose was to set up the apparatus of government there, populated by Connecticut agents and local sympathizers. In a document “dated in Wickford, June 20, 1670,” and “published” there on the following two days, Connecticut’s commissioners Allyn, Richards and Winthrop proclaimed their intent: “That the General Court of Connecticut thought it good to renew and establish gouernment againe in the sayd country, and haue commissionated us to attend and effect the same, whoe doe see cause to declare you the inhabitants of Wickford, to be under the gouernment of his Majesties Colony of Conecticat, and by authority of the aforesayd Court, we doe require you in his Majesties nameto yeild due obedience to the sayd gouernment of Conecticutt, whoe will be careful to establish necessary officers amongst you, that so you may haue equall justice administered to you and may be countenanced in ways of godliness and honesty, and enjoy your just rights without disturbance.”[5]

On June 21, Connecticut agents rode along the “King’s Highway” (Post Road) to “warne the people of Wickford” that they should attend a meeting at Captain William Hudson’s farm. Hudson was a Connnecticut partisan. Along the way they encountered Constable Mumford, who seized them, so that they could be brought in to answer to the Rhode Island authorities. Commissioners Allyn, Richards and Winthrop promptly complained that Mumford “hath assaulted and detained two of our men whoe were inoffensiuely rideing on the King's highway.” They further complained that “upon demand, you seem to deny them to our messengers.” Then the Commissioners added: [We] inform you, that as we doe undoubtedly declare you (being within the Narraganset country) to be under the gouernment of Connecticut Colony, and we are commissionated by the Generall Assembly to settle gouernment in these parts, which worke we are now about.” Finally, protesting the “insolency” of the Rhode Islanders, they demanded that it “deliver up our men” or face the consequences. [6]

On June 29, 1670, just days before Walter House’s death, the Rhode Island General Assembly met again. At least 32 men were present in an official capacity, including Deputy Governor Nicholas Easton, ten assistants (including Roger Williams and Captain John Greene) and twenty deputies (including John Clarke). This is a remarkable collection of individuals, considering that the total population of Rhode Island in 1670 is estimated to have been only 2,155 souls.[7]The agenda was long and included several administrative matters. One item, however, was momentous. It would, if carried through, likely lead to a resolution of Rhode Island’s territorial dispute with Connecticut.

The General Assembly took up this item, “to take care for present defence against the violent intrusiones and invations then made vpon the libertyes of the Collonye, in the King's Province, by Connecticut.” It decided the best approach was to send agents to England to bring the dispute directly to the Crown for resolution.  Governor Benedict Arnold was elected to serve as the agent. Physician John Clarke, who had previously traveled to England to obtain the colonial charter, was named as alternate, as was John Greene. This effort would involve great expense for the colony and the assembly determined that three hundred pounds would be needed. Each of the colony’s various towns (Providence, Newport, Portsmouth, Warwick, Block Island, “Canonicut,” and “Pettaquamscott” was subject to an assessment. Westerly, sitting on the Pawcatuck River and at the very boundary line asserted by Rhode Island, was exempted from contributing. Pettaquamscutt’s share was only sixteen pounds, a judicious assessment not only because of its sparse population but also because of Connecticut’s designs upon it. The General Assembly also voted to send yet another letter of protest to Connecticut. There is no record of that letter or that Rhode Island’s agent ever actually set foot aboard a ship bound for England and the King. 

V.          Competing Investigations

This was the unstable state of affairs between Rhode Island and Connecticut as June transitioned into July. The epicenter was Wickford, in the disputed “King’s Province,” It was then, in early July, 1670, when Walter House’s death in Wickford was discovered and the “hue and cry” went out for the apprehension of Thomas Flounders.  Immediately, a dispute arose over which colony – Connecticut or Rhode Island – had jurisdiction not only over the criminal investigation into facts of the homicide but also with respect to the apprehension and trial of its perpetrator. The winner of this dispute would de factohave a much stronger argument in favor of its boundary and governance claims.

One of the first documented references to the crime is found in a report dated “Narragansett, 11 or 12 day of July, 1670.”[8]Subscribed by Constable Samuel Eldredge, John Cole and eight other Connecticut-leaning Wickford residents. It was delivered to Thomas Stanton, Connecticut’s sergeant for the disputed lands east of the Pawcatuck.[9]  The letter informed Stanton that “[a] sad accident has befallen the towne of Wickford, in Connecticut Colynye.”[10]Specifically, the “accident” was that Walter House was “murthered” by Thomas Flounders, “as we all heare.”  The cause of House’s death was determined following an examination of the body and it was attested to by the signatories to the report. They found a "hole strucke in the fore parte of his head, and seuerall other bruises ; oneupon his left arme, another bruise upon his backe, which wee judge to be the cause of his death.” [11]

Word of the alleged murder reached the Rhode Island government in Newport on July 13th.  Samuel Wilson and Jireh Bull, Conservators of the Peace[12]in the King’s Province, crossed over to the island and met with Governor Arnold, his Deputy Governor and their Assistants. Wilson and Bull reported that a man was “slain in the said Province, and within this Colony, who hath been illegally and disorderly buried by some persons without the view of a Coroner or inquest.”[13]The governor and his council felt it “necessary that the corps be viewed” so that there could be a “just proceeding” in such an important matter.[14]Accordingly, the Assembly ordered that Henry Palmer, the Constable of Newport, be appointed “high Constable” and that he go to the Narragansett Country as soon as possible, Immediately upon arrival there, the constable was to notify Samuel Wilson, Conservator of the Peace and “Coroner in his behalf,” as well as Conservator of the Peace Jireh Bull, that they both were to “repaire forthwith” to the spot where Walter House was buried. There, House’s body was to be exhumed and “a juries inquest to pass thereon.”[15]

The Assembly also ordered High Constable Palmer to “vse his vtmost indeavor to apprehend the person or persons suspected to be guilty” of the death of Walter House. The instructions in this regard included authorizing him to “break open any house or place” where any suspect might be believed to be hiding. [16]

No doubt mindful of the ongoing struggle with Connecticut generally over governance of the King’s Province and more acutely the events occurring in Wickford, the Assembly took action. It empowered the High Constable to “apprehend the persons that did interrupt the Conservators of the Peace in the lawful discharge of their trust,” presumably with respect to their initial efforts to investigate the case. [17]  In this regard, Henry Palmer was authorized to bring these persons before the Governor and Magistrates in Newport to “answer their said contempt” of the Crown. Likewise, Palmer was “empowered and required” to arrest anyone else who attempted to “interrupt or hinder the execution of this order…”[18]

But, while Samuel Wilson and Jireh Bull were meeting with the Governor and his Council in Newport, Connecticut’s Constable Samuel Eldredge was busy in Wickford, penning another missive to his superior, Thomas Stanton, of Connecticut.[19]In this letter, Eldredge recounted events that had occurred in Wickford earlier that day. No doubt these events propelled Wilson and Bull to pay their visit to the Governor. The events are described by Eldredge in his own colorful and biased prose. He reported that Wilson, Bull and Thomas Mumford “with his black stafe” came into Wickford intent on empaneling a coroner’s jury to examine the body of Walter House. Eldredge reportedly told them “they had nothing to doe heare to panill a jury…” However, he offered that “if they would loke upon the corps they mite, which seuerill of them did.” Then, according to Eldredge, the Rhode Island contingent commanded him, along with John Cole and several others, to serve “as a jury man upon the inquest.” Eldredge and his confederates refused, “as we war under Conittycut.” Instead, Eldredge commanded that Wilson, Bull, Mumford and their companions serve on the coroner’s jury under Connecticut’s jurisdiction. Each side claimed that its commands were made “in his Majesties name.” Or, as Eldredge so eloquently put it: “Soe theare was myty commanding in his Majestys name one both sides, and myty threatening of carrying to jayl; in soe much that neither partis could twelfe men one a side”[20]

The Rhode Island peace officers then decided to empanel a coroner’s jury with less than twelve men, if need be, and proceed with the inquest with as few as six. At this point, the Connecticut men took preventive action. – “[T]the dores were shet wheare the corps was.”  The Rhode Islanders called the people present “to bare witness tht they were obstructed in thare power and commande us in his Majisties name not to berie the man,” at least not until they had spoken with their “masters” in Newport. Notwithstanding, Eldredge reported that he and his colleagues “proceeded, and beried the man…”[21]Whether the burial was occasioned by pure spite or by a disinclination to leave an un-embalmed corpse lying in a closed-up shed in mid-July is not disclosed in the letter.

Lastly, Eldredge’s letter informed Stanton that he and his men “haue searched for the murtherer, but cannot find him and therefore would intreat you to send out after him and send sum this this way, for we haue neuer an ofeser here to grant me one…. fore we  are in greater trobil than euer we were, and like to be in wors…”[22]

On July 15thHigh Constable Henry Palmer returned to Newport, bringing with him as prisoners not only Connecticut’s Wickford constables, Eldredge and Cole, but also the prime suspect, Thomas Flounders. Governor Arnold informed Flounders that he was brought in to be examined on “a very sad matter” involving the death of “one of his Majesties subjects named Walter House.” [23]

VI.       Thomas Flounders’ Story

When Flounders asked who accused him of the crime, the governor told him that he was accused by “twelve men.” Flounders said there was a witness named “Lodowick Vandicke,” who was present in the shop at the time of the “difference” between him and Walter House. Asked if he had any “scuffling” with House, Flounders replied that House was at his shop. “When hee went out hee gauve him very bad words.” Then, Flounders was asked if “any blows passed betweene them,” Flounders said he “thought hee struck him one blow.” Perhaps referencing the presence of Mr. Vandicke, the prisoner was asked if he “suspected any other person to bee guilty of his death.”  Flounders brief response was “noe” [24]

The examination continued. With no Constitutional Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and no Sixth Amendment right to counsel, Flounders continued to answer questions. When asked if he struck only one blow, Flounders responded, “but one blow, and that with a small stick.” He added that Walter House was “holding vp his arme, the said House fell backward and hit his head against a rafter.”[25]

Flounders also told the Governor and Council that “House was at the doore about the threshold and he himselfe was in the shop” when he struck him. When asked if he had a “fork stale in his hand,” Flounders replied. “noe.” Rather, he claimed it was “a little stick.” And, he then “laid down the stick and that Lodowick did not take it from him.” [26]

The inquiry then shifted to the issue of motive. Flounders was asked about “the reason of their quarrel.” He said it “was about some language.” Walter House told Flounders that he had “taken an oath against him in Warwicke before the Deputy Governor, and that was the discourse between them.”  The nature and purpose of the “oath” was not described in the records. Flounders also said that House “provoked him with some other bad language,” which he was not able to recall. [27]

In this respect, there is some evidence that may supplement, perhaps contradict  or, alternatively explain, the nature of the quarrel. In an addendum to a letter from Thomas Stanton to John Allyn, Secretary of Connecticut, dated July 14, 1670, is the following note: “We can give you no further information concerning the murther other [than that it was] about a pees of medow; and an ould grudge between them.” [28]

A “pees of medow” would have been valuable real estate in 1670. The Wickford area’s terrain was and still is a land of swampy wetlands, rocky outcrops, piles of boulders and other geological features left behind in the terminal moraine as the last ice age receded.

It is quite possible that the dispute between the two men related to ownership or other conflicting rights to use a particular tract of meadowland in the Wickford area. Considering that two different colonies were actively asserting legal authority over the area, it also is conceivable that House was “forum shopping,” hoping to gain some advantage by invoking Rhode Island’s jurisdiction (and thereby its statutory and common law principles) by “taking an oath” in Warwick, whereas Flounders may have sought a perceived advantage under Connecticut law. This, of course, while plausible is nevertheless conjectural. It is especially interesting considering that both men were signatories to petitions seeking Connecticut’s governance of the Narragansett Country. But was Flounders still a supporter of Connecticut?

If, indeed, the quarrel that escalated to deadly violence was triggered by House giving an “oath” to the Deputy Governor in Warwick, it would perhaps have worked to Flounders’ benefit to have the dispute resolved there. After all, his father-in-law was Captain John Greene of that town. Then again, this may have led to ungentlemanly and provocative comments by House about Flounders’ wife, Sarah.

During his examination, Flounders was asked “why hee hid himselfe” from the authorities after House’s death. He replied, that he hid because he heard that Mr. Eldridge “with some others were out to take him.” He added that he was “loath to goe whither they intended to take him; which as hee was informed was toward Connecticut.”[29]Perhaps, Thomas Flounders changed his allegiance some time after he and Walter House jointly signed the petition asking Connecticut to take over the reins of government in Wickford.

Having been examined by the Assembly and having given his side of the story, the Council ordered that Flounders be “committed to close prison till next Generall Court of Tryalls.”[30]

[1]Records of the Court of Trialsat 322.

[2]Ibidat 333.

[3]Ibid at 335.

[4]Perhaps only legend, and certainly not well documented, there is a story that “Wickford” got its name as a result of a visit by Connecticut’s governor, John Winthrop and his wife, the former Elizabeth Reade  to  Richard Smith, Jr. at Cocumscussoc. Smith was trying to curry favor with Connecticut at the time. Mrs. Winthrop commented that the area around Smith’s Castle reminded her of her home-town in England. Smith asked her the name of the town. When she replied, “Wickford,” Mr. Smith told her that he would henceforth call the village “Wickford” in her honor. What the story may lack in documentation, it has in plausibility. Governor Winthrop wanted to extend jurisdiction over the area. Smith was willing to accommodate him. And, Elizabeth Winthrop was born in the village of Wickford, Essex, England in 1615. See, www.https://wikitree.com/wiki/Reade-50.

[5]Ibidat p. 321.

[6]Ibid at pp. 321-322.

[7]En.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony _of_Rhode_Island_and Providence_Plantations.

[8]The report is contained in the Records of the Colony, Vol, II at pages 343-344. Thomas Stanton and Thomas Minor certified that it was “a true coppie of the originall, taken out and compared by us this 14thof July, 1670.”

[9]Thomas Stanton’s office of “sergeant” was conferred by the Connecticut Commissioners, Allyn, et al.  on June 23, 1670.  A “sergeant” in the historical sense, was a bailiff or other government appointed officer “performing duties for the Crown.”  Blacks at p.1489.

[10]Records of the Colony, Vol. II, p.343-344.

[11]Ibid.

[12] A “conservator of the peace,” also known as a “peace officer” is a “civil officer (such as a sheriff or police officer) appointed to maintain public tranquility and order; esp., a  person designated by public authority to keep the peace and arrest persons guilty or suspected of crime.” Black’s, at p. 1245.

[13]Records of the Colony, Vol. II, at p. 340.                   

[14]Ibid at p. 340-341.

[15]Ibid. The Assembly also ordered Richard Baily to “goe over to Narragansett and to be assistant to the Coroner…”

[16]Ibid.

[17]Ibid. Italics supplied for emphasis.

[18]Ibid.

[19]Letter from Samuel Eldredge to Thomas Stanton, Narragansett, 13 July, 1670. Records of the Colony at p.344.

[20]Ibid.

[21]Ibid.

[22]Ibid.

[23]Records of the Colony, Vol. IIat p. 341.

[24]Ibid.The “Lodowick Vandicke” mentioned by Flounders is, no doubt, Lodowick Updike, nephew of Richard Smith, and later proprietor of Smith’s Castle at Cocumscussoc and  developer of “Updike’s New Towne” in what is now known as historic Wickford, Rhode Island.”

[25]Ibid.

[26]Ibid.

[27]Ibid.

[28]Records of the Colony, Vol. II at p. 346.

[29]Records of the Colony, Vol II, at p. 342.

[30]Ibid.

A MURDER IN WICKFORD – 1670 Justice and Jurisdictional Conflict in Colonial Rhode Island

Parts I-III By James T. Murphy

I.              Hue and Cry

On July 11, 1670 in the small village of Wickford in the Narragansett Country of Rhode Island, Walter House walked into the shop of Thomas Flounders. The two men spoke. And then they argued. The argument turned to blows. Flounders struck House with a piece of wood. At the conclusion of the argument, Walter House lay dead. Thomas Flounders decided to lay low.  House’s corpse was buried quickly, without ceremony and without notice to the authorities. But there was an eyewitness and the hastily dug grave was quickly discovered. A “hue and cry” issued throughout the Narragansett Country for the apprehension of Flounders and for a forensic examination of the body.[1]

The homicide occurred not only in the heat of a summer’s day, but also in the midst of a hotly contested jurisdictional dispute between Rhode Island and the neighboring colony of Connecticut. Both colonies claimed the Narragansett Country as being within the grant of their respective royal charters. Both asserted the right to appoint and install their own constables, magistrates, judges and other officials within the disputed territory – to the exclusion of the other colony’s rights. The epicenter of this conflict was Wickford. The colony that could successfully apprehend, investigate, arrest and prosecute the suspected murderer would have a strong precedential argument in support of its jurisdictional claim. This conflict would impact heavily on the murder case. It also is the first recorded case in Rhode Island in which an accused man faced execution on the gallows. It is a story that truly is unique in the history of American justice.

Map of Rhode Island Area Circa 1670

II.          Background To a Crime

The exact location of Thomas Flounder’s Wickford shop is not known. The “Narragansett Historical Register”in 1883 noted the place where Thomas Flounders killed Walter House “is believed to be between Thomas Holloway’s house and Jeremiah Carpenter’s on the north side of the road and a little east of the Town House.” The Wickford “Town House,” however, was built in 1806, over 135 years after the homicide. It was located at what is now 136 West Main Street in Wickford. The structure was built by William Holloway on land given by James and Daniel Updike earlier that year. [2]But, the Registeralso opines that “[i]t is far more likely to have taken place somewhere between Richard Smith’s house and the Devil’s foot.” [3]The Register’s“opinion” therefore would place Flounders’ shop somewhere along the old Pequot Path, now known as Post Road. It was the major thoroughfare of the 1600’s.

The eyewitness to the homicide was a twenty-four year-old young man identified in the records as one “Lodowick Vandicke.”[4]  His father, Gysbert op den Dyck, was a native of Prussia who immigrated to New Amsterdam. There, Gysbert met and married Katherine Smith.  She was the sister of Richard Smith, Jr., proprietor of the trading post at Smith’s Castle and adjoining lands near Cocumscussoc.[5]When Smith died childless, his nephew – now known to us as Lodowick Updike – inherited his uncle’s demesne and platted what is today the village of Wickford.

Walter House and Thomas Flounders were no strangers to each other. The day of the crime was not the first time they met. However, little is known of the backgrounds of these two men or the cause of their dispute that fateful day. We have no sufficient description of their lives to support even a briefly detailed biography of either man. But though scant, there is enough evidence to draw some broad outlines. These outlines are colored by the place and time in which they lived.

The date and place of Walter House’s birth are unknown. Thomas Flounders likely was born in 1644, somewhere in what is now Rhode Island. He would have been twenty-six years-old at the time of the killing.[6]

Both Walter House and Thomas Flounders were married men. House’s wife was named Mary.[7]Next to nothing is known about her. Other than a record relating to the prosecution of Flounders, which mentions that summonses were delivered to widow House, and a note that she died in Wickford sometime “after 1670,” Mary’s identity likely would not even be known.[8]

Thomas Flounders’ wife was Sarah. She was the daughter of John Greene, Jr. (otherwise known as “Major Greene,” of the Potowomut area of Warwick, Rhode Island. He was an important man, at one time being appointed a commissioner to “treat” or negotiate with the neighboring colony of Connecticut. At another time he was selected for possible travel to England to protect the colony’s interests. Later, in 1690, Greene would become Deputy Governor of the colony. He was born in Salisbury, Wiltshire, England in 1620.[9] In 1648, Greene married Ann Almy. Together they had eleven children.[10]  However, Sarah was not one of them. She likely was John Greene’s first-born, but born outside of marriage. Sarah’s birth-mother’s name, once known to her contemporaries, has been forgotten. She is remembered in history and genealogies as being a Wampanoag woman. Sarah, her daughter, must have lived a complicated life. While there is no evidence that her parents were ever married to each other, the records do make clear that her father maintained an ongoing affection for Sarah. For example, according to the proceedings of the “Court of Tryalls Held for the Collony at Newport,” [11]in 1668 Sarah was called to present herself to the court to answer a charge of fornication. This was considered a serious crime at the time, punishable by whipping and a fine of forty shillings.[12]On at least three occasions, Sarah failed to appear in court, despite a bond being posted by one Samuel Wayte. Finally, the court records relate:

Sarah Greene alias Flounders being mandamus to appeare to answer for fornication and her father John Greene being called to Informe the Court why his  Daster did not appeare.  And doth say that it is not out of contempt to the Court but by reson of shortness of time and multiplisitye  of business, etc. and the said John Greene on his Daster’s behalf Doth Confese that shee is guilty of fornication and Doth promise to answer the Law in that Case provided on the case of Sarah Greene alias Sarah Flounders, John Greene her father came before the Court and did Ingage that he would pay unto the Treasurer fortye Shillings in Corrent pay of the Collony[13]as the Law Requires for fornication.[14]

         The reference in the records to Sarah’s “alias” identity as “Flounders” suggests that by some point in 1668 she and Thomas were married. It also suggests that he was the individual with whom she allegedly committed fornication. If so, the crime would have occurred before their marriage, as fornication by definition is “voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarriedpersons.”[15]In 1670 Sarah gave birth to a child, although it is not clear whether the infant was conceived before or after their marriage. The name and gender of this child, and whether he or she even survived beyond infancy is not known.

         These circumstances and the support of her father may have mitigated her alleged sexual transgression in the eyes of the court.[16]There is no indication that Sarah ever had to undergo a whipping.

         While it is possible that Sarah was the subject of heated discussion and disputation on the day of House’s death – and while possible that House may have uttered words about Sarah’s chastity or the circumstances of her own birth that enraged Thomas Flounders and propelled him to violence – we will never know if this was the spark of animus.

         Neither House nor Flanders was a stranger to the courts or judicial proceedings.  For instance, on September 19, 1667, Samuel Gorton and Captain Randall Houldon, both of Warwick, filed a lawsuit against Walter House of Narragansett.[17]The plaintiffs sought £200 in damages for House’s “unjust detinue.” [18]  Whether or not he was actually a thief, the Jury found for defendant House. It “declared the general ground for their Verdict was an order that they not “medell with particular titles to land.”[19]The judge, after he “perused the contents… of sayd order,” found it not to be “consistent to the jury.” He reversed the verdict, finding that House “elegaly detained” property from the plaintiffs for two years. Nevertheless, the judge suspended entry of the judgment due to the assertion by seven jurors that the foreman acted contrary to the jury’s charge “not to disclose one another’s secrets.” The case of Gorton v. House seems to have ended in suspension.  Court records contain no further references to it. Perhaps the parties wisely decided to settle their differences outside court, rather than to rely on the uncertainty of judicial proceedings.

         Likewise, Thomas Flounders had his own experiences with legal process in colonial Rhode Island.  In August, 1669, Governor Arnold and members of his General Council met “upon an extraordinary occasion” to address certain complaints against a man variously named “Shawawgonoush,” “Suckwanash” and “Sawagonett.” (hereinafter, Sawagonett”)[20] The context, gleaned from the records, shows that the principal reason for the Council’s meeting was a perceived threat to the Colony of Rhode Island, “touching on the alarum of the country upon the suspition of the Indians to cut of the English.” [21]The Council, “having the peace of the Colony before them, in a very high respect,” sent out an order that Sawagonett and “Nenecraft” (likely Ninigret, Sachem of the Eastern Niantics) were “desired to appear… and give satisfaction” of their intentions. They complied and made the trip to Newport.

         The records show that “Thomas fflounders” also was “sent for” or summoned to “come over” and appear before the Council in Newport.  Proceedings were delayed for a day or two before he presented himself.  Although the records lack specifics, it appears that Flounders “exhibited his complaint against said Sawagonet.” The contents of the complaint, though unknown to us, were read to Sawagonett through an interpreter. The defendant’s responses were kept “amongst the Councill papers.” The Council adjourned for an hour. That seems to have ended the matter.

         Perhaps the cause of the July 11, 1670 dispute between Flounders and House was something other than a lawsuit.  The records contain no reference to litigation between the two men. The evidence, sparse as it may be, suggests a potentially different source of ignition for their argument.

         Research reveals no extant written record of land ownership by either Walter House or Thomas Flounders. It is possible that they held tenancies on land acquired by Richard Smith from the Narragansett or through agents of Boston’s Atherton Company. But neither Flounders nor House are mentioned in the list of conveyances found in the Fones Records of Narragansett Country proprietors. If either man possessed a deed or written lease, the documents likely were lost or destroyed over time. But they each did reside in the Wickford area for several years. It also appears that each man held a strong opinion on which colony should govern this growing settlement.

         On July 3, 1663, a group of English settlers calling themselves “the Inhabitants and the proprietors of the lands lying in the Narragansett” signed a petition desiring “according to His Majesties grant to be under the Governm’tt of Conecticut Collony.” The principal signatories of the petition were two of the largest land-holders in the Narragansett Country – Richard Smith and Richard Smith, Jr., of Wickford. Among the other signatures was that of “Walter ‘H’ House his marke.” [22]This petition is evidence that House was resident in the Wickford area for at least seven years before his fatal encounter with Flounders. It presumes he had some interest in land in the Narragansett Country. It also made public his joinder with many others that Wickford and its environs be governed by the Connecticut Colony and not by Rhode Island.  This long-standing jurisdictional dispute between Connecticut and Rhode Island would continue to fester and, eventually, would factor significantly during the investigation and legal proceedings following Walter House’s death.

         In fact, the Connecticut versus Rhode Island dispute over governance of the Narragansett Country frequently rekindled. At one point both House and Flounders joined together as comrades in the jurisdictional conflict. They both are listed among the nineteen signatories to the “Petition of the inhabitants of Wickford” submitted to the “Honoured Generall Court at Hartford” on May 4, 1668.[23]

         Once again, the petitioners referred to themselves as “the inhabitants of the towne of Wickford” and as “the proprietors” of land “in the Narragansett countrye.” Again, Richard Smith is a notable signatory. Another notable is one “Lawick Vandick” – no doubt, Smith’s nephew, today remembered as Lodowick Updike. Included among the nineteen signatories, were two other men of significance, one name above the other: “Thomas fflanders” and “Walter H the mark of Howes.” (both sic).[24]

         Hearkening back to their earlier petition, these “proprietors” beseeched the General Assembly of Connecticut to afford them “protection” so they might have liberty to settle plantations” in the Narragansett Country for “the advancement of the generale good of the countrye.”[25]

         Ten days later, upon receipt of the petition, the General Assembly sitting at Hartford appointed  John Allyn and Thomas Stanton to be its “agents to treate with the Governor of Rhode Island… concerning our right to claim any land in the Narragansett country… or elsewhere detained by any persons under pretense of being vunder Rohd Island gouerment…”  (sic). [26]

         The jurisdictional dispute between Rhode Island and Connecticut continued to simmer, without significant exacerbation or resolution, into the summer of 1670.

         But then it re-ignited just weeks before Walter House was killed and – after his death – the conflicting claims of the two colonies complicated and frustrated the forensic investigation into the death of House, as well as the apprehension and prosecution of the accused, Thomas Flounders.

III.       This Land Is My Land and It’s Not Your Land

         Early rumblings heralding the upcoming jurisdictional conflict are found in the actions of the “Commission of the Conservators of the Peace in the King’s Province” as recorded on March 25, 1670. The Commissioners, had “a sence of the pressures that lye on the minds … of members of the Collony” living in the Wickford area. They complained of “overtures” from the neighboring colony of Connecticut, “seeming to tend to an exercising jurisdiction in some parts of this our Collony,” specifically the King’s Province.[27]   The commissioners instructed their fellow Rhode Islanders, “each and every one of you be watchful and carefull to prevent and suppresse all such misdemeanors and disorders…”  The Commission went so far as to “empower” the Conservators of the Peace, Richard Smith, Samuel Dyer, Samuel Wilson and Jireh Bull “to apprehend” any “person that shall presume to exercise jurisdiction in any part of the King’s Province.”  If and when apprehended, these jurisdictional usurpers were to be sent to Newport “to be examined by the Governor [Benedict Arnold] or the Magistrates.”[28]

Connecticut proceeded in its efforts to set up its own government in the King’s Province. Rhode Island, in turn, wrestled with how to resist these efforts and maintain sovereignty over Wickford and its environs. The respective colonial governors and general assemblies initially undertook a diplomatic approach to the impasse.

On June 7, 1670, the Rhode Island General Assembly, sitting in Newport, ordered that Roger Williams, Richard Bailey and Joseph Torrey “be desired to draw up instructions for those that shall be appointed to treat with” Connecticut’s commissioners. Governor Benedict Arnold also scheduled a proposed meeting with Connecticut’s representatives at New London on June 14th.  The purpose of the meeting was “to conclude a final accord between the said Colonies for about concerning boundaries, and any other matters of general concernment between them and us.”  Rhode Island named Captain John Greene, Lieutenant Joseph Torrey and Richard Bailey as its commissioners.[29]

The Rhode Island commissioners, upon arriving in New London, demanded that the parties set forth their respective positions in writing. Connecticut’s commissioners, John Allyn, Captain John Winthrop and James Richards, complied. In writing, they set forth Connecticut’s claim. And it was a large claim, comprising most of the Narragansett Country, now known as Washington County, including Westerly, Misquamacut, Wickford and more. They  described the territory they wished to govern as “part of his Majesties dominions granted us by Charter… which are thus abutted on the east by Narrogancett river, commonly called Narrogancett Bay, where the sayd river falleth into the sea, and on the north by the lyne of the Massachusetts plantation, and on the south by the sea; and in longitude as the lyne of the Massachusetts Colony, running from east to west: that is to say, from the Narrogancett Bay on the east, to the south sea on the west part, with the islands thereunto adjoining ; part of which, some vnder pretence of authority from your Colony, haue disturbed some of ours in the possession and improuement thereof.”[30]

         This position, set forth in writing by the Connecticut agents, triggered a barrage of more than a dozen letters between them and their Rhode Island counter-parts over the next few days.  Rhode Island’s position, steadfastly maintained, was very different from Connecticut’s. Succinctly stated, Rhode Island adamantly insisted that the “Narragansett River” mentioned in Connecticut’s royal charter was not the same body of water as “Narragansett Bay.”

On June 16th, the Rhode Island Commissioners wrote, “wee doe hereby signifie that wee doe fully and plainly vnderstand  Pacatuck, alias Pawcatuck river, to be the Narragansett river mentioned in your Charter.” As grounds for their argument, they stated that it was “not grounded vpon the vncertaine or various reports of either English or Indians, but vpon his Majesties gracious and absolute determination in that respect.”

In the event Connecticut planned to press the issue by attempting to set up government in the Narragansett Country, commissioners  Greene, Torrey and Baily had a ready answer: “Wee doe in pursuance thereof, and in obedience [to King Charles’ charter to the Rhode Island colony] declare that in case you refuse to rest sattisfied in his Majesties determination; but shall exercise jurisdiction within the bounds of our Charter: wee doe in behalfe of the Governor and Company of his Majesties Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, &c., appeale vnto his Majestie for redress within his realme of England.”

Connecticut, however, remained undeterred in it desire to assert its governmental and judicial powers over what is now southern Rhode Island.  It issued a warrant ordering John Frink, in the name of Connecticut, “to warne the inhabitants of Stonington resident on the east side of Pawcatuck River [i.e., today’s Westerly, Rhode Island’s side of the Pawcatuck River boundary line] to appeare” at Connecticut Capt. Gookin's house this 17th of June, 1670, to hear a proclamation of Connecticut’s claim of sovereignty over the area and that the residents must submit to its government. But the Westerly settlers refused to attend. Thus, the “declaration was publiquely and audibly read [by Samuell Cheesebrough, Marshall protempore] on Capt'n Gookin's land, in the audience of diuers witnesses.”[31]

Conversely, on that same June 17th, Rhode Island’s Tobias Sanders, a “Conservator of the Peace,” issued a warrant to James Badcock, a Westerly resident and Rhode Island constable. The warrant authorized Badcock, in the name of the King, to “seize’ Connecticut’s John Frink, Benjamin Palmer and Thomas Bell. He was authorized to bring them to jail and subject them to inquiry by the Rhode Island authorities with respect to their incursion into its jurisdiction.[32]

Badcock did his duty. He arrested the men. In response, Connecticut authorities arrested Badcock and Sanders. The imprisoned constables requested release upon posting bail and a promise to return for further proceedings. Bail was granted with a fifty-pound bond for each of the men. They were released on June 18th, with a hearing set for the following week.[33]

[1] The term “hue and cry” in the English common law sense was much more than a metaphorical equivalent to the modern “all-points bulletin.”  Black’s Law Dictionary, 9thEdition (Brian Garner, editor) West Publishing (2009), (hereinafter “Blacks” ) at p. 309, defines “hue and cry” as “[T]he public uproar that, at common law, a citizen was expected to initiate after discovering a crime.” Citizens were then obligated to pursue and apprehend the suspected felon. Neglect of this duty “entailed an amercement [discretionary fine or penalty] of the individual, the township or the hundred.” Ibid, citing William Holdsworth, A History of the English Law 294 (7thed. 1956).

[2]North Kingstown, Rhode Island Statewide Historical Preservation Report W-NK-1, Rhode Island Historic Preservation Commission, November, 1979 at p. 64. William Holloway also owned a house at 141 West Main Street.

[3]The Narragansett Historical Register (hereinafter “Register”) Vol. 1, No. 3 at p. 164 (James N. Arnold, Hamilton, R.I. (January, 1883).

[4]Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England, Vol. II, 1664-1677, Printed by order of the General assembly, Providence, 1857 (Hereinafter “Records of the Colony, Vol. II.,”) atp. 341.

[5]See, WikiTreebiographical and genealogical note on Gysbert op den Dyck and his family at  https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Op_den_Dyck-5 See also, https://www.geni.com/people/Geysbert-Gilbert-Updike/6000000006831074065.

[6] According to the Sullivan Burgess Family Tree, Thomas Flounders, a/k/a/ Flanders was born in 1644.See, www.http://www.sandisullivan.com/getperson.php?personID=I19676&tree=Tree.

See also, geneaological report on Flounders located at https://www.geni.com/people/Thomas-Flounders/6000000000445784358

[7] Records of the Colony, Vol. II  at p 351. We know Mary’s name because on October 13, 1670 during proceedings of the “Generall Assembly of the Collony,” the Assembly was informed that Governor Benedict Arnold and his Assistants, had caused to issue “severall summonses” to give testimony concerning the death of Walter House. These summonses “were delivered to Mary House, relick [i.e.,surviving member of a married couple] of Walter House, who did engage she would convey them as directed…”

[8]Austin, John Osborne, Geneaological Dictionary of Rhode Island, Geneaological Publishing Company, Baltimore (1969) at p. 105.

[9]See,www.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Greene_Jr.See also, www.https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Greene-37.

[10]Ibid.

[11]Records of the Court of Trials of the Colony of Providence Plantations 1662-1670, Vol. II, Rhode Island Historical Society, Providence, 1922 at pp 74, 75, 77, 82 and 92. (Hereinafter, “Records of the Court of Trials”)

[12]Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, in New England, 1636 to 1663, Vol. I, Bartlett, John Russell, Providence, 1856 (Hereinafter“Records of the Colony, Vol. II) at p. 355.

[13]The “corrent pay” of the colony is a reference to the Pound, Sterling,  being the currency of the realm. In 1670 a pound (20 shillings) had the buying power of $277.76 in U.S. dollars in 2023.  Thus, the 40 shillings John Greene paid on his daughter’s behalf would approximate a $500 fine today. See Calculator at “Pounds Sterling to Dollars: Historical Conversion of Currency,”  E. Nye, University of Wyoming, https://www.uwyo.edu/numimage/currency.htm  (hereinafter,“Calculator.”

[14]Records of the Court of Trials, at p. 92.

[15]Black’s  at p. 725. On the other hand, “adultery” is defined as “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than the person’s spouse.” Black’s at p. 60.

[16]On May 19, 1657 the General Court of Commissioners, sitting in Newport ordered that “any person caught in the act of Fornication within the jurisdiction of the Collony shall be publiquely whipped in the Town where the fact was done, with fifteen stripes by the first offense, or pay forty shillings.” A second offense earned the defendant fifteen more stripes or a four pound fine.

[17]Records of the Court of Trials, at pp. 59-61.

[18]“Detinue” is defined as a “common law action to recover personal property wrongfully taken or withheld by another.” Blacks at p. 515.

[19]Records of the Court of Trials at p. 60.

[20]Records of the Colony, Vol. II, atpp. 279-284. See also, Records of the Court of Trials, pp. 279, et seq.

[21]Ibid at pp. 279-280. (Thursday, August 19, 1669, afternoon session.)

[22]The Fones Record (a/k/a “The Records of the Proprietorship of the Narragansett”, hereinafter, “Fones Record”) Vol. I , James N. Arnold, Narragansett Historical Publishing Co., Providence (1894) at pp. 24-25.

[23]Records of the Colony,Vol. I at pp. 226-227.

[24]The records of both Rhode Island and Connecticut concerning their respective jurisdictional claims to the “Narragansett Country” neglected to mention that the original “proprietors” of the land were the indigenous Narragansett, Niantic, Wampanoag, Pequot and Mohegan people. Not only was this their ancestral land, but it wouldremain so. The records of 1670 were written only five years before the Narragansett Country and most of New England was consumed in the existential conflagration known today as King Philip’s War.

[25]Ibidat p. 227.

[26]Ibid.

[27]Recordsof the Colony, Vol. I, at p. 298

[28]Ibid.  The appointment and empowerment of Richard Smith as a Conservator of the Peace perhaps evidences a change of allegiance on his part. In any event the confidence placed in him by the commissioners is at odds with his two previous petitions to Connecticut requesting it exercise governance over the Wickford area.

[29]Records of the Colony, Vol. I  at pp. 306-307.

[30]Ibid, at p. 312. Once again, there is absolutely no reference to the indigenous inhabitants or their ancestral lands, let alone any sachems’ views on the matter.

[31]Records of the Colony, Vol. II  at p. 319.

[32]Records of the Colony, Vol. IIat pp. 319-320.

[33]Ibid at p. 320.

A Rhode Island Quandary: Two Cases that Challenged the State in its Struggle to Emancipate the Enslaved

By Robert A. Geake

     In the year 1779, a slave owner from Connecticut named Joshua Mandale and a North Carolina planter and militia officer named John Rice both came into Rhode Island and purchased enslaved individuals that were intended to be transported to their home states.

Mandale was from Stonington, Connecticut, and his purchase of a “negroe woman and children” was quickly contested and brought before the legislature. John Rice, while passing through Kings County, “ having business to transact in other New England states”; purchased “four negroes for $3,000.00 Spanish milled dollars" from Carder Hazard of South Kingstown and quickly moved on. The planter "permitted his slaves to…remain in Narragansett until he could get ready to go home on the 18th of June[i]”. The enslaved individuals purchased from Hazard were a woman and her three children.

Neither Mandale nor Rice were apparently informed prior to their purchases that a Rhode Island Resolution passed in 1774 not only banned outright the importation of enslaved people into the state but also, with the intent of curbing the spread of slavery, prevented the passage of enslaved people out of the state, "unless by their master's consent." In addition, all enslaved individuals brought into the state after the law was brought into effect would, in fact, be considered free[ii].

The lofty preamble of the law would be tested in the cases to come…

“Wheras the inhabitants of America are generally engaged in the preservation of their own rights and liberties, among which that of personal freedom must be considered as the greatest, and as those who are desirous of enjoying all the advantages of liberty themselves should be willing to extend personal liberty to others…[iii]”

For most Rhode Islanders involved in the trade, this meant landing their cargo in ports outside the state. But for those carrying the enslaved over the borders of New England states or looking to buy enslaved people and then transport them out of those borders where they had been bought, such traffic was becoming increasingly problematic.

During the same period, Rhode Island also passed statutes discouraging individual emancipation. Between 1728 and 1775, acts were passed that incrementally increased the amount of a bond that enslaved owners, or sometimes the enslaved themselves, were required to post in return for freedom. These bonds were used to offset the growing cost of those formerly enslaved, many of whom could easily become indigent or dependent upon public aid to survive.[iv].

The Rhode Island body of laws regarding slavery would be tested by two cases brought before the General Court that year of 1779. Moreover, it would raise a quandary wrought by the state's own wrangling over emancipation, passing measure after measure in the legislature that moved toward, but never reached, the absolute abolishment of enslavement; while at the same time punishing those owners who did emancipate as described above.

The cases first passed before the desk of Beriah Brown, High Sheriff of the County of Kings County. While Brown received missives from the Governor and performed tedious tasks in his role as High Sheriff,  he was also among the most powerful men in the state. Apart from his duties as Sheriff, his own business investments had made him wealthy. In 1748 he had invested in the sloop Elizabeth, engaged for two years in the Caribbean trade, and by the time of the American Revolution, had outfitted the privateer The General Mifflin to plunder the British fleet.[v].

As High Sheriff, no land transactions in agrarian Kings County, no probate inventory, nor the sale of goods from that inventory were sealed without passing his desk.[vi], including those of enslaved individuals. Among Brown’s papers are a suit regarding an enslaved man purchased by one Joshua Holmes, who later proved to be free; the receipt for a black man named Jack purchased by the Sheriff in 1774; and the document concerning an enslaved person named Jim, who was auctioned from the estate of Charles Slocum in 1777[vii].

In addition, Brown owned enslaved men, including one named Thomas, who enlisted on February 25, 1778, just eleven days after the State's General Assembly passed an Act to form a regiment that offered freedom to enslaved men in exchange for three years of military service. Brown had agreed to Thomas' enlistment, being paid the maximum of 120 pounds as compensation. But just a few weeks later, on 17 March 1778, he penned an urgent letter to Col. Christopher Greene:

“I have heard that my negro boy Scipio has inlisted. He is but fourteen years & three months old. I am as willing to defend my country as any man in it (.) but as Tom has inlisted and I have now no other boy to do anything for me(,) I should be very much obliged to you if you would send Scipio home again and not receive him as I have no other boy”.

Both of Browns’ former enslaved boys would remain enlisted. Thomas served as a drummer in Capt. Elijah Lewis’ Company, and later in the 8th company of the Rhode Island Regiment. His fourteen-year-old “boy” Scipio also enlisted to serve as a drummer, first in Capt. Ebenezer Frank’s Company, then with Capt. John Haden's company, and finally, with Capt. John S. Dexter's company of the Rhode Island Regiment. By his 18th birthday, he was at Yorktown.[viii].

In 1785, Brown drafted a notice for the return of a runaway enslaved man named "Pomp." He was returned and working in Scituate, Rhode Island, the following year.

Brown also oversaw cases of debt, trespass, and the contested sale of property within Kings County. All remained under his jurisprudence until handed before the General Court. As the Court consisted of a panel of judges and the RI Assemblymen gathered together, such hearings took place quarterly over a matter of days or even weeks, depending upon the caseload brought before the Court and, most importantly, the complexity of those cases and the length of debate that took up the General Court’s time.

 As Brown placed these two cases before the General Court, the authorities clearly saw the need to clarify further and establish a precedent for other cases challenging the Resolution of 1774.

In Mandale’s case, the sale of the enslaved woman and children to the inhabitant of another state occurred after the death of their master and therefore were sold to Mandale without his consent. The House debated the issue and determined, with the buyer’s agreement, that-

“The said Joshua Mandale shall sell the said Negro and children to some subject or subjects within this state, whose humanity shall be approved by Carder Hazard of South Kingstown, the original owner of said slave-the said Joshua Mandale shall be liable to pay all the charges and expenses that hath accrued, or that shall accrue for the keeping of said slaves in the custody of Beriah Brown, High Sheriff of the County of Kings County[ix]”.

In the case of John Rice, the North Carolina planter who had such business to transact in New England seems to have no idea that he had been taken advantage of by the Rhode Islanders, but that quickly changed with the series of events that unfolded, as laid out in his own hand and complaint to the Sheriff.

When Rice appeared at the farm of Carder Hazard that June, he found that the enslaved people, which he believed his property, were now divided between the homes of John Cropes and Lodowick Stanton, the son of Col. Joseph Stanton, owner of one of the largest estates in South County. Rice had come "with a wagon for their easy transportation" and set out to retrieve the enslaved people he had purchased. The planter succeeded in obtaining a pair from Cropes, but when he pulled up to the home of Lodowick Stanton,

“…Said Stanton offered to buy the oldest and the youngest and leave two children on my hands. I refused to sell, he still persisted (in wanting) to purchase, to take them at one half the first sum and allow me two hundred dollars for my bargain. I still refused to sell. He then gave her (the young woman) a beckon in the back room she soon came to me with an application to return …to Cropes. I was afraid to let her go for fear she would not return-but said Stanton soon became her security for returning and let her have a horse, his wife’s saddle, & gave me an invitation to stay at his house for the night with a promise that it should cost me nothing”.

Rice agreed, but all the enslaved were gone when he woke in the morning. Stanton initially expressed surprise and concern but later told Rice that it was all the plan of John Cropes, who wanted his negro man back, and that they had all been taken to Block Island.

  After six weeks of broken promises for their return,  Rice filed the complaint quoted above, which the High Sheriff forwarded to the Court of Complaints.

Rice’s letter to Beriah Brown is full of fire and brimstone, the tale of how an honest southern gentleman was hoodwinked by the most irascible of hosts, and he listed a series of complaints upon Lodowick Stanton’s character:

“…it is necessary that Lod(owic)k Stanton’s character should be inquired into among his neighbors & others..first know from Mr. Christopher Babcock(,) who steals fence rails of his own kins(?) then Daniel Stanton, who steals feathers of his living geese, and who steals his sheep(?) of his own mother in law(,) who stole her Turkeys(,) and inquire of Paris Garners brother how the Traveling Pedlar was served with his pack which was long in Stanton’s house…”

So indignant was the North Carolinian of his treatment at the hands of the Rhode Islanders that he composed a sonnet within the complaint as though a final thrust in a fencing duel:

“They tied me down like unto a goat

Then a knife tried cutt my throat

No man can hold his lawful property

While Laws look back with inconsistency

By a set of arbitrary knaves

I am deprived of my rightful slaves

Which wicked rulers have then trod

On States & property Law and God”.

As fervent as Rice was to see justice, the case would not appear before the court, which met quarterly, until October 1779.

What would the General Court decide? Unlike the Mandale case, Carder Hazard had willfully sold his enslaved family to a man from out of the state. Given that he likely knew that said enslaved family would be transferred beyond Rhode Island’s borders, would that not constitute consent?

But given the previous ruling in that case, which seemed to enforce the intent of the Resolution passed in 1774, would that argument be strong enough to nullify the sale or cause the enslaved to be sold within the state as has been ruled previously?

By the time the case was heard, Rice's temper had cooled, and an amicable agreement had been reached that kept to the letter of the law. No doubt negotiations had been brokered by Beriah Brown, who would ultimately be responsible for the sale of the enslaved individuals Rice had purchased.

 The General Court’s ruling reads as follows:

”The Condition of the shown obligation to such that who you John Rice of Hartford in the State of North Carolina on the 13th day of May Last Past purchased of Carder Hazard of South Kingstown in So. County … a Negro woman, & her three children which 1 Negro was Detected from being carried out of this state & detained therin & put in the Custody of Beriah Brown Esq. Sheriff of aforesaid County of Kings County & at a General Assembly held in the state on the 28th day of October 1779, that said John Rice wasn’t permitted to make sale of the said Negro woman & her children by him purchased of Carder Hazard Esq. to any person an inhabitant and Resident within this state, and that the Sheriff of the County of Kings County Deliver them to the Purchaser, he giving Security to the Sheriff not to send them out of this State agreeable to the Resolution & Whereupon it Affirmath that the above Bound in Joseph Noyes hath purchased of the said John Rice two of the afore named Negro children named Mary & Jane & that if the Said Joseph Noyes nor his heirs , Executors, Administration or any other person or persons for him, shall not send said Negroes or either of them the above out of this State agreeable to the Resolution of the Recited Assembly then the above obligation to be void & of none effect or else to abide & remain in full force & the wards in this State…”

Joseph Noyce signed the order in the presence of John Rice and Christopher Babcock.

Once again, while holding to the intent of the Resolution in disallowing the transfer of enslaved people beyond the state’s borders, Rhode Island failed again those most "desirous of sharing all the liberties and advantages shared by others." The state of Connecticut would pass a similar Resolution in 1780, but it was a steady stream of individual cases within the courts of New England that began during the American Revolution that set a firm current toward the passage of Emancipation Acts in the region.

Some cases reached the Supreme Courts of their states, such as the 1779 case of Brakkee v. Lovell in which Pompey Brakkee, an enslaved man who was held by Elijah Lovell long after Vermont had banned enslavement was finally freed from bondage. The Berkshire County Court of Common Pleas was the first court in Massachusetts to affirm in the  1781 case of Brom and Bett v. Ashley that as the newly adopted constitution of the state provided that "all men are born free and equal," Brom and Elizabeth (Bett) Freemen were ordered to be emancipated. In that same year, the Worcester County Court of Common Pleas determined in the case of Quock Walker v. Jennison that Walker was found to be a freeman on the basis that "slavery was contrary to the Bible and the Constitution of Massachusetts. On appeal by Jennison in 1783, Justice William Cushing told the Jury in his instructions that "slavery is in my judgement effectively abolished as it can be by the granting of rights and privileges wholly incompatible and repugnant to its existence."

It was not the will of the body politic of Rhode Island, however, to pass an Act for Gradual Emancipation until 1784.

[i] Beriah Brown papers, Rhode Island Historical Society MSS 109, Box 4, folder 7

[ii] See Melish, Joan Pope, Slavery in Rhode Island Encore Educational, and Jameson, The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement Princeton University Press 1926 p. 35

[iii] Ibid

[iv] Melish, Slavery in Rhode Island

[v] Stattler, Rick Finding Aid Beriah Brown Papers

[vi] A desk that has resided for years in the small summer “law office” of Daniel Updike. Brown may not have known that he was related to the Updikes through the marriage of Kathryn Updike Goddard, whose family donated the desk to the historic house museum.

[vii] Stattler, Rick Finding Aid Beriah Brown Papers

[viii] Popek, Daniel They Were Brave, But Unfortunate p. 423

[ix] Beriah Brown papers, RIHS MSS 109 Box 4, folder 7

The "Servants" of Richard Smith the Elder

By John B. Dower

This article is a follow-up to one that appeared in the Cocumscussoc Review one year ago and is an example of the ongoing research taking place at Smith's Castle. The author further investigates a statement by Rhode Island founder Roger Williams concerning Richard Smith Sr. and his “servants.” The words of Roger Williams are further evidence of enslaved people, most likely of African descent, being with the Smiths at Cocumscussoc before 1650.

For well over one hundred years, slavery took place at the great plantation house at Cocumscussoc. In fact, the Smiths and Updikes may have enslaved people of color for a period that lasted over one hundred and fifty years, which would have preceded the infamous slave voyages out of Rhode Island by several decades. While the Smiths and Updikes from Cocumscussoc were not known to have been direct participants in the notorious voyages that departed from Newport and Bristol in the eighteenth century and brought thousands of enslaved Africans to the Americas, they certainly were involved with the slave trade on a more personal level at the first plantation in Narragansett Country. The Smiths were early players in what would eventually become the Triangle Trade, first with Richard Smith Sr.'s involvement with Dutch trade and the Dutch West India Company, and later when Richard Jr. sent his own ship to Barbados. Some forty known people, mostly of African descent or mixed race, were held in bondage at Smith's Castle for a period that began in the 17thcentury and did not end until the 19th century. That number of forty enslaved is likely much higher than what has been gleaned from the scant number of documents existing on the Cocumscussoc Plantation.

We know with certainty that a minimum of eight enslaved people had lived and toiled at Smith’s Castle by 1692. Richard Smith Jr.’s will from that year lists eight people held in bondage, three adults and five children. While no documentation has been found that specifies a date for the first arrival of enslaved people at Smith’s Castle, evidence points as far back as the early 1650s, and perhaps before, when Richard Smith Sr. made Cocumscussoc his permanent residence. The elder Smith returned to his immense landholdings when trade in beaver pelts was in decline. His business focus turned to livestock and cheese production, which would have required the necessary workforce that enslaved people could only provide. No doubt, Rhode Island’s officials had witnessed the enterprise of these Englishmen beginning to emulate Dutch plantation practices at Cocumscussoc. Curiously, the colony of Rhode Island banned the practice of lifetime slavery in 1652 when the lawmakers met just up the road in Warwick. The law read as follows-

“Wheras, it is a common course practiced amongst English men to buy negers, to that end they have them for service or slave forever: let it be ordered, no black mankind or white being forced by covenant bond, or otherwise, to serve any man or his assighnes longer than ten years…And at the end or terme of ten years to sett them free, as the manner is with English servants.”

The failed 1652 law enacted in Rhode Island is an early indication that workers held "for service" were sometimes being forced into lifetime bondage by the middle of the seventeenth century. But, for the most part, that law was ignored, and much of the disregard took place in Narragansett Country.[i]

It is probably not a mere coincidence that at the same time, Rhode Island officials attempted to prohibit lifetime servitude in 1652, they also drafted another piece of legislation that could only be associated with the Smiths-

“Ordered, that all Dutchmen, except inhabitants amongst us, are prohibited to trade with the Indians in this Collonie…”

Undoubtedly, Rhode Island leaders were vitally aware of Richard Smith's permanent residence in New Amsterdam and his close affiliation with the Dutch West India Company. Although the Dutch had at various times before 1652 attempted to establish trade in Rhode Island with the Narragansett people, Richard Smith was the most influential person in the colony that was involved with the Dutch by 1652. Unfortunately, friction between the English and the Dutch would only worsen in the next decade, and the Smiths' permanent presence at Cocumscussoc set off more than a few alarms.[ii]

The most substantial proof of Richard Smith Sr.’s use of enslaved labor at Cocumscussoc can be found in the words of Rhode Island founder Roger Williams. When testifying over a land dispute involving the younger Smith in 1679, Williams described the elder Smith during the years before making Cocumscussoc his permanent residence-

“…about forty years ago from this date, he kept possession, coming and going himself, children, and servants, and he had quiet possession of his houses, lands, and meadows…”[iii]

Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island and long-time associate of the Smith family.

The use of the word servant before the mid-1600s would have been associated most commonly with the indentured servitude of people of any race that were held for an often-specified term. Records of Rhode Island's lawmakers from 1647 and 1649 describe "servant" as associated with words such as “termes” and “a term covenanted.” There was even a belief early on among some enslavers of Africans that it would be a temporary period for which they held their servants, much like indentured servitude. The 1652 act banning lifetime service is where we can begin to see the definition of "servant" start to become complicated. And the lawmakers knew it. A decade later, the word "servant" was used in Rhode Island's official records to describe people as property. In a situation in 1669 where a man was accused of harboring some runaways, we find the phrase, "hee kept six servants belonging to [another] man."[iv]

By 1679, the word servant had unmistakably evolved to include those permanently enslaved. In a law designed to prevent anyone in the colony from performing labor on the Sabbath, Rhode Island officials sought to fine those “evill minded” men that “requireth, their servants…to labor on the first day of the week.” This was a law and language that Roger Williams would have, no doubt, been familiar. It is also important to note that the word servant in 1679 was used contemporaneously to mean a “person serving a master or lord.” To tie the justification of slavery to religious interpretation, white slaveholders avoided using the word slavery. Instead, they suggested that much like bondservants referenced in the Bible, enslaved Africans were merely serving their white masters. It was hoped this “middle ground” of lifetime servitude of African "servants" would appease those who opposed slavery, and it worked.[v]

Records describing Africans held in bondage in New England during the latter half of the seventeenth century almost exclusively used the word "servant" rather than "slave." This practice is confirmed in the Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. A piece of legislation passed in 1695 demonstrates how imbued the word "servant" had become in describing the enslaved. For taxation purposes, Rhode Island lawmakers sought to determine "every man's rateable estate,” which meant placing a value on not just livestock but also enslaved workers. As the act read, “for negro servants and cattle, we set these certain prices.” “Negro men servants” were given a value of 18 pence, “negro women servants” 10 pence, and steers and cows 2 pence per head.[vi]

During the time that Richard Smith Sr. was "coming and going" between Cocumscussoc and New Amsterdam, he would have had considerable access to African "servants" due to his strong association with the Dutch West India Company. The Dutch had brought thousands of enslaved Africans to the colonies by way of the West Indies before 1650. The possibility that any of the Smith’s “servants” were indentured Indigenous people or whites when the Smith family lived in New Amsterdam is highly remote, as the rationale for the importation of Africans to the colony was the near total lack of any local labor force. In 1679, Roger Williams would have been quite familiar with the terminology of the time as he described the people working at Cocumscussoc. The logical conclusion of Roger Williams’ 1679 testimony, where he describes Richard Smith's "servants," when taken in the light of the 1652 law, is that Richard Smith utilized enslaved labor sometime before 1650.[vii]

Certainly, Richard Smith Junior became one of the wealthiest men in New England following his father’s death by utilizing enslaved labor. However, that didn't happen overnight. The three enslaved adults listed in his will had, no doubt, been at Smith's Castle for some duration before Junior's death in 1692. The strong possibility also exists that other enslaved people had come and gone in the decades between the deaths of the two Smiths. In his will, it had been the younger Smith’s wishes to manumit two of the three adults upon his death, something not likely to occur unless they had been working on the plantation for many years and developed a personal relationship of sorts with their master. By that point, Junior's nephew, and heir to the plantation, Lodowick Updike, was already in control of a portion of the estate left to him by his grandfather, Richard Smith Sr. The Updike family’s involvement in slavery dates back to 1639, making it very possible that Lodowick, like his father Gysbert, was already involved in the practice before his uncle's death in 1692.[viii]

Like his grandfather, Richard Smith Sr., little documentation survives telling the story of the slavery that existed in the household of Lodowick Updike and his wife (and first cousin) Abigail. All that survives from a fire that destroyed North Kingstown records is a portion of Lodowick's will identifying one enslaved woman, "Penny," and a mysterious comment that mentions "others."

We know that Lodowick’s uncle, Richard Smith Jr., left him five enslaved young people upon his death. It is also possible that, in addition to those five, Lodowick had his own workforce at the time he inherited property from Richard Smith Sr. in 1666. What transpired on the Cocumscussoc Plantation between 1692 and 1737 regarding enslaved people will most likely remain a mystery.[ix]

It is the next two generations of Updikes where we have clear documentation concerning the number of enslaved people residing at Smith's Castle. Daniel Updike's will in 1757 lists nineteen enslaved people, only one unnamed. Daniel’s son, Lodowick, is listed as the head of the household in a 1774 census, which lists eleven people as Black out of a total of twenty-two people living at the Cocumscussoc Plantation. While slavery had already been in decline in New England before the American Revolution, many more enslaved people had likely lived at the Cocumscussoc Plantation in the middle of the eighteenth century. A nearby cemetery for the enslaved was known to be the final resting place for eighty-one souls and possibly dozens more.[x]

The last time enslaved people lived at Smith’s Castle would appear to be the decade after 1800. The 1800 Federal Census lists two enslaved people in the household of Lodowick Updike. That would bring a close to what now appears to be over a century-and-a-half of slavery at Cocumscussoc that began with the immigrant Richard Smith.[xi]

The 1800 Federal Census showing two enslaved people residing in the household of Lodowick Updike.

When the first of the infamous slave voyages began to depart from Newport and Bristol in 1700, slavery had become firmly entrenched in the smallest British Colony in North America. At least a half-century before, an Englishman with connections to the Dutch slave trade had introduced his own "servants" to Rhode Island. The Narragansett Country, as well as the lives of perhaps thousands of people of African and Indigenous ancestry, would be forever changed.

[i]  Opdyck, Charles Wilson and Opdyck, Leonard Ekstein, The Op Dyck Geneology, p. 82. Rhode Island and Russell, J. Bartlett, Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England, v 1, p.243.

[ii]  Rhode Island, v 1, p. 243. Landrigan, Leslie, “The Dutch in New England: More Than Sinterklaas and Koekjes,” New England Historical Society, https://newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/the-dutch-in-new-england-more-than-sinterklaas-and-koekjes/

[iii]  Opdyck, p. 78.

[iv]  Rhode Island, v 1, pp. 177, 182.

[v]  Rhode Island, v 3, pp. 30-31. Fischer, David Hackett, African Founders, pp. 55-56. “Servant,” Merriam-Webster.com,https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/servant.

[vi]  Greene. Lorenzo J., The Negro in Colonial New England 1620-1776, p. 290. Rhode Island, v 3, p. 308.

[vii]  McManus, Edgar J., A History of Negro Slavery in New York, p.4.

[viii]  A review of over 18,000 probate records from UCDavis found at https://gpih.ucdavis.edu/files/Main_Main_New_Eng_probates_2013.xlsx finds Richard Smith’s estate to be in the top 1% of New England probates recorded before 1692. Opdyck, p. 82.

[ix] Cranston, G. Timothy, with Neil Dunay, We Were Here Too: Selected Stories of Black History in North Kingstown, p. 90.

[x]  Opdyck, p. 106. Bartlett, John Russell, Census of the Inhabitants of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 1774, p. 83.

[xi]  U.S. Census Bureau, 1800 United States Federal Census, https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/7590/images/4440856_00196?treeid=&personid=&rc=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=STV11&_phstart=successSource&pId=469838&lang=en-US

“A Not So Silent Night: The Origins and Traditions of Twelfth Night Brought into Colonial America”

By Gabrielle Belmont-Klück

Twelfth Night at the Castle 

Christmas tradition is so ingrained in America's 'national consciousness' that although most of us have heard the song "Twelve Days of Christmas," few know about its origins. Yet, this festive period, also known as 'Twelvetide,' is centuries old and still impacts how we enjoy the holidays today. In this article, I will share my analyses of Twelvetide’s history, how it was treated once it reached the new world, and how these events connect to our story here at Smith's Castle. However, the last evening, ‘Twelfth Night,’ will be a primary point of discussion. Twelfth Night was the wildest out of all the feasts and has a significant presence in modern holiday tradition.

In addition, the meal was accompanied by The Twelfth Night Cake, a dessert and game that bent societal rules during the night of 'misrule.' The unique cake inspired my display for this year's “Christmas at the Castle” which this article is based on. The small exhibit focuses on the cake's recipe and showcases each component used to make the cake. Inspired by my local history, I curated a Twelfth night cake only using ingredients that may have been used by estate owners (the Updikes) during the 18th century. The family would have taken part in the Christmas customs as planters of the Christian faith and Western European heritage. Increasing the possibility that many Twelfth Nights were celebrated and many Twelfth Night Cakes were baked within the walls of Smith's castle. 

Read below to learn more about Twelvetide or click on “Learn More” to see the ingredients used for the recipe!

Twelfth Night & The Twelve Days of Christmas

There are valid reasons why the Romans, Vikings, and Christians feasted and celebrated in December. In Ancient Europe, mid-winter was the darkest, coldest, and muddiest time of the year. Therefore, people needed to stay motivated and optimistic for the dreary months ahead. [1] The Christian holiday, The Twelve Days of Christmas, also known as ‘Twelvetide’ or ‘Christmastide,’ is one of these early festivals meant to keep cheerfulness and stems from these ancient winter celebrations. The holiday's official establishment started when Ancient Rome adopted Christianity, and they faced difficulty converting an entire empire of multiple ethnicities and Pagan beliefs. As a result, Emperor Constantine and the Church had to think strategically about how they would pursue this challenging transition. One solution was to keep traditional days of worship relatively the same but altered to fit the new Church’s principles and divine figures.

Twelvetide comes from the most favored Roman carnival of the year, the Saturnalia festival. From December 17th to the 25th, Romans paid tribute to Saturn, the agriculture god associated with the ‘renewal of light’ during the new year. For this long festival, a carnival atmosphere would fill the streets with public banquets and gift-giving. [2] Homes were decorated in wreaths and evergreen boughs as a happy reminder that nature persists and winter will be over soon. In particular, December 25th marked the holiest day honoring the birth of the sun god Mithra. His conception symbolized renewed light and protection for the upcoming year. Since the church intended to continue this atmosphere, both Saturnalia and Twelvetide had similar meanings and ways of celebration.

Antoine Callet, Saturnalia, 1783, painting. Interpretation of a Roman party scene for Saturnalia    Festival by French painter Antoine Callet.

December 25th was adopted by the Church as the birth of Jesus Christ to mimic the feeling of new beginnings and protection as the Christian's savior. Like their ancient predecessors, as a reminder of the coming of spring, during Twelvetide, medieval Englanders decorated their homes with greenery, such as holly, ivy, and wreaths. However, their carnival did not end on December 25th. The next eleven days were followed by feasting and fun, hence the name “Twelve Days of Christmas.” The twelfth night, January 5th, was marked by the Western Church as the eve of Epiphany. In Christian doctrine, Epiphany was when the Three Wise Men or Kings visited Jesus with gifts. This moment was also considered the first public declaration of Jesus’s role as the son of God. [3] This day, by custom, was the wildest and most famous of the twelve days, thanks to the holiday’s amusements. Rules are no longer applied during the night of chaos, misrule, and ‘merrymaking.’ The party of Twelfth Night was especially trendy in Western Europe. Popularized during the middle ages among groups such as the English, French, German, and Dutch, who developed various traditions for the night. Yet, despite cultural differences, the party always consisted of people enjoying each other as they joked, ate, and played games. [4]

Jan Steen, Twelfth Night, 1668, oil on canvas. Jan Steen was a Dutch painter who painted various Twelfth Night party scenes. The viewer can spot many similarities between this 17th-century Twelfth Night party scene and the Roman Saturnalia party scene.

Christmas in the Colonies

In Cathy Kaufman’s The Ideal Christmas Dinner, she describes the Twelve Days of Christmas as the time when:

“little agrarian work needed to be done: animals that could not overwinter were slaughtered to provide gluttonous feasts, and socioeconomic superiors called their inferiors into tolerating the status quo for one more year with gifts of food, liquor, and money and a brief mingling before returning to the strict hierarchy.” [5]

Kaufman describes the holiday as a time of recreation, socialization, and enjoyment. A brief time when the lower working classes were allowed to decompress and neglect the responsibilities forced upon them by a rigid class system. Yet, some disliked this carefree and indulgent nature of Christmas and Twelfth Night. The early Puritan settlers viewed the holiday as lazy, gluttonous, and ‘poppish.’ Too closely related to The Roman Catholic Church, they wanted to escape. The distaste for the ‘Old World’ celebration is apparent in the treatment of Christmas in the earliest British settlements, the Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay Colonies. The theocratic government enforced by the church elite was expressed when William Bradford, the Puritan governor of Plymouth Colony, famously demanded in 1621 that ‘no public Christmas frolics would occur on his watch’ only a year after the colony’s initial settlement. Not too long after, in 1658 and 1681, the Massachusetts Bay colony outlawed all Christmas celebrations and feasting. If prosecuted, the penalty was five shillings. [6] Thus, the religious tolerance associated today with the founding of America does not fit the perceptions of the Pilgrims on the Mayflower. Fleeing protestant groups like Puritans, Calvinists, Presbyterians, and Quakers wanted to build communities strictly following their beliefs instead of those they deemed incorrect, such as Christmas. [7]

Public notice banning Christmas in Boston

From the initial settlement in Rhode Island (c. the late 1630s), the tiny territory was a refuge for colonists escaping this extremist clerical authority. Founder Roger Williams desired to create a space of protection for those at risk of persecution or those who wished to express themselves freely. He makes his intentions clear when naming his first settlement Providence, meaning security and care provided by a God or deity. [8] His efforts for free religion and freedom of state are also evident through his massive work establishing the colony’s right to a distinguished standing in North America.

Puritan authority reprimanding colonists for practicing Christmas festivities.

“No person…at any time hereafter shall be any wise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any differences in opinion in matters of religion,” agreed King Charles II to Rhode Islands ‘lively experiment’ proposed by Williams and Baptist minister John Clarke. The monarch goes on to consent that ‘Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations’ “a most flourishing civil state may stand and best be maintained…with full liberty in religious concernments.” [9]

In the Charter of 1663, Charles II is permitting Rhode Island to practice its progressive ways without interference from the British government. Consequently, this charter became a ‘major milestone’ for religious liberty in America and the rest of the world, as the first colony to officially declare “freedom of conscience.” In turn, this assertion meant that anyone who wanted to celebrate Christmas could do so without fear of the other colonies. Accordingly, the rest of New England looked disgusted at what was happening around the Narragansett Bay. In fear of this dissenting behavior spreading, they made no issue attempting to overpower, destroy, and dis-member the bay towns that included Wickford, Providence, Newport, and others. In May 1643, the colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Connecticut all formed a military alliance purposeful excluding the “hive of heretics” of what they called “Rogue Island’ and the ‘sewer of New England.” [10]

Rhode Island’s Royal Charter, 1663

Seemingly radical ideologies during the 17th century was not necessarily new, and plenty of Christmas keepers were found in other parts of the American colonies. More ethnically diverse settlements like New York and Philadelphia allowed the open celebration of Christmas and, too, became targeted by the other British colonies. The Dutch, in particular, were openly accepting of mixed faiths, and various winter celebrations took place throughout the settlements of The Hudson River Valley. During the 17th century, when Christmas persecution was rife, New Amsterdamers were threatened with punishment by the Massachusetts Bay Puritans for celebrating the holiday season. [11]

As for the Smith’s and Updikes’s positions on the controversial holiday there’s evidence that they took part in The Twelve Days of Christmas, suggesting multiple Christmas’s would have occurred here at the Castle. Although deeply religious, the wealthier Updikes (Lodowick Updike, his son Daniel, and grandson Lodowick II), like other 18th-century planters, would have been ‘flashier’ about the holiday. Still, as church members of the St. Paul’s congregation (1706), they also partook in the more solemn religious traditions. Since the holiday’s start, the ‘rowdiness’ of Christmastide waited until after Christ’s birth. Christmas day was one that was usually quiet, calm, and respectful. The next day, December 26th, is when the feasting and ‘partying’ started, with mass still required over the next twelve days. [12] Many prominent families, including the Updikes, would have gone to the sermons at St. Paul's Episcoal, the oldest church building in RI and the first in South County. [13]

“Olde Narragansett Church or Wickford’s St. Paul’s Church, built 1707.

Lodowick I was a contributor to the congregation’s fundraising that built the church in 1707, about five miles southwest of Wickford. As an involved church member, he became good friends with the infamous Irish minister and fellow planter James MacSparren. Sent by England to be a missionary and minister for St.Pauls from April 1721 to 1758, Macsparrans preserved diaries, making evident a close relationship with the Updikes. According to his written thoughts, the preacher stayed with the Updikes during his ministerial travels and held private sermons at Smith's castle or the ‘Updike mansion.’ [14] These intimate relations imply that there is a possibility Macsparran held Christmas masses at the castle and even attended one of the Updike dinners, including the night of Ephiphany.

John Smibert, Portrait of Reverand James MacSparran, 1735, oil on canvas, 30 x 25 in.

The planters’ Christmas dinners would have been “fancy collations” with food tables filled with ‘cold roasts, a cornucopia of sweets, temples of sugarplums, and other extravagant dishes.’ [15]

During these feasts, food and drink were center stage, and the main dessert, The Twelfth Night Cake, was the star of the show. As elites, fancy dinner parties were standard among the planters, but this night was particularly relished. If the Twelfth Night was popular among European royals, it was most undoubtedly popular among the new 'gentry' class in the colonies. Nonetheless, these prominent families would not have been the ones who put together these elaborate dinners. Instead, enslaved cooks were the ones who bore the effort of cooking all the food for the multiple feasts that occurred during The Twelve Days of Christmas. The enslaved would have overall been in charge of the entire party production, from setting up, serving guests, and cleaning up the mess that followed. However, it is less known how the enslaved would have been compensated for their hard work. Back in Europe, the lower classes would have been treated better and rewarded during Christmas. As enslaved people were not treated as people but as property, I am still determining to what extent those accommodations applied, if applied at all.

More likely, the enslaved would participate in the solemn religious ceremonies for Twelvetide rather than the extravagant festivities like Twelfth Night. Religious conversion of enslaved Africans was controversial and depended on the group of colonists, but there is evidence that the Planters enforced Christianity. The enslaved population attended mass and performed religious rituals such as the seven sacraments (i.e., baptism, communion, confirmation, etc.). Records show that Reverand MacSparran baptized a few of the Updike's enslaved, which included a newborn baby. This implementation of Christian faith means that individuals like Lily, Mingo, Prince, and others would have attended Christmas masses. However, it is impossible to know their personal relationship with God. Many of those taken from Africa had their own faiths and traditions and did not speak the language to understand the unfamiliar Western religion. Therefore, Christian conversion was easier torwards those young or those born on the plantation and did not know any other beliefs. For example, based on Daniel Updike's 1757 death inventory, the Udikes had several enslaved children. Paul (2 years old), Robie (2 1/2 years old), Ceasar (2 years old), and an unnamed child (of an enslaved woman named Lilie) would be exposed only to Christianity and holidays like Christmas, and Epiphany would have been normalized. Thus, the levels of familiarity and adoption of Christianity determined the meaning of Christmas held by those enslaved in the colonies. 

Smith’s Castle large brick Hearth oven located in the Plantation kitchen. The enslaved cooks would have used this hearth to cook the food served for the feasts of Christmastide. The large size was accommodated to feed numerous people on a large plantation, such as the family and guests who would often visit, especially during special times such as Twelfth Night.

The Twelfth Night Cake

During the 16th century, Mary Fleming, a ladies' maid of Mary Queen of Scots, got to wear something luxurious from Mary’s very own wardrobe. This rare moment was only possible due to the Twelfth Night tradition, the Lord of Misrule, a festive game evolving from the Saturnalia custom ‘mock monarchs’ and the medieval winter carnival, ‘Feast of Fools.’ Like its predecessors, the Lord of Misrule, once a year, allowed societal, gender, and class rules to be bent and flipped. [16] The game popularized in medieval European courts consisted of each guest taking a slice of a special dessert modernly known as the Twelfth Night Cake but also referred to as the Bean Cake, Kings Cake, or Epiphany Cake. [17] What makes the cake unique is that the cook drops a dried bean inside the mix before baking. Whoever found the bean in their slice was proclaimed royalty for the night, regardless of age or status. If a male found the bean, he was titled the "bean king.' If a female found the bean, they were announced "queen” and chose her royal partner. [18] The game concept was not just fun but also contributed to the efforts of pleasing lower classes by “giving back” and allowing them to feel as “equals.” temporarily.

 Jordaens, The Feast of the Bean King, 1640-1645 (Kunsthistoriches Museum: Vienna

The lucky “royals” had control over the others the whole night, choosing all the songs sung, dances danced, and games played. “The king drinks!” would be yelled in chorus throughout the night whenever the bean king raised his glass, as the others followed suit. [19] These sorts of fun and ‘topsy-turvy’ pranks led the night's events. Depending on the party, the rules of the practice varied. Some people used a bean for the king and a pea for the queen. At some gatherings, each court role was assigned to the guests, who were expected to play along [20].  As the game spread across Europe, different cultures developed unique customs for the ‘King Bean’ tradition. For example, many Dutch and German households instead baked a coin to determine the 'King of the Feast." However, the Twelfth Night Cake became primarily associated with English cuisine and Christmas tradition even though many parts of the world did the custom. Nevertheless, since the Updikes and other planters celebrated Twelfth Night, there is a chance that they took part in the Bean King tradition. [21] Since the Updikes would have celebrated the feast in a affluent fashion, there high chance they took part in the King Bean tradition.  

1790’s 12th Night Character. Paper sheets like these could be cut up

into individual cards, so the guest could draw their role.

The Twelfth Night Cake Recipe 

Defining ‘cake’ today compared to colonial times would be complicated because cake then was a general culinary category. All traditional cakes had humble beginnings as yeast-leavened bread enriched with dried fruit and ale. Over time, the bread was enriched with brandy, rum, and sugar, slowly evolving into the cakes we know today. However, before the 17th century, any cake recipe recorded was specifically a flat form of bread like the modern ‘oatcake.’ In colonial America, the term ‘cake’ could also mean what we now consider ‘cookies’ which came from the Dutch recipe for ‘Kookies.’ [22]

18th Century 12th Night Ballad.

The Twelfth Night Cake falls into the category of Great Cakes. Great Cakes were enhanced and enlarged cakes for special occasions like weddings, birthdays, or Christmas. For most families, the Twelfth Night Cake was the grandest cake they ate all year due to its large size and decoration. Despite the cake’s significant meaning, the recipe was relatively generic and similar to the other celebratory ‘cakes’ at the time. Published recipes from the 18th and 19th centuries with similar methods and ingredients were called Plum Cakes, Rich Cakes, and Bride cakes. The earliest official account that labels the Epiphany Cake, “The Twelfth Night Cake,” is from 1803, but scholars know Western Europe had long established this tradition. [23]  

Twelfth Night cakes, like many things, could indicate status. Lower classes, if not provided the cake by wealthy people, was likely eaten plain and with simple ingredients like fruits and nuts. For higher classes, the cakes can be costly. The elite used the dessert as a way to display their wealth. They frosted the cake and covered it with ornamental sweets and fancy icings. Confectionary artists also molded marzipan to create scenes and figurines around and on the cake. Competitions between the fanciest, most luxurious cakes were common among aristocrats and rivaling bakers. [24] Not until around 1650 and 1800 did sugar become widely available for most people. At that point, an additional coating of white sugar icing on the cake was standard among all classes. [25] With that said, based on the Updike’s high status, their Twelfth Night cake would have included extravagant and elegant adornments.

12th Night Cake Party Scene, 1794

The Twelfth Night Cake Display

The display I created for the museum's Christmas at the Castle was inspired by the rich history of Twelfth Night and the cake that became associated with its celebration. Although, the choices for both the subject and design were a non-linear path to the final product. As I learned more things, discovered artifacts, and faced challenges, things were changed and altered. However, once I decided on my direction, my primary goal was to create an accurate physical representation of how the Updikes would have made the cake.

My aim for the design was to resemble the baker in the middle of the recipe. Having the exhibit showcased in the buttery was undoubtedly helpful in this case. Although dairy products would have been processed in that room, the space is connected to the kitchen (or 'common room') and has plenty of pantry space. Therefore, this area gave the appeal that the cake could have been made there. Bringing the cake to life was also improved by the event's celebration of Christmas and the December wedding of Sarah Updike in 1735. For both occasions, a Great Cake such as Twelfth Night Cake or Brides Cake would have been served to the guests. Consequently, based on these factors, the display appeared as if the cook was preparing to make one of these 'Great Cakes.'

Regarding the ingredients used, many 18th-century recipes called for components to be laid out before baking, so I attempted to recreate that required step. However, deciding what ingredients should be showcased, I did not follow a specific recipe but referred to multiple Twelfth Night and 18th-century cake recipes, or what they called "receipts." After reviewing many recipes, the methods and types of ingredients stayed relatively consistent. There was flexibility in the interchangeability of elements based on several factors. With this circumstance in mind, it would be most historically accurate to choose ingredients that the Updikes may have used based on their location, status, and other clues. With the ingredients determined, I could find associated objects with the processing and storing of the foods used for the display. 

Sources:

[1] – Absolute History. The Tudors' Bizarre 12 Days Of Christmas Ritual | Tudor Monastery Farm | Absolute History. YouTube. YouTube, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6_LmIAEyvM.

[2] -  Gillan, Joanna. “Why Christmas Is Held on December 25th.” Ancient Origins: Reconstructing the Story of Humanitie's Past (blog), December 26, 2020. https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-general/why-christmas-held-25th-december-001161. 

[3] - Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Epiphany." Encyclopedia Britannica, December 7, 2022. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Epiphany.

[4] - Susan. “The Twelfth Night.” Web log. The Word Wenches (blog), December 26, 2020. https://wordwenches.typepad.com/word_wenches/2019/01/the-twelfth-night-.html. 

[5]- Kaufman, Cathy, “The Ideal Christmas Dinner,” Gastronomica 4, no. 4 (Fall 2004):17-24, https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.oswego.edu/stable/pdf/10.1525/gfc.2004.4.4.17.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Aa29d4db68dcd93e595c38b6dabb27865&ab_segments=&origin=&acceptTC=1

[6] – Kaufman, Cathy, “The Ideal Christmas Dinner,” Gastronomica 4, no. 4 (Fall 2004):17-24, https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.oswego.edu/stable/pdf/10.1525/gfc.2004.4.4.17.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Aa29d4db68dcd93e595c38b6dabb27865&ab_segments=&origin=&acceptTC=1

[7] – Taylor, Alan. American Colonies, (US:Penguin Books, 2001).

[8]- “Providence, Rhode Island.” The Free Dictionary. Farlex. Accessed January 5, 2023. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Providence%2c+Rhode+Island.

[9] – Lemons, Stanley J. The Charter of 1663, Major Milestone on the Road to Religious Liberty, A Lively Experiment Reflections on the Charter of 1663, from the series Rhode Island 1663 Colonial Charter Commission, 2013.

[10] - Lemons, Stanley J. The Charter of 1663, Major Milestone on the Road to Religious Liberty, A Lively Experiment Reflections on the Charter of 1663, from the series Rhode Island 1663 Colonial Charter Commission, 2013.

[11] - Kaufman, Cathy, “The Ideal Christmas Dinner,” Gastronomica 4, no. 4 (Fall 2004):17-24, https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.oswego.edu/stable/pdf/10.1525/gfc.2004.4.4.17.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Aa29d4db68dcd93e595c38b6dabb27865&ab_segments=&origin=&acceptTC=1

[12] – Absolute History. The Tudors' Bizarre 12 Days Of Christmas Ritual | Tudor Monastery Farm | Absolute History. YouTube. YouTube, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6_LmIAEyvM.

[13] - “History of St. Paul's Wickford.” St. Paul's Website. Accessed January 5, 2023. http://www.stpaulswickford.org/history-of-st-pauls-wickford.html.

[14] – Woodward, Carl R., Plantation in Yankeeland. Narragansett Publishing, 1985.

[15] - Kaufman, Cathy, “The Ideal Christmas Dinner,” Gastronomica 4, no. 4 (Fall 2004):17-24, https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.oswego.edu/stable/pdf/10.1525/gfc.2004.4.4.17.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Aa29d4db68dcd93e595c38b6dabb27865&ab_segments=&origin=&acceptTC=1

[16] - Susan. “The Twelfth Night.” Web log. The Word Wenches (blog), December 26, 2020. https://wordwenches.typepad.com/word_wenches/2019/01/the-twelfth-night-.html. 

[17] - Kaufman, Cathy, “The Ideal Christmas Dinner,” Gastronomica 4, no. 4 (Fall 2004):17-24, https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.oswego.edu/stable/pdf/10.1525/gfc.2004.4.4.17.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Aa29d4db68dcd93e595c38b6dabb27865&ab_segments=&origin=&acceptTC=1

[18] – “Twelfth Night Cake.” British Food: A History, September 17, 2021. https://britishfoodhistory.com/2019/01/05/twelfth-night-cake/.

[19] - Ermakova, Elizaveta. “King Drinks: Jacob Jordaens and the Feast of the Bean King.” Daily Art, July 17, 2020.

[20] - Rayner, Nicola, Discover Britain, and Nancy Alsop. “Mischief and Misrule at Twelfth Night.” Discover Britain, January 25, 2016. https://www.discoverbritainmag.com/mischief-misrule-twelfth-night/.

[21] – “12th Night: Fun & Games and 12th Cake!” 12th Night: Fun & Games and 12th Cake!, December 31, 2010. https://lostpastremembered.blogspot.com/2010/12/12th-night-fun-games-and-12th-cake.html.

[22] – Charsley, Simon, “The Wedding Cake: History and Meanings,” Folklore 99, no. 2 (1988): 232-241, https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.oswego.edu/stable/pdf/1260461.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Af294ac237f60b6222c60e95648038284&ab_segments=&origin=&acceptTC=1

[23] – A Wonderful "Twelfth Night" Cake. YouTube. YouTube, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS1CQlacX2U&t=385s.

[24] – “Twelfth Night Cake.” British Food: A History, September 17, 2021. https://britishfoodhistory.com/2019/01/05/twelfth-night-cake/.

[25] - Charsley, Simon, “The Wedding Cake: History and Meanings,” Folklore 99, no. 2 (1988): 232-241, https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.oswego.edu/stable/pdf/1260461.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Af294ac237f60b6222c60e95648038284&ab_segments=&origin=&acceptTC=1

Casting Light on Some Early New England Limners

By Robert A. Geake

     Earlier this year I had the opportunity to give a brief presentation on some of the artwork associated with Smith’s Castle. In doing research on those paintings, I came upon references that cast much light on those early American limners, or decorative artists who often turned their hand to landscapes and portraits as they travelled throughout the region.

Several of the early “Lumineers” of New England became quite popular for their skill in  portraiture. Indeed, in the headlong days of the early republic, such limners were among the thousands of itinerant craftsmen plying their trade. As historian David Jaffe writes,

 “Obtaining their artistic training from the pages of design books or from brief encounters with other untrained painters, portraitists traversed the countryside creating images that range from stark black and white silhouettes to colorful, full-length oils…These family portraits found a ready market among “middling” craftsmen, innkeepers, and farmers who sought symbols of middle-class identity and belonging[i]”.

  Among the earliest of these artists were young men like Nehemiah Partridge from Portsmouth, New Hampshire. First appearing as a japonner, or decorative artist in Boston around 1712, he was actively painting in New York by 1718 when he was recorded as a limner and had taken on an apprentice named James Smith. Partridge was later introduced to society circles in Albany, New York and was commissioned by several families there. Among his known portraits of the period are of Robert Livingston, the elder, and a full length portrait of Pieter Schuyler, one of the first in the country.

 Partridge left Albany in 1720, traveling and painting in Newport, Rhode Island, and Jamestown and Williamsburg, Virginia. During a visit to Newport in December 1722, he painted a pair of “wedding portraits” of Daniel Updike, and Anstis Jenkins Updike  For many years his work went unattributed, having signed his paintings with the Latin phrase ”Aetatis Saue Limner” followed by the sitters age and date of composition. The discovery by art historian Mary Black in a patron’s daybook would lead to the discovery of some eighty portraits painted in his hand[ii].

 While a copy of the portrait of Anstis Jenkins Updike hangs upon the wall of her husband’s office in the house, (featured as the frontispiece of this article)the fate of the portrait of Daniel remains unknown. While the original portrait of Anstis resides at the Rhode Island Historical Society among its collection of early American portraits, they reputedly have never had the portrait of Daniel.

 To whom then, may we attribute the copy we hold at the Castle? A clue can be found in a footnote of Anglican minister Rev. James MacSparran’s diary which states that on the occasion of having to sell the house and property at Cocumscussoc,

 “…Wilkins Updike, a lively character of those old days, caused one of his daughters possessing a talent for painting, to be instructed in the art, with a special view of producing very credible copies of those portraits…hanging  in the Updike mansion”

 The editor insinuates that these copies were the portraits given to the RIHS and that the originals remained with the family.

 Art. Historian and critic Robert Hughes attributes the main influence upon portraiture painting in early North America to Scottish artist John Smibert, the first academically trained artist to visit the American colonies. His arrival in Boston in 1729 caused a stir among elites of the city, excited to have “a real artist” among them. But Smibert did not intend to stay. He was journeying with Irish bishop and philosopher George Berkeley. The philosopher it is known, was a mentor to the young Daniel Updike in his studies, perhaps especially, a comfort in the wake of his young wife Sarah and their infant child.

 By 1728 he had returned to London, and Berkeley had visions of establishing a university college on the island of Bermuda. Once established, he hoped the school would train legions of Protestant missionaries “to fight what Berkeley feared was the spread of Roman Catholicism and of depraved European values in America.[iii]”

 Smibert was to join him in this venture, and he was eager to take the opportunity. His career as a limner in London was failing, the venture offered him a fresh start and new visual challenges to add to his repertoire of decorative skills.

 Just as they were planning to sail, Smibert was commissioned by Irish Exchequer John Wainewright to paint a portrait of The Bermuda Group as the work came to be called. The artist brought the canvas and the ten pounds Wainewright had given him as down payment with him to Boston, intending to finish the portrait there.

Smibert’s Dean Berkeley and His Entourage (The Bermuda Group) 1729 Courtesy of the Yale College of Art

Once in the city however, Smibert was flooded with social invitations and commissions from some of Boston’s most prominent families. He put off finishing the portrait until it became apparent that the planned venture in Bermuda was not to be. With his commission funds running low, he hastened to finish the nearly six by eight foot group portrait before heading back to England. In the end the patron decided he no longer desired a cumbersome souvenir of a failed venture, and the painting stayed in Boston, “unsold and unsalable” in the artist’s studio where local artists could drop by and study the Scotsman’s technique.

 Smibert, as Hughes has written, displayed “skills at modeling, shading, and the realistic drawing of the human face were obviously far beyond those of earlier colonial artists. It is a recognizably professional picture…It became the prototype of American group portraits for the next half century.[iv]”

  Hughes cites the influence of this portrait on American -born artist Robert Feke (1705-1750), especially his 1741 portrait of Isaac Royall and Family, commissioned by Isaac Royall Jr., the young heir of a large plantation in Mendon, Massachusetts; to “paint him with his sister, sister-in-law, wife and child, all exactly rendered in their finery…[v]”

 Feke’s career centered on portraits painted in the Boston area as well as Philadelphia, and later, at his own home studio in Newport, Rhode Island.

  The same vanity may be said to be the cause of the family portrait we hold in the Castle of John Potter and his family at their tea table with a young enslaved black boy. Potter was a wealthy South Kingstown planter, also notorious for a counterfeiting scheme for which he was convicted in 1742. Painted upon wood circa 1740, the portrait served as an overmantel in the family’s Matunuck home where it remained for many years. The original is now in the collection of the Newport Historical Society.

 Portrait of John Potter and Familyc. 1740 Artist Unknown. Courtesy of the Newport Historical Society

  The posture of Potter in the painting is nearly equal to that of Bishop Berkeley in Smibert’s painting with the wealthy landowner, surrounded by his wife and daughters dressed in their finery, raising a cup of tea to toast their good fortune. The insertion of a smiling enslaved boy to serve the family table must have been a further mark of vanity, as such servant boys were especially prized among the elite of the Narragansett and Newport families.

 Beyond those families who commissioned such portraits in the more affluent cities, were others who had begun to see the value of portraits of loved ones, and there were plenty of itinerant artists to accommodate their wishes.

  Among early 19th century itinerant artists were one J. Brown, who travelled the Berkshires painting portraits from 1806-1808, and Ammi Phillips of Kent, Connecticut; who in 1809 embarked on a long and fruitful career among families within the triangle of the Connecticut, New York, and Massachusetts border region.

Such commissions from rural families were not from a sense of vanity, but with the “imminence of death” in early New England, as art historian Lillian B. Miller has noted, portraits of family members became all the more desirable,

 “especially portraits of women and children. Among the group of family portraits that Roberts sent to Elizabeth Shrimpton in Boston was one of her dying sister Katherine, who died soon after her portrait was taken. “Wee little thought,” he wrote to Elizabeth, “ye curtaine would be so soon drawn over yet being intended for you hath sent it yt you may see by ye shadow what a sweet likely babe it to live. ...”

A portrait of Elizabeth Eggington (1664: Wadsworth Athenaeum, Hartford, Connecticut), Cotton Mather’s niece, was presumably taken after her death to retain her likeness for her absent seafaring father.

These, and probably other family portraits, testify to the concern of families to retain likenesses of departed members as well as to the realistic recognition— taught at an early age to New England children in such texts as The New England Primer (1727)—that

Youth forward slips, Death soonest nips[vi]”.

That’s not to say that such portraits were painted under the weight of such a tragic familiarity, indeed those early portraits of children are often hopeful and full of objects that reflect the youthfulness, even the mischievous character of their young subjects.

 Those of us who work at Smith’s Castle and many who have visited are familiar with the painting of the young girl (or boy) that hangs in the 18thcentury dining room. Docents have long used this portrait to tell visitors the story of these itinerant painters creating half-portraits of boys and girls, men and women; with such details as head and hands to be added later. How such traveling artisans rolled up these canvasses up to be unfurled and finished when a commission was acquired on the road.

  Such a story is a falsehood, according to historian Jaffe, citing art historian Holger Cahill’s 1932 work American Folk Art: The Art of the Common Man in America 1750-1900 that such portraits depended wholly upon the artists skill at capturing the features of the subject during whatever accommodated sittings might be afforded. The skill of the artist of the painting at Smith’s Castle is comparable to that of the artist who painted a standing portrait Young Girl with Rattle(1838) attributed to Erastus Salisbury Field. As with the Castle’s painting, the backdrop and supporting objects are perfectly composed, as is the dress and other attire.

Most often in these portraits, the weaknesses of the artist are best expressed in the awkwardness of the body’s posture or arm position, the deficiencies in the composition of the hands, etc. In the portrait at the Castle, one notices immediately the disproportionate size of the neck and head to the body of the subject. In the portrait below, the awkward angle of the left arm, and the uncertain, almost unfinished hand resting on the table detracts from the naturalness of the right arm and hand clutching the rattle.

 Girl holding Rattlec. 1838 Lee, Massachusetts. Attributed to Erastus Salisbury Field, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Folk Art Collection

Field is another artist whose career involved various mediums including portraiture. Born in 1805 in Leverett, Massachusetts, he displayed a prodigious talent in sketching portraits by the age of 19, and was admitted as a student at the studio of Samuel F.B. Morse in New York City. Disappointingly, Field had to return to Leverett just three months later when Morse closed his studio. He painted his first portrait-that of his grandmother Elizabeth Billings Ashley, a year later in 1826.

In the 1830’s, Field made a successful living as a limner traveling through western Massachusetts and the Connecticut River valley; enough to support his wife and child back in Leverett. He earned a reputation as a portrait artist for his ability in capturing “a good likeness” in a single sitting[vii]. While one of his most known paintings   Portrait of a Young Woman (1830) showcases the artists detailed hand on the sitter’s dress, jewelry, and hair; the face and hands remain stiff and awkward. By the time of his composition of Portrait of Thankful Field (1835) the features on his sister-in-law’s face are much more freely and naturally expressed. In the later, more formal portrait of Elizabeth Cook known as Woman with a Green Book, Field achieves the same freeness of facial expression, using the bonnet and shawl of his sitter to highlight the attractiveness of her features. Her hands also, are rendered attractively, without the stiffness of his earlier compositions.

               Field’sWoman with a Green Book, 1838, Courtesy of Wickipedia Commons

Field and his family moved to Greenwich Village in the 1840’s where he had some opportunity to show his art work and also took an interest in the new medium of photography. He moved back to Massachusetts in 1847 to manage his ailing father’s farm and embarked on a new phase of his career, creating romantic landscapes, biblical scenes, and historic paintings. With the death of his wife in 1859, Field and his daughter relocated to Sunderland, where he built a studio and continued painting in these genres.

 For many years his best known work, begun after the Civil War was an immense, unfinished canvas entitled the Historical Monument of the American Republic, a “fantastical architectural image of key aspects in American history”. Field had intended to exhibit the work at the 1876 Chicago Exposition, but he was working on the painting as late as 1888. Today, over 300 works, the majority of them portraits, are attributed to his hand. In times of war, such artists were often commissioned to paint scenes depicting the family’s grief at the grave, or for a likeness of the individual after death.

  Such mourning scenes began to be produced as early as 1804, and often depicted family members visiting the graves of the deceased. As the form progressed, the typical scene would include the gravestone or crypt, a willow beside whose branches draped over the stone, and perhaps one or two mourners.

Early folk art paintings by itinerant artists began to portray funerals as with other family gatherings. These commissioned or family painted landscapes preserved a moment of family history that were personalized just as the traditional picnics and weddings that were the more common subjects of this genre of American painting. The posthumous portrait of a family member was among the most common commissions for the artist Ammi Philips. In the painter’s journal of 1857, he expresses gratitude at receiving word of one family’s response to his efforts:

 “…Lenny’s portrait came tonight. Mother and even Father is perfectly satisfied with it. I was so thankful-it will be a comfort and it will mean more than anything else in the world to us, now.”

  A similar work of art hangs in the Updike bedroom of the Castle, its likeness being that of Phebe Bailey Congdon, matriarch of the family who purchased the property in 1813 and owned the house through a succession of nieces and nephews for seventy years.

 Phebe Bailey and her first husband, widower Benjamin Congdon, were both members of the Quaker Meeting House in East Greenwich. It is likely there that they met Daniel Updike II who shepherded the arrangement for the transfer of property.

 Her life was a often difficult, helping her new husband bear the loss of his seventeen year old son just a few years after their marriage, and then of her husband by suicide in 1815, and her brother-in-law a week later by the same means. Whatever circumstances caused such a tragedy to unfold remains a mystery. Phebe would remarry the last and oldest Congdon brother John two years later, and outlive the mariner by many years.

   Portrait of Phebe Bailey Condon (1803-1857) Oil on Canvas, Artist Unknown

  The portrait of Phebe as a middle aged woman offers the viewer a pleasant face, the hint of kindness within the lines of age and the glint in her eyes behind the wife rimmed eyeglasses. A slight, wry smile seems poised on her lips even as she is adorned in a formal black dress and shawl.

 As Mrs. Congdon died in 1857, it is possible that the portrait was painted from a photograph, but more likely, I believe, is that this portrait is yet another example of a memorial portrait, that is, a likeness developed over time by the artist, to create a sufficient likeness for the patron to “recognize” the subject, as we saw in the correspondence between Philips and his patron.

  Much has been made of the markings scene under bright light that show the artist’s attempts to change an earlier likeness, even the circles he or she used for aligning and measuring the facial proportions may be seen; lending much speculation of a “haunted portrait”. Doubtless other portraits composed in this way reveal similar faults that have been painted over before the final brushstroke.

 The artist, who remains unknown was clearly by the time of its composition, an accomplished portraitist. The patron, also unknown was satisfied to the extent that a brass name plaque was placed on the frame of the portrait for posterity.

  Other artists like Chester Harding and Rufus Porter also sought to and succeeded in refining their skills in portraiture over long careers. Women also, especially those who were gifted in the “schoolgirl arts” adapted their skills to include portraiture. 

 Mary Way was an early pioneer among women itinerant painters. The prolific Ruth Pinney from a well-to-do family of Simsbury, Connecticut became known for her genre scenes, mourning pictures, and illustrations from literary sources-all common subjects in schools and academies, though as she “learned her palette in the 18thcentury”; she relied more upon her own extensive research and her familiarity with English prints[i].

 Memorial Portrait c. 1815 Connecticut. Watercolor and Ink on woven paper.  Artist Unknown

 These itinerant portraitists captured a variety of people from many walks of life. While most relied upon wealthy families for commissions, their lives as itinerant artists also intersected with those of fellow travelers, tavern keepers, peddlers, entertainers, and a host of fellow artisans. These adorned the walls of taverns, stables, and homes for generations. What they afford us is a unique glimpse into the personal dwellings, fashions, and lifestyles of colonial America. A tangible glimpse into the past, and how those who lived in that era wished to be captured for posterity.

“I Have Mine Eye Fixed on this Little One”: The Enslavement of Indigenous and African Boys in North American Households 1637- 1800

By Robert A. Geake

The John Potter Family on display at the Newport Historical Society.

     In June of 1637, a cargo of 40-50 captives from one of the last engagements in the Pequot War landed in Providence. The captive’s ship had left Pequot harbor bound for Boston, but the Captain had chosen for some reason to forgo the journey around Cape Cod, and let the captives be taken overland from Rhode Island.

As the enslaved were herded in shackles to the carts and wagons that would take them from the port, Roger Williams was witness to the scene. He noticed an Indigenous boy among the women and children being taken away and quickly wrote out a letter that he gave to one of those guarding the captives to give to Governor John Winthrop on their arrival.

 “I am bold (if I may not offend in it) Williams wrote “to request the keeping and bringing up one of the children. I have fixed mine eye on this little one with the red about his neck, but I will not be preemptory in my choice, but will rest in your loving pleasure for him, or any etc.[1]”

 Williams received word in July from Winthrop that the Governor would comply with his wishes, and the minister returned word to him at the close of the month:

“sir, I desire to be truly thankful for the boy intended. His father was of Sasquakit where the last fight was: and fought not with the English as his mother (who is with you and 2 children more)  certified me. I shall endeavor his good, and the common good, in him. I shall appoint some to fetch him: only I request that you would please give a name to him[2]”.

Modern Williams scholar Glenn LaFantasie tells us that this boy’s name was likely Will, a name later mention in Williams letters as “my native servant’. It is possible that he was the son of a Pequot sachem, citing an early 1660’s account of

“that memorable storie of the young Indian prince or Sagamores sonne whome Mr. Williams educated]”

It is entirely possible then, even probable, that this Indigenous boy was the first enslaved person to set foot on the shore of Cocumscussoc.

There persists a question however, as to whether Williams had more than one Indigenous servant. In the coming months after acquiring this boy, he would continue in his role as a mediator between Winthrop and the Narragansett, as well as with Connecticut authorities over what to do with the remaining Pequot refugees. It would be likely then that he came often to Cocumscussoc or points further south to bring messages, or exchange points of negotiation.

In letters written during this time, he does mention his servant “Will” who appears to have helped gather information for him. He is also sent to Winthrop and introduced as “This native, Will, my Indian servant”, indicating that the Governor had no prior introduction to him, and had certainly not named him. ]Furthermore, it is clear this Indigenous adult is not “the little one” he sought to raise and educate.

This seems to indicate that Roger Williams had at least two Indigenous servants in 1638[3].

He would soon write to Winthrop that the boy he had in his household was the son and brother of a woman and boy the Massachusetts governor had taken for his own household.

But these two prominent men of New England were not alone. In his book Indigenous Continent: The Epic Contest for North America, Oxford University historian Pekka Hamalainen tells us that Massachusetts Bay approved the first slave law in the English Atlantic in 1641 “partly to clarify the status of hundreds of Pequot captives in colonial households[4]”.

In the aftermath of the Pequot War, the long-standing English tradition of enslavement of young boys in particular, began in British North America.

European nobility across the Continent had long displayed their social status and prestige in the form of large households of servants. From 1570, enslaved Africans had been brought into Great Britain with the intent of using them as domestic servants. By the first half of the 17th century, such households held a handful of black pages, with a distinct preference for young boys.

“Brought back to be pets and playthings, these child slaves were compelled to wear collars inscribed with their owner’s name, and typically were dressed in expensive costumes or livery as a statement of wealth and status. Indeed, it became a convention of aristocratic portraiture to include a black child so dressed[5]”.

As the century progressed, it became fashionable for titled and propertied families to have one or two slaves; especially as English planters in Barbados sent sons back to be educated in England, attended by black boys, a yearly contingent of African servants who became iconic fixtures at some of the country’s most prestigious schools.

Most subjects of the British Empire in Colonial India made do with Indigenous servants, the luxury of an enslaved African was a privilege only for those “European gentlemen of fashion”, who could afford to purchase an enslaved boy imported from Bourbon, or Mauritius, or from the slave market in Calcutta[6].

Such was business there, that when the British government issued the 1789 Proclamation banning the importation of Africans, slave traders in the city turned to breeding slaves for the market from the stock of Africans on hand. As an enslaved African cost as much as ten times an indigenous boy, it was a profitable business.

By the late 17th century, Indian males were also popular in England, being imported there under similar circumstances as “pages”. Historian Rozuna Visram has identified a 1672 painting as a portrait of the first “Indian page” in England. As the fashion for orientalism grew in Great Britain, Indian domestics became “much prized for their exotic charm, with all its associations of luxury and splendor. As with their fellow enslaved Africans, they were sometimes depicted wearing slave collars.

By 1772 as steps were taken to curtail the importation of African slaves, the use of Indian domestic servants increased. Despite their being highly prized in households, many were mistreated. The notices of runaway Indian servants recorded by Visram reveal that they dealt exclusively with Indian “boys”.

When Warren Hastings, the Governor General returned from his posting in Bengal in 1785, he brought two adolescent Indian boys with him, and four maidservants for his wife whom she soon dismissed.

Chinese servants also became briefly popular with the privileged households as trade with East Asia and China increased the flow of exotic goods to Britain. It became fashionable then for such households to have a  Chinese boy servant or “houseboy” though these were not chattel slaves like the African and Indians of households, but held in “debt-bondage”, or indentured servants who would eventually earn their freedom.

 Perhaps for this reason, by 1790 the trend had taken a sharp decline as negative views of Chinese workers,  such as “lazy, unproductive, …childlike, and immature” among other slurs began to circulate.

The early American colonies relied almost exclusively upon Indigenous labor, with just a handful of planters bringing African slaves into New England from the West Indies in the 17th century.

Richard Smith Jr. was one of them. He brought several enslaved laborers in his two ships from Barbados to Cocumscussoc. His probate inventory after his death in 1692 lists among his property “five Negro children and an old Negro woman[7]”. He also owned two adult enslaved men.

By 1670, In order to sustain indigenous servitude, the colony of Rhode Island would use the matriarchal tradition of indigenous people by decreeing that enslaved status would be inherited through the mother.

Within the decade, those Indigenous people remaining from the costly war the Pokanoket confederacy had waged against the English were taken into enslavement. Some were placed on trial and executed, others, mainly women and children, became the new, exotic “Indian Princesses” that now waited on wealthy families. But as with the previous war, many others were purchased by farmers, craftsmen, and urban dwellers in want of domestic servants.

Both Massachusetts and Plymouth sold their Indian captives into perpetual slavery, both inside and outside their borders[8]. In Rhode Island those who “had stayed behind” while Providence was burned met beneath a tree beside the river where they had established the town and voted to sell their captives to traders in the West Indian trade. According to historian James Arnold, who transcribed the town’s records, Williams’ son Robert transported the slaves on his sloop to Cocumscussoc, where they were held in cages and sold for bushels of corn and “fatt sheepe[9]”.

The remaining Narragansett, or at least those not already in servitude were on paper, protected from the fate of their indigenous allies. An act passed in the remaining months of the war declared that “…noe Indian in this Collony be a slave, but only to pay their debts or for their bringing up, or custody they have received, or to performe covenant as if they had been countrymen not in war”.

Town “agents” throughout the colony were “Imposed and empowered to dispose of Indians and place them out as apprentices”. Town governments also bound free indigenous people if they were likely to become a burden to the community.

Slavery thus increased exponentially through this form of indenture. Though the colony had ostensibly outlawed enslaving native Americans, it utilized a code of law to bring an overwhelming majority of indigenous people before the bench based upon one crime or another.

Early laws strove quickly to prevent the sale of liquor, guns, and powder to indigenous peoples. They forbade them form visiting the village at night, or for loitering in people’s houses. Those early records also show the colony’s uneasy interaction with indigenous peoples, many hired as laborers in the towns and villages, but always suspect.

The threat of indenture or enslavement was common for those indigenous individuals considered more “troublesome” by the Court. As John A. Sainsbury noted in his study of Indian Labor in Early Rhode Island,

“many Indians…became servants to the English involuntarily, as the result of judicial processes. Servitude as a punishment for felony was commonly employed in the colony. Because Indians could rarely pay cash or goods in lieu of service, they were especially vulnerable to this form of punishment[10]”.

The majority of Indigenous cases as one might expect, involved theft and debt. Often these crimes were closely related as indigenous families lived hand to mouth even in communities of opportunity. In 1647 the General Assembly passed an “Act for the more speedy trial of such Negros and Indians as shall be found purloining and stealing[11]”.

Debt had long been a tool of European rulers and settlers, a lesson learned well and applied by later generations to indigenous laborers and domestic workers.  

“Anglo-Americans… used many Indian children as servants, as parents indentured their children to cancel debt, because they could not support another mouth, or because indenture offered their children a way to adapt to the new culture. In 1760, the Mashpee minister Gideon Hawley complained that “there is scarcely an Indian boy among us not indentured to an English Master.[12]”

For many years, abuse of this system of indenture went on unabated. In 1730, Rhode Island recognized the existence of “those evil-minded Persons in this Colony, of a greedy and covetous Design” who sold goods to the Indians at extravagant prices to draw them into debt, kept them bound by presenting bills for custody and clothing, for the meals they ate while in service.

An act by the legislature declared that “noe Indian shall be bound as an apprentice or servant…without the consent of two Justices of the Peace, or Wardens of this Colony”.

Town governments also passed bans on the importation of Indians, in large part, to keep the indigenous population down.

The indenture of Indigenous people in the Colony continued well into the 18th century, as the census of 1774 shows. What is striking within the figures are the number of young indigenous boys listed as “males under 16 living with white families”, showing their greatest numbers in South Kingstown, Warwick, and Tiverton. Some 149 boys in total lived in households throughout Rhode Island.

In addition, 104 females under the age of 16 also worked for white families, with an additional 283 adult Indians indentured as workers in Rhode Island households[13].  

These numbers are poignantly illustrated by records culled from the South Kingstown Town Council meetings. In October 1772, the Council voted that

 “Barry a mustee Boy be bound to Silas Niles Jr. until he arrive at ye age of twenty one Years to be Dismisd in Common form he being 8 years & 6 mont[h]s & 4 days of age. And it is also voted that Sarah a mustee Girl daughter to betty Will, be bound to sd Silas Niles Jr. until she arrives t ye age of 18 years[.] She being  aged 11 years and 11 Days in Common form as afores[ai]d”.

 In September 1774, the Town Council decreed that

 “Wheras James Reed a mustee boy so Called is now A Charge to his Town upon which it is voted that ye said James Reed be bound out to Peleg Babcock until he is 21 years old”

 As late as 1780, the Council bound over children of indigenous mothers to white masters:

 “Voted that Ceaser a Mustee Boy son to an Indian Woman Named Jenny Gould be bound an apprentice to John Watson (son of Jeffry) unti he arrives to the age of twenty One Years[,] said Master is to dismiss him with a new Suit of Cloaths throughout from Head to foot”.

As early as 1704, Thomas Allen of Swansey purchased “one Negro Boy” named Felix from Benjamin Allen of Rehoboth.

This group of masters also included men like John Potter who preferred to have at least one black boy as his property. He chose to have him portrayed with his family on canvas serving tea in 1740.  As with his predecessors, these masters believed that purchasing an enslaved boy, or indenturing an indigenous adolescent would produce a reliable, loyal, and obedient servant.

Most children brought into slavery among New England’s plantations would have been finely skilled in some domestic chores by the time they had become adolescents. The preference for a young boy was in that English precedent of a houseboy to tend to the Master’s personal needs during the course of a day, whether it be polishing his boots, laying out his greatcoat and walking stick, retrieving his hat, and countless other tasks; among tending, when needed, to his  personal hygiene.

Merchant John Bannister of Newport made several voyages to the West Indies between 1747 and 1749 when he purchased one or two slaves to bring back to New England. He first purchased “a Negro boy named Fortune” from Surinam when he encountered the schooner Success and then later sold the same boy to Samuel Aborn in Connecticut for fifty pounds profit.

During this same period, it became popular for women of the Narragansett gentry to do the same, in choosing a young girl who would be trained to be a personal maid.

Merchants like Bannister provided them with young girls, as he advertised in the Boston Post as among “the finest cargo of negro men, women, and girls ever imported into New England[14]”.

As the generations of slavery increased, masters and mistresses could more easily choose from among those children born into their household of enslaved people.

At Cocumscussoc, both Daniel (1693-1757) and Lodowick (1725-1804) Updike had ample enslaved women and children with which to conduct this practice. 

Listed in the Inventory after his death in 1757 are Lillie, {along with her “unnamed child”), and another enslaved woman named Sue, along with three other children, two year old Paul, a two and a half year old girl named Robie, and Bridget, who had been baptized as an infant in 1751 by Rev. James MacSparren; an indication that she was a favorite of the mistress of the house, and perhaps chosen to be “brought up” as her personal servant.

Lodowick Updike is described in the memoirs of his youngest son as living the life of a gentleman farmer, “remarkable for his hospitality…his house a noted asylum for the distressed”. The children of the house, Daniel Sarah, and their siblings were educated at home by the best tutors. By all accounts, Lodowick II may have been too extravagant, even as he maintained the plantation during a time of great change in the colony and the rapid decline of slavery in New England. Near the end of his ownership of Cocumscussoc his sons had to take responsibility for his debts, and Daniel helped to run the remaining farms[15].

A recent gift from the South County History Center of a walking stick of Lodowick Updike’s seems to epitomize the extent of luxury that a man like Updike was accustomed to living. A mahogany walking stick, topped by an exquisitely inscribed gold knob embodies the spirit of a man clinging to tradition. It is not difficult then, to imagine him accompanied to his carriage by a young black boy dressed in fine livery.  

[1] Lafantasie, Glenn Correspondence of RW Vol. 1 pp. 88-89

[2] Ibid

[3] Williams would later adopt a Dutch boy he found in the woods between Plymouth and Seekonk named Will Clauson. He raised the boy as “his servant” in Providence and gave him means to support himself as a young man.

[4] Hamalainen, Pekka Indigenous Continent:The Epic Contest for North America Liveright Publishing 2022 p. 151

[5] Lowrie/Martinez Creating the Houseboy: Early Asian Influence on European Cultures of Domestic Service p. 28

[6] Ibid.

[7] Dunay, Neil Timeline of Slavery at Cocumscussoc Courtesy of the Cocumscussoc Association Archives

[8]Sainsbury, John A.

[8] Sainsbury, John A. Indian Labor in Early Rhode Island The New England Quarterly Vol. 48, No. 3 Sept. 1975 p. 382

[9] Arnold, James A. Records of the Colony of Rhode Island Vol. 3

[10] Ibid.  p. 378

[11] Rhode Island State Archives, accessed 10/11/22

[12] Middleton/Smith ed. Class Matters: Early North America and the Atlantic World University of Pennsylvania Press 2008 pp. 52-53

[13] Sainsbury, John A. Indian Labor in Early Rhode Island Appendix, NEQ Vol48 N0. 3 p. 393

[14] Geake, Robert A. New England Plantations: Commerce and Slavery History Press 2021 p. 66

[15] See Geake, Robert A. A Cocumscussoc Reader for the transcription of the daybook kept by Daniel Updike in 1796.

Forged in the Fires of Liberty: The Friendship of Thomas Paine and General Nathanael Greene

By Robert A. Geake

Of the many friendships formed during the glorious cause of the American Revolution, few would, on the surface, seem as improbable as that of the late émigré to America and starry-eyed enlightened political philosopher Thomas Paine and the pragmatic, reserved, and ardent military strategist General Nathanael Greene.

Their backgrounds were not only miles apart in distance but upbringing as well. Paine grew up in a thatch-roofed house in a section of Norfolk, England, known as the Wilderness[i], while Greene was raised in the fine colonial Georgian manor built from the well-rooted Rhode Island family’s shipping business.

But the bonds they shared as adults, their passion for American liberty and self-rule, and the morals instilled in them by a Quaker upbringing would remain the strongest threads in the tapestry that events would weave of each life:

 a commonality in working for the greater good, and to give all Americans, including those of color, the rights of life and liberty; and the opportunity to pursue their own happiness.

Thomas Paine had been baptized an Anglican and remained on the church of England's records as such until he departed for America. As a boy, however, he dutifully attended Quaker meetings with his father, Joseph. A keen-eyed, intelligent son of an artisan staymaker, the pious eight-year-old Paine would pen his first literary achievement when he wrote an epitaph for his deceased pet:

     “Here lies the body of John Crow

       Who once was high, but now is low

       Ye brother crows take warning all

       For as you rise, so you must fall”. 

Despite an early penchant for science, Paine's parents' means could support only a limited education, and he received no formal education beyond the age of twelve. As a result, his learning from then on came by his own accord, and through benevolent sponsors, he would acquire as he reached adulthood.

Nathanael Greene, though born in far better circumstances, was raised to be humble, as the Quaker beliefs mandated both in spirit and in dress; and it was to this life that he and his brothers were tethered at the farm of the elder Nathanael Greene. It was a hard life, even for strong, active young men, and among the chores given to the boys through the seasons on the farm, it is plausible that at the age that Paine was mourning his pet, his later friend and brothers were shooting crows above the fields of Potowamut.  

As Nathanael Greene grew into young adulthood, his passion for reading and learning increased, and he sought friends outside the Quaker community to aid in his education. One such benefactor was Newport minister Ezra Stiles of the Second Congregationalist Church. Among the ministries the pastor provided were preaching to smaller congregations in Tiverton and Little Compton; and, as early as 1771,  held separate Bible meetings for members of the black community, as he recorded on February 24, 1772

“In the Evening a very full and serious Meeting of Negroes at my House, perhaps 80 or 90: I discoursed to them on Luke XIV 16, 17, 18, …They sang well. They appeared attentive and much affected; and after I had done, many of them came up to me and thanked me, as they said, for taking so much Care of their souls.”[ii]

The minister encouraged the young Greene and not only advised him spiritually but also introduced him to William Gill and Lindley Murray,  both studying law at Yale University. With the help of these friends, and later, David Howell of Rhode Island College, Greene was able to borrow books and study at will and learn the social graces from these more worldly young men that would enable him to become a gentleman.[iii] 

Greene settled into managing some of the family's affairs, and a house was built for him in Coventry, Rhode Island, above the Pawtuxet River and the family forge he managed. His reputation in the community continued to grow, and in 1770 he was elected to represent the town in the General Assembly. T was during this term of service that events would propel him into the revolutionary upheaval to come.

In the wake of the infamous Gaspe incident, in which a British revenue schooner ran aground and was burned by Providence and Warwick insurgents caused Greene, to seek military training and learn tactical defense from the available books he could find. He began to drill with the Plainfield, Connecticut militia, and in 1773 was called before the elders of his Meetinghouse and expelled from meetings for his participation in military exercises. The following year, he signed a pact with attorney James Mitchell Varnum to form a militia group and petitioned the state to be incorporated as the "Kentish Guard."

As Thomas Paine reached adulthood, his status as an unskilled laborer gave him little choice but to become an apprentice in his Father’s business. He would not break free of these constraints until an opportunity came for him to practice the same craft in London, and then, on January 17, 1757, he signed aboard the British privateer King of Prussia.

This seemingly impulsive act of independence had occurred once before, but his Father had tracked him down soon enough to dissuade him from signing aboard a vessel that was literally shot to pieces the moment she left the channel. This time, it proved to be an act of good fortune, Paine suddenly being part of a crew that captured eight enemy vessels and their treasure in as many months; returning to the London docks in late summer.

It was then that the city itself, with its bookstores and coffeeshops and free lectures, fed again Paine's appetite for learning and increasingly for discourse; with friends he made in the coffeeshops and with printers who would ultimately produce his first pamphlets in defense of workers rights that brought him his first recognition, but it was little comfort for the failure of his own business, and of an impulsive marriage that ended unhappily in the spring of 1774.   

Having sold all his goods, he returned to London and made his way to 36 Craven St. to meet with the Ambassador from North America, Benjamin Franklin. It was an act of uncanny nerve and confidence that Paine would sit down with and obtain a letter of recommendation from one of few celebrities from the colonies that could assist someone like Paine, unlikely as it was that Franklin had heard of the aspiring author.

Paine's biographer, Craig Nelson, assigns their immediate friendship to their common origins of  being born

 “near the bottom rungs of Anglo-American society. Both had acquired an advanced education by their own efforts, and both believed in cultivating an elegant and stylish simplicity as an outward manifestation of republican ideals.”[iv]

But Paine had something more that Franklin and others, including Washington, and  Nathanael Greene, would see: an absolute and sincere belief in the cause of America and of democracy itself for mankind. In the years ahead, the country and lovers of liberty around the world would briefly elevate Thomas Paine to the level of the world’s greatest thinkers. But as he left Franklin’s doorstep, he had but more than a letter of recommendation and his boat ticket to America.

Three months later, after an arduous voyage, Paine was literally carried in a litter ashore at the port of Philadelphia. Sickness had plagued the hold, filled with servants and low-wage workers who could scarcely afford the ticket and the risk of the voyage. The thirty-seven-year-old Paine had been taken with a debilitating illness, quite removed from the rest of the ship. The letter he bore from Franklin saved him, for the lone doctor on the vessel not only saved many of the passengers and crew who had fallen ill but had Thomas Paine taken to his own house and nursed him some six weeks before he was well enough to find his own rooms and his own place in the Revolution that was to come.

Nathanael Greene had suffered setbacks as well. While he was among the founders of the new militia for Kent County, a childhood injury that left him with a slight but permanent limp in his gait now prevented him from being elected commander of the Kentish Guard. It must have been a crushing blow to the young leader, who had already spent many hours studying military history and drilling tactics so that the regiment would be disciplined and ordered when the conflict came, for by 1774; communities along the shoreline of Rhode Island were stoking the fires of freedom.

Greene nearly resigned, but Varnum persuaded him to continue as a private in the regiment.

He would dutifully march as a private with the Guard when they mustered after hearing news of the fighting in Lexington and Concord and, once assembled, marched for Massachusetts at dawn on April 20, 1775. The regiment was resplendent in new uniforms of red, green, and white; attracting a large crowd of cheering onlookers as they paraded along what is now North Main Street.

When they reached the state line in Pawtucket, a messenger overtook them with a demand from the governor that they not cross into Massachusetts. This order occasioned most of the men to lay down their arms, but Greene and his brothers, as well as another individual, procured horses and continued on, turning back only when they learned that the British had retreated to well-fortified Boston.

Soon after his return, Greene learned that he had been chosen to lead as general of the state’s army. Certainly, Greene, as a representative, had political friends, indeed, since the election of his brother Jacob as a deputy in the legislature, he had family as well. But as his biographer Gerald Carbone points out; what made Greene stand out more than these were his capabilities.[v]

 The man who had been a private but days before now found himself in command of the thousand-strong Rhode Island Army of Observation. Most of the men, like Greene himself, had enlisted from inland farms or the wharves of seaside communities; there were some freeing themselves from apprenticeships, and others signing like Paine had done nearly twenty years before; for the adventure and possible fortune with the spoils of war. At best, some had six months of muster and drill training twice a week. None had so much as taken part in a skirmish, let alone faced an enemy in battle.

Greene tirelessly recruited from Rhode Island and installed a rigorous discipline in the Roxbury camp: no cards, no liquor, and show for muster clean and shaven. The discipline of the Rhode Island brigade compared with bedraggled units from other New England states was noticed by Washington as he reviewed the troops that would become the Continental Army.  

His diligence was rewarded when Greene received a commission as a Brigadier General in the Army. At thirty-two, he became the youngest General in the Continental Army.[vi]

In July 1775, The Rhode Island brigade was encamped upon Prospect Hill, a half mile from British-held Charlestown. While there, Greene and the Rhode Islanders came under the command of Major Charles Lee, a singularly odd man to wear an American Officer's uniform. Lee had climbed to the rank of Major in the British Army, partly through his fighting in America during the French and Indian War, but he resigned his commission to become a soldier of fortune in the Russo-Turkish conflict of 1768-1774; a war which his Polish allies did not win, but which nonetheless earned him the rank of Major General. 

The Siege of Boston, as it would be named, was a long, arduous summer of suffering heat and illness. Encampments on both sides were thinned out by dysentery and other "camp illnesses." At the height of the suffering, the British forces were losing thirty men a week to illness.  

At the end of summer, Greene dispatched five hundred of the Rhode Islanders who were still fit for duty to assist the New Hampshire Regulars in fortifying the works at Ploughed Hill, a redoubt overlooking the Mystic River. Among these volunteers was Agustus Mumford, a friend of Greene's who had just recently raised funds for the poor and displaced residents of the city of Boston. Unfortunately, he became the first Rhode Island casualty of the Revolution when he ill-advisedly peered over the barricades and had his head taken off by a British cannonball.

As the Fall and then Winter approached, Greene could see morale sinking further among the recruits. He had feared all along that such inaction over these months could very well mean the dissolution of the American army. Washington, Greene, and others had at first favored a night-time raid guided by Glover's Mariner brigade of boatmen and landing across the Charles River before dawn. Instead, Washington dispatched Henry Knox and a convoy of oxen and horses to retrieve canon that American forces had captured months before at Fort Ticonderoga.

As weeks of inactivity passed, an expedition to Canada gained more favor among officers, and the original plan was abandoned as junior officers and troops were enlisted for the ill-fated march to Quebec. The Rhode Island brigade would part with some of their most able officers in Christopher Greene, a distant cousin of Nathanael, as well as Simeon Thayer and Samuel Ward. Greene occupied his men in building barracks on Prospect and Winter Hills for the bitter months that lay ahead.

That winter, Greene would write of the hardships they faced:

"We have suffered prodigiously for want of wood. Many regiments have been obliged to eat their provisions raw for want of fuel to cook it, and not withstanding we have burnt up all the fences and cut down trees for a mile around our camp, our sufferings have been inconceivable. The barracks have been greatly delayed for want of stuff. Many of our troops are yet in tents, and will be for some time, especially the officers. The fatigues of the campaign, the suffering for want of food and clothing, have made a multitude of soldiers heartily sick of service.”[vii] 

By mid-December, the Continental Army was reduced to 5,000 troops, with many more eligible for release on New Year's eve. Greene and others had hoped that a bounty could be offered to men for recruitment, a sticking point for Washington, who opposed such an offer, even as he requested the means to raise an army of 20,000 from Congress.

Some re-enlisted as they realized a bounty was not to be. Others were reportedly shamed on their return home for leaving their brethren in arms to face the British in diminished numbers.

Nathanael Greene would write that during the Connecticut troop's exodus

“The people upon the roads expressed so much abhorrence at their conduct for quitting the Army, that it was with difficulty they got provisions.[viii]

Prospects grew dimmer in January when it was reported that half the men coming into camp could not be provided with a musket. Powder was also in short supply, and while guns had been promised from Philadelphia and other sources, the troops were left to hunker down and hope the British remained in hibernation. News of the failed expedition in Canada, as well as the death of General Montgomery and the capture of so many men and officers, must have brought morale to as low an ebb as imaginable.  

Still, plans were underway to route the British from the city. With Cambridge Bay rapidly freezing over, Washington eyed a raid across the ice on the British works on Boston Neck. Though a good number of officers were hesitant to support such an action, Greene supported Washington's plan. However, a bout of jaundice would leave him bedridden for weeks and take away any opportunity to lead his men and retake Boston.

During these weeks, Colonel Henry Knox and his men returned with an arsenal of artillery. Now, the plan was to fortify Dorchester Heights and leave the British fleet in a vulnerable position. In the coming weeks, men would work furiously preparing fascines and the framing for gabines; one being a fencing constructed from bundled sharpened sticks, the other being wooden frames filled with dirt to act as barriers. Finally, on the night of March 4th, the anniversary of the Boston Massacre, some 1200 troops with entrenching tools and 300 ox carts were covered by 800 riflemen on the march to Dorchester, where they constructed the fortifications in a single night.

Though planning to retreat from the city had been underway, British General Howe was loathed to allow even the appearance that he was somehow forced to flee Boston to be his legacy to the American public and, even more likely, the press. It was surely with these thoughts in mind that he announced preparations for a 3,500 man assault on Dorchester Heights before the Americans were allowed to strengthen the fortifications.

The British rank and file persuaded him to change his mind in a council of war that evening. In those same hours, a great storm blew in from the south, the winds blowing out windows and driving vessels ashore.

By the 13th, the Americans had fortified Nooks Hill opposite the Heights and were raining a cannonade of shot at the British vessels in the harbor. The aggressive action of the Americans had its desired effect. On the morning of March 17th, the British garrison of 9,000 men, as well as just over a thousand loyalists, were safely ferried to eighty British transport vessels. Washington had pledged not to fire upon the British as they departed and ended the eleven-month siege of the city. The following day Brigadier-General Nathanael Greene was given charge of the city and the windfall of British cannon, horses, blankets, medicines, and other supplies that would aid Boston in its recovery. A month later, Greene was appointed Commander on Long Island, a key defensive position for New York. 

Once again, Greene would lose his chance to show his military skills; another illness on the eve of battle left him unable to take part in the disastrous defeat the Americans suffered on Long Island. Had he been in battle, he would likely have been captured, as were many of the Rhode Islanders, and faced imprisonment until arrangements could be made for his release, much like his distant cousin Christopher Greene had undergone after capture at Quebec. It must have been a bitter disappointment once again, but in the coming months, Greene would have his baptism under fire.

Thomas Paine did not have to walk far from his newly acquired room in a riverside boarding house to find that the enlightenment ideals of the wealthy Newtonians he had left behind in London were also here, in somewhat humbler form among the craftsmen and mechanics in North America; one of whom ran a bookstore and printing press right next door. Moreover, the man whose friendship would launch Paine’s career as an author was Scottish-born Robert Aitken, a new emigrant as well, having arrived but three years before.

At the time of their meeting, Aitken’s was set to publish a new monthly magazine which would be called Pennsylvania Magazine, or American Monthly Museum. His conversations with Paine in the weeks that followed led him to offer the job of executive editor to the aspiring author.[ix]

It turned out to be a wise decision for the publisher. Within a few months, the readership had exceeded more than fifteen hundred paid subscribers.

Each issue was a cornucopia of essays on classical authors, the texts of letters between authorities and the crown, reports, descriptions of new scientific inventions, and treatises on self-improvement, among other varied topics. The issues were mostly written by Paine, lawyer Francis Hopkinson who taught, along with president John Witherspoon of the College of New Jersey. Each wrote multiple articles under pseudonyms such as Aesop, Atlanticus, Humanus, Justice & Humanity, and Vox Populi, a device used to persuade readers of many contributors as well as to mask the authors of the more incendiary articles. 

Paine used his position to foster the “common good” as his biographer notes, 

"as an editor, he regularly sought to publish articles on more substantive issues."

These included essays on the tragedy of the ongoing tradition of dueling, an essay on women's rights, and most notably, on April 14, 1775, when he published an essay entitled African Slavery in America, part of which read

“Our traders in men (an unnatural commodity) must know the wickedness of the slave trade, if they attend to reasoning, or the dictates of their own hearts…”[x]

This essay by Paine and the response it received have been cited as the cause of the organizing of the first abolitionist society in the world. It also earned him the friendship of another Philadelphian, Dr. Benjamin Rush. Any further effect, however, would soon be overshadowed by events that occurred just a few days later.

The events of April 18th in Concord and Lexington reverberated through the colonies. Militia mustered and marched to Cambridge or outlying communities in the weeks that followed. Less than a month after the skirmishes, the Continental Congress met in Paine's newly adopted city. As he followed events and the discourse that was undertaken in the Pennsylvania State House, his articles seemed written to stoke the fires of independence and threatened his job as his publisher feared the consequences.

Paine had no such compulsion to cease writing nor to use his pen to urge American independence, even if it were to come to violent means. Although raised as a Quaker, he had decided as an adult, as with Greene, who might have himself also declared

“I am thus far a Quaker, that I would gladly agree with all the world to lay aside the use of arms, and settle matters by negotiation; but unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I can take up my musket and thank heaven he has put it in my power.”[xi]

In the coming months, he would continue his critique of Great Britain's history of Empire, and in the Fall of that year, he began composing the first pages of what would be published as the pamphlet Common Sense, in which Paine systematically exposed, through the narrative of disastrous wars and misrule;  the cracked pillars of sovereign rule, hereditary entitlement, and class divide which held up the Parthenon like façade of the late 18th century British Empire.

Paine proposed a solution between the countries, but it was nonetheless a solution that required liberty for America…

“…let a Continental Conference be held, in the following manner, and for the following purpose…to frame a Continental Charter, or Charter of the United Colonies;…fixing the number and manner of choosing members of Congress, members of Assembly, with their date of sitting, and drawing the line of business and jurisdiction between them: always remembering, that our strength is continental, not provincial; Securing freedom and property to all men, and above all things the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; which other such matter as is necessary for a charter to contain”.

Historian Gordon Wood has rightly called Common Sense “ a remarkable document,…” and explains

“Few Americans had ever read in print what Paine said about Kings and George III, that “brute of Britain” who “made havoc of mankind.”[xii] 

The pamphlet had its critics among Americans, most notably John Adams, who felt that the form of democratic government Paine advocated, and which, in fact, would strongly influence Pennsylvania's government and constitution, was

“So Democratical, without any restraint, or even attempt at Equilibrium, or Counterpoise, that it must produce confusion at every evil work." 

I believe Adams's alarm at the responsibilities given to the common man, as the more lenient political writers phrased the hordes of poor and hardscrabble citizens who would be needed to uphold a republic, would quickly unravel what order and function had been in place.

But rather than some utopian ideal as many of Paine’s and the enlightenment influences had pronounced, Thomas Paine firmly laid out his plan for a new government that needed a constitution rather than a monarchy-the framers of such must be fixed upon… the true points of happiness and freedom.

"[To] those," Thomas Paine wrote, "unenlightened conservatives who dare to ask, "Where is the King?" Tell them, in America, THE LAW IS KING."

Common Sense would be printed legally through two dozen editions and sell 150,000 copies when most pamphlets printed at the time sold at best a few thousand copies. It was a pamphlet written for the common readers, devoid of the florid or magisterial prose of the pundits and ministers who were popular authors. As its title implies, the pamphlet strove to render simple common sense in its argument for separation from the crown, and embedded within, were lines that would become a stirring call to democracy:

“Should an independence be brought about, …we have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest, purist constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world over again”.

Even as Common Sense became a best-seller in the colonies, Paine refused any royalties so that costs were kept down and the pages were easily affordable to the reading public; which had a high reading rate in America, giving great popularity to newspapers and such pamphlets as Paine and others produced.

In fact, a pamphlet printed the summer before by Pennsylvanian John Dickinson had addressed some of these same issues as A Farmer and included his assessment of what representation should represent; but he had not the flair or the skill of rhetoric that Paine’s epistle achieved.

So popular did Common Sense and later revolutionary writings become, that his critic John Adams would declare sarcastically that the "Age of Revolution" ought to be called the: "Age of Paine." The success drew the author into a whirlwind of appearances and introductions to those men who would become the movers and shakers of the American Revolution.

Nonetheless, when the British took control of New York, Thomas Paine enlisted in the Pennsylvania Associators, a.k.a. General Roberdeau’s "Flying Camp," a volunteer regiment that was called into action when needed. Their first assignment was to march to Amboy, New Jersey, where it was rumored that the British would be landing soon. It was a fruitless march, but when they did spy the Redcoats landing on Staten Island, many were overwhelmed by the number, and the Flying Camp disbanded.

With his military unit broken up, Paine traveled cautiously north to Fort Lee, where he met commander General Nathanael Greene. The General took him in as an aide-de-camp and appointed him Brigadier. The two men took an instant liking to one another, as the General's biographer Ged Carbone notes, "some of Paine's arguments could have come from Greene's pen…".

By all accounts, Paine fared better by the pen than by the sword. He was an ungainly soldier, often the butt of jokes from his fellow enlistees, including one occasion in which his boots and wig were hidden just before an alarm was raised in the middle of the night with the brigade assembled to watch the great philosopher stumble half-dressed from his tent.[xiii]

Still, while in camp, he wrote of the American efforts in the Philadelphia newspapers. By December, however, senior officers had taken him aside and convinced Paine that the words produced by his pen and correspondence would serve the country better than he could as a soldier. Paine agreed and walked thirty-five miles to Philadelphia, expecting to be captured at any moment. Once there, he found the city in chaos, with half the population having fled and the morale of its citizens at a low ebb after news of American defeats. 

Paine set out to alter this at once and to restore faith in the American cause. He began writing a series of what would be thirteen essays, one in honor of each colony, that addressed directly with its title: The American Crisis. As his biographer attests, the collected essays “rallied his countrymen,” and with his first, “ennobled each and every citizen rebel into a heroic agent of destiny.”[xiv]

The first Crisis was published a week before Christmas in the Pennsylvania Journal. Printers in the city soon had 18,000 copies of the author's work on the street. Other printers soon put the work to the presses in other colonies. One of these many copies made its way to the Commander-in-Chief-perhaps Paine had sent a copy himself to General Washington, whom he ardently admired as both a person and a soldier.

Washington would gather his troops on the bank of the Delaware River to read Paine's words aloud to them two nights before the planned surprise attack on the Hessian-held New Jersey towns of Trenton and Princeton.

Paine's words stir us today in times of crisis and evoke in us the same resolve that it did that night to the troops gathered there:

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer patriot and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value…”[xv]

The resultant victories on Christmas night and the following day bolstered the morale tremendously, and Congress recognized Paine's value, appointing him secretary to the United States Council of Safety, negotiating a treaty with the Iroquois from late January through March. Then, by John Adam's nomination, Congress appointed him to be secretary for the Committee of Foreign Affairs (formerly the Committee of Secret Correspondence), under whose title he spent ten months wandering back roads on various missions, obtaining information for General Greene and the Pennsylvania Assembly.  

For Major-General Nathanael Greene the years 1778-1779 were ones of great upheaval but also of great reward. He began the year at Valley Forge with General Washington and other officers of the Continental Army. He remained with them as they marched to White Plains, New York, where Greene resumed his post as Quartermaster General.  

As the spring stretched into summer, considerably more of his time was engaged in gathering supplies for the growing army that General John Sullivan would utilize to wrest Rhode Island, or  Aquidneck Island as we know it today, from the British occupiers who had seized the island nearly two years before.

Greene, of course, grew anxious to return to Rhode Island and take part in this effort. He had lobbied early on after the British invasion for a retaliatory strike. Moreover, his wife, Caty, was pregnant at home. He wrote to Sullivan enthusiastically

“I was an adviser to this expedition and therefore am deeply interested in the event….I wish a little more force had been sent…Everything depends almost on the success of this expedition. Your friends are anxious, your Enemies are watching, I CHARGE YOU TO BE VICTORIOUS”.

He complained to merchant Henry Marchant that “it has been going on five years since I have spent an hour at home”, and must have urged Washington at every opportunity to let him go, because in mid- July, the General finally relented, writing to Congress that he 

“judged it advisable to send Gen. Greene …being fully persuaded his services, as well as in the Quartermaster line as in the field, would be of material importance in the expedition against the Enemy in that quarter. He is intimately acquainted with the whole of the Country, and besides he has extensive interest and influence upon it.”[xvi]

Greene left White Plains on July 28th and rode two nights and three days to reach his wife in Coventry, where he visited briefly with her and one-year-old daughter Martha; before heading on to Newport, where he arrived in time to see that the fleet from our new French allies had arrived and was anchored off Block Island. 

General Greene was assigned command of roughly half the troops that would take the field. He marched his troops from Providence to Tiverton on August 4th. The Marquis de Lafayette followed a day later, giving them a combined 10,000 troops. An additional 4,000 French marines awaited the signal command on Jamestown, an island close by the western side of Aquidneck.

Americans knew that the British garrison held less than 7,000 men. Chances looked good for the Americans to force the British to evacuate Rhode Island. 

However,… as with the previous year’s efforts to undertake a like expedition, the combined challenges of gathering an adequate force, especially untrained and inexperienced militia: Lafayette’s aide de camp laughingly wrote that it looked as though the Americans had sent “all the tailors and apothecaries” to take up arms against the British.

The plan was for American troops to cross the Sakonnet River or East Passage to the Island, where they would combine with the French marines for the assault on land while the French fleet would bombard the fortifications the British had erected on the island.

Sadly, the expedition began with a pause, Sullivan writing to the French Commander on the early morning of August 9th, the day of the planned assault, that he needed another day to train his "Motley and disarranged Chaos of militia" in the proper method of boat boarding.

When word came, however, that the British had abandoned a redoubt close to the Sakonnet, the American General rushed 2,000 troops across the river to take the fort at Butts Hill.

An ensuing three-day hurricane-like storm and damage to the French fleet caused the delay and then the eventual abandonment of the expedition. The resultant "Battle of Rhode Island" then was, in actuality, a necessary retreat from the Island.

Greene would command roughly half the troops in the field the day of August 29th, some fifteen hundred men stationed on the west side of the Island. The day began early, with Greene taking his breakfast in a nearby Quaker household to the sound of musket fire from the area of the windmill on Quaker hill.

In the ensuing battle, Hessians attacked the American right flank, which included the 1st Rhode Island, or "Black Regiment," as well as a regiment under Capt. Israel Arnold, and a contingent of Massachusetts troops. The flank withstood the three Hessian drives to dislodge the men from around the redoubt and finally drove them from the field. Greene would write his wife a letter from his saddle late that afternoon:

“We have had a considerable action today; we have beat the enemy off the ground where they advanced upon us; the killed and wounded on both sides unknown, but they were considerable for the number of troops we had engaged…”[xvii]

In the aftermath of the Battle of Rhode Island, Greene urgently hoped to remain in the state and see to his pregnant wife. Caty had tried to stay at the encampment in Tiverton, but the stifling heat in the midst of her condition had sent her home to Coventry. While there, he received a letter from General Washington appointing him a de-facto diplomat and mediator between the French and American officers with whom a potentially serious rift had developed: 

"I depend upon your temper and influence to conciliate that animosity," Washington wrote, "…the Marquis (de Lafayette) speaks kindly of a letter from you to him on this subject. He will therefore take any advice from you in a friendly light, and if he can be pacified, the other French Gentlemen will of course be satisfied…"

Major-General Greene duly rode the eighty miles to Boston on horseback and entertained the French officers in the elegant home of John Hancock. He reported back to Washington ten days after his arrival that the Officers in question were now "upon exceeding good footing with the Gentlemen (officers) of the town" and assured the Commander-in-Chief that General Hancock himself was doing all he could "to promote a good understanding with the French officers. His house is full from morning till Night…".    

On September 23rd, Greene set off for home, his mission completed, and arrived in a drenching rain-storm to find his wife had given birth to a daughter but was now gravely ill.

Ge. John Sullivan appealed to Washington to let Greene remain in Coventry over the winter. Sullivan still had 3,500 troops in Rhode Island and had come to rely upon the Major-General’s support and counsel.

Within the week, however, Greene had asserted his own desire to return to camp, writing:

"however agreeable it is to be near my family and among my Friends, I cannot wish it to take place, as it would be unfriendly to the business of my department…"

Greene spent the winter traveling from the encampment at Middlebrook to Trenton and Philadelphia, Caty often traveling with a servant and ensconced in stately homes nearby the encampments.

He would spend much of the year of 1779 engaged in supplying the American attack on the Seneca Indian nation, part of Greene’s proposed plan to ransack the stores of the indigenous allies of the enemy.

By October, Greene was stationed on the Hudson River when he received a message from Col. Ephraim Bowen in Rhode Island. It was exceedingly good news as both a Rhode Islander and as Quartermaster General, for Bowen wrote:

“I have the Pleasure to Acquaint you of the Evacuation of this Island by the British Army on Monday night last…The Enemy have left about Fourteen hundred Tons of Excellent Hay, Sixty of (or) Seventy Tons of Straw, (and) upwards of three hundred Cords of Wood."

As the harsh winter of 1779-1780 was fast approaching, Bowen added a footnote for his friend:

"I will get you a pair of English blankets."

Coming from a man who was an unmistakable genius in calculating the political needs and wishes of his reading audience, it seemed the plan of a madman. Thomas Paine had labored away at his American Crisis series, all while still serving as clerk to Pennsylvania’s Assembly. He had been instrumental in the Assembly’s abolishment of slavery on March 1, 1780, and been given an honorary degree from the University of Pennsylvania on the 4th of July.

 Now, Paine devised a plan in which he would take a year's leave and go to England incognito to produce a scathing pamphlet that would stir unease among the people with their King. He wrote to Nathanael Greene of his plans on September 9, 1780:

“The manner in which I would bring such a publication out would be under the cover of an Englishman who had made the tour of America incognito. This wil afford me all the foundation I wish for and enable me to place matters before them in a light in which they had never yet viewed them…”

Greene was so concerned by this letter that he rode to Paine’s rooming house in Philadelphia to dissuade him of the adventure. Having spent the past weeks engaged in overseeing the conspiracy trial of British officer John Andre and conspirator with the American traitor Benedict Arnold, he could give sure advice to Paine on the consequences of being found among the enemy. Paine wisely took his advice and dropped the idea.

It was the last time the two friends would see each other in person. Greene was called away almost at once to command the American army in the southern campaign. Congress drafted Paine in the coming months to write to the French minister, asking for another loan of one million pounds. He would later take the job of secretary to Col. John Laurens, who at twenty-six had been appointed Congress' new emissary to France.

Their arrival, however, was an unhappy occasion, with the aging Benjamin Franklin disheartened by the news of his replacement, so upset that he resigned from Congress, though the body refused his request. Paine returned from France with another successful mission under his belt, and his return to Philadelphia was bolstered by jubilant crowds in the wake of America’s victory, raising toasts across the town to the fireworks that lit the night skies.

He soon felt dejected, however, as many veterans do after their return. Paine felt the country had let him down. In his poverty after the war, he became embittered as he saw others who had become rich off the conflict, he himself had often given his entire royalties and even salaries to the support of the Army. He wrote to the friend he knew would support him and hopefully influence Congress to support him financially. As Paine knew he would, Greene wrote a letter of support:

“I have always been in hopes that Congress would have made some handsome acknowledgements to you for past services. I must confess that I think you have been shamefully neglected; and that America is indebted to few characters more than to you. But as your passion leads to fame, and not to wealth, your mortifications will be the less. Your fame for your writings will be immortal. At present, my expenses are great; nevertheless, if you are not conveniently situated, I shall take a pride and pleasure in contributing all in my power to render your situation happy”.

This was the last letter Paine was to receive from his friend.

General Nathanael Greene did indeed have great expenses, and his efforts to retrieve funds swindled from him by shady creditors during the war surely led to his untimely death in 1786 at the age of forty-four.

We can only speculate on the influence Nathanael Greene would have held had he lived long enough to be part of the nation's first administration. His pragmatic approach to situations and his learning and hard-earned experience would have certainly made him a valuable asset to President Washington.

In these formative and often turbulent years of the nation’s childhood, Greene would likely have effectively grounded Jefferson’s flights of fancy about democracy becoming a world movement of peaceful takeovers from monarchy. He might also have tempered John Adam’s authoritative tendencies.

Thomas Paine would go on to write what is arguably his most remarkable work in The Rights of Man, in which a proclamation echoes those of his correspondence with General Nathanael Greene and the cause they shared together:

“…individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.”[xviii]

[i] Nelson, Craig Thomas Paine: Enlightenment, Revolution, and the Birth of Modern Nations New York, Viking 2006 p. 14

[ii] Dexter, ed. The Literary Diary of Ezra Stiles D.D. L.L.D. Charles Scribners Sons, 1901  Vol. 1 p.213

[iii] Enough of a gentleman that he could entertain Martha Washington in conversation at Valley Forge while his wife and her husband danced into the small hours of the morning.

[iv] Nelson, Craig Thomas Paine p. 49

[v] Carbone, Gerald Nathanael Greene, A Biography of the American Revolution New York, Macmillan 2008 pp 21-23

[vi] Ibid. p. 25

[vii] Thayer, Theodore Nathanael Greene: Strategist of the American Revolution New York, Twayne Publishers 1960 p. 72

[viii] Ibid. p. 78

[ix] Nelson, p.60

[x] Ibid. p. 64

[xi] Ibid. p. 77

[xii] Wood, Gordon Power and Liberty: Constitutionalism in the American Revolution New York, Oxford University Press, 2019 p. 30

[xiii] Nelson, pp. 103-104

[xiv] Ibid. p. 107

[xv] Ibid. p. 108

[xvi] Carbone, p. 99

[xvii] Ibid, p. 112

[xviii] Nelson, p. 201

Remembering Moses and Caesar Updike

by John B. Dower

As Caesar and Moses toiled on one of the Cocumscussoc Plantation farms in the late summer of 1776, word came from Philadelphia to Providence concerning the future of the colonies in America. The Second Continental Congress had convened earlier in Philadelphia, culminating with all thirteen colonies voting to officially part ways with Great Britain and announce their intentions in the Declaration of Independence. Such notions of autonomy were nothing new in Rhode Island. During the past few decades, the rising friction between England and its North American provinces, Rhode Island had found itself in the middle of the fray over self-determination and increasing taxation by the British. From the Gaspee Affair in 1772, where Rhode Island colonists burned a British patrol boat looking for smugglers, to the General Assembly, having that past May been the first of the thirteen colonies to vote to “end its allegiance” to the British crown,[1] the smallest colony had continued to stir the pot of dissent. Indeed, Caesar and Moses (who up to that point were probably only known by their given names) had heard all of the blusters of independence spread through the region in recent years. What, if anything, did any of this increasingly more ominous talk of insurrection mean to them? In just two short years, they would find out.  

            Caesar and Moses were two of several enslaved people that worked the plantation at Cocumscussoc in North Kingstown, Rhode Island. As it turned out, slavery would indeed be an issue for many during the fight for independence. Almost immediately after the first publication of the Declaration of Independence was released, the document's hypocrisy as it related to slavery was condemned throughout the colonies and in England as well. The virtuous second line of the Declaration of Independence had created a paradox- “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Squaring the words with the realities of slavery proved problematic in 1776, and as we now know, would for a very long time. For the time being, life went on at Cocumscussoc just as it had for over a century.

Cocumscussoc is the area on the west shore of the Narragansett Bay that was the summer home of the Narragansett people and, in the late 1630s, the site of trading posts of Roger Williams and Richard Smith. According to Roger Williams himself, Richard Smith “put up the first English house” in Narragansett country at Cocumscussoc.[2] What would later become the “great house” of the plantation was initially called Smith’s Castle (as the historic house on the site is known today) and served as a garrison house during the 17th century. The original house was burned in 1676 during King Philip’s War and then rebuilt in 1678 by Richard Smith Junior. When the younger Smith died childless in 1692 after predeceasing his wife, most of the estate went to his nephew and niece, Lodowick Updike and Abigail Newton Updike. Lodowick and Abigail, who just happened to be first cousins and wed to each other, would accelerate the growth of Cocumscussoc into a formidable plantation going into the eighteenth century. At its pinnacle, under the ownership of Lodowick’s son Daniel, Cocumscussoc encompassed some three thousand acres.[3] By the time of the Revolutionary War, the plantation had once again passed down in the Updike family to Daniel’s son, Lodowick, owner of Caesar and Moses. The farming operation on which Caesar and Moses worked was less impressive than it had been just decades earlier, as it now amounted to around eight hundred acres, with other areas leased out to tenant farmers. [4] However, even at this reduced capacity, Cocumscussoc still required several enslaved people to maintain its viability.

Narragansett country included those areas in what had been Kings County (known today as South County, but technically Washington County). During the middle of the eighteenth-century, the plantations in that region established a “social and economic organization” that was unique “in its dependence on slave labor for large-scale agriculture.”[5] The lack of a white labor force, an abundance of fertile lands, and the temptation of cheap labor made a dreadful combination that accelerated the number of Blacks enslaved throughout southern Rhode Island. Although the Narragansett region's slaveholders never came close to challenging the numbers of the most massive plantations seen in the southern colonies, the number of enslaved per household was higher than almost anywhere else in New England.[6] From 1700 to 1750, the number of slaves rose from 85 to 625 in Narragansett country,[7] which becomes more abhorrent when one realizes that many households in the region participated in the practice, and it was not just limited to the large agricultural enterprises.

However, the "great planters” of Narragansett were responsible for the preponderance of enslaved people living there, with many owning ten or more and some holding as many as forty.[8] While it was not until the Federal Census of 1790 when the enslaved were identified differently from free people of color, the Rhode Island Colony Census of 1774 can be beneficial in confirming what households in which towns contained blacks and Indians. Newport had the largest number of Blacks and Indians at the time of the census, 1292 out of a total population of 9208.[9] South Kingstown had 650 people of color out of 2835, and North Kingstown had 290 out of its 2472 inhabitants.[10] The percentages of people of color in the three towns were- North Kingstown 12%, Newport 14%, and South Kingstown, where most of the plantations flourished during the 1700s, 23%. The average in towns across the entire colony was just under 9%. All of the localities registered numbers well above what was the norm throughout most of New England. In one household in North Kingstown in 1774, Blacks made up precisely 50% of the occupants.

In the census taken for Rhode Island in 1774, Lodowick Updike's listing shows 22 members of the household, 11 Black and 11 white.[11] We cannot be sure that all eleven of the people of color were enslaved at that time, but the Updikes had a chronicled history of slavery for the previous eight decades. The first documentation of slavery at Cocumsuccoc dates back to the inventory taken after Richard Smith Junior’s death in 1692, which recorded his ownership of eight enslaved persons.[12] The probate inventory for Lodowick’s father, Daniel, in 1757 (which incidentally lists both Caesar and Moses) contained 19 enslaved individuals.

The will of Daniel Updike listing Moses and Caesar.

            As we have seen, slavery was nothing new at Cocumsussoc on the eve of the American Revolution. It may have taken place in even larger numbers than what records indicate, “as it was popular to conceal numbers from the observation of the home government,”[13] especially during the turbulent times where taxation on all types of “property” was a lightning rod. Not surprisingly, the census ordered in 1774 was by the British Board of Trade's explicit request, increasing the likelihood that colonists did conceal their business practices, including their workforce size. Further indications of a larger slave population in and around Cocumscussoc can be found with documentation of an “extensive burial yard” for the “black servants” of the Updikes and two other families located just north of Smith’s Castle.[14] A minimum of eighty marked graves was identified, and it was believed many more existed. Pervasive slavery had clearly existed for some time at Cocumscussoc, even though the Updike plantation itself had diminished in size by the 1770s.

            We know with a great deal of certainty that both Caesar and Moses had lived at Cocumscussoc before 1757, thanks to the probate inventory taken at Daniel Updike's death. We also know that Caesar was born sometime around 1755 and identified as "Mustee" (mixed race of Indian and Black ancestry).[15] Scant little information is available regarding Moses’ early life, including when he might have been born or if he was in any way related to Caesar. Early in the 1700s, Africans began to be brought directly into Narragansett country,[16] and by the middle of the century, the enslaved Black population in the region "increased naturally."[17] If Caesar was identified correctly as a mustee, he more than likely had ancestry tied to the Indigenous population in Rhode Island, as it is thought that indentured Indians had mixed with enslaved Africans at Cocumscussoc in years prior.[18] Unfortunately, more personal information on the two enslaved young men at Smith's Castle, before the American Revolution, has never revealed itself.

            We can glean a considerable amount of general information about life on Narragansett plantations from a variety of sources, which are suggestive of the duties performed by Caesar and Moses. Cocumscussoc, like most of the other agricultural enterprises in the area that survived on enslaved labor, focused primarily on "dairying."[19] Caesar and Moses likely had some participation in dairy activities, although that was probably not their only responsibility. Enslaved people on farms "would have performed myriad tasks and worked a variety of jobs"[20] throughout their long workday. Other duties, in addition to tending dairy cattle and helping produce butter and cheese, would have included- carrying water, cutting and carrying firewood, planting and cultivating some crops, and fence building and repair. The list is probably endless as the “jack of all trades” was nearly “indispensable to Yankee masters.”[21] Nevertheless, for all their value as workers, it was likely Caesar and Moses slept their nights away in an outbuilding or barn, as only the house servants generally occupied sleeping quarters in the main house on most plantations in New England unless it was bitter cold.

The mundane life working on a farm in eighteenth-century Rhode Island was insufferable for the enslaved. Some lucky individuals could buy their freedom by working other jobs once their everyday tasks were completed on the plantations. It was also common for masters, upon their death, to reward their enslaved with freedom if they had served their owners well.[22] Richard Smith Jr. intended to do that with some of the enslaved he owned, but there is no proof that it ever took place. The other method was also used by the enslaved to achieve freedom, running away from their masters. No record of Caesar or Moses having ever attempted to flee Cocumscussoc seems to exist, although others at the Updike farms had tried. Freedom must have still seemed out of reach in 1778 for Caesar and Moses.

In the two years following the Declaration of Independence, life dragged on for the enslaved in Rhode Island, and rhetoric of liberty swirled all around them as the War for Independence intensified. Before the American Revolution, Blacks had "served in every war of consequence" during the colonial era.[23] The rolls of militias regularly contained the names of men with Indian and African ancestry, but the role of both free Blacks and free Native Americans, as well as the enslaved, became a matter of contention as the war progressed. Before American leaders had fully addressed men of color's participation in the rebellion, many free blacks and Native Americans had already aligned themselves with the colonists seeking independence from England. Many more had chosen to take up with the British.

While men of color did participate on the American side in the early months of the war, “a pattern of exclusion had developed” as time went by.[24] When George Washington took command of the Continental Army, he banned Blacks' enlistment but eventually allowed those already fighting for the American cause to continue their service. However, the insurrection leaders had still found themselves in a predicament over their Declaration of Independence and how to harmonize the document with slavery. Even in Kings County, philosophical differences persisted whether to use men of color, both free and enslaved, to fight for the American cause. For the Narragansett planters, it was purely a matter of economics and not wanting to relinquish their free labor source. Shortly, it would be neither a philosophical concern nor a matter of economics that would change some enslaved Rhode Islanders' lives and allow their participation in the Continental Army.

The Revolutionary War dragged on in 1778, with the Americans having little to show in the way of optimism beyond a surprise victory at Saratoga the year before. It had been a brutal winter in 1777-1778, especially for the Rhode Island troops that remained at Valley Forge, and the contingent from the smallest state was at that point “greatly undermanned.”[25] Not surprisingly, General Washington was already in communication with Rhode Island leaders General James Mitchell Varnum and Governor Nicholas Cooke on addressing the problem of filling their state quota. After some back and forth, Varnum halfheartedly suggested a plan allowing enslaved men of color to enlist into the Continental Army. Already in an ever more difficult position concerning on-going slavery in America, Washington’s situation had become worse with Dunmore’s Proclamation in 1775, which lured many of the enslaved in Virginia to join the British ranks with the reward of freedom. Washington eventually gave Varnum’s plan his indifferent approval.

On February 14th of 1778, the General Assembly of Rhode Island also gave their blessing to Varnum's scheme to enlist enslaved Black men from within the state. Although the act was several paragraphs long, this one excerpt summarizes the significance of the measure as it related to the enslaved- "…upon passing muster…be immediately discharged from the Service of his Master or Mistress…”[26] While there had been "no great enthusiasm for the rebellion in Narragansett country," eventually, most of the plantation families had “aligned with the patriot side.”[27] When the act passed, a provision was put in place that stated- "…Compensation ought be made to the owners…”[28] Still, many of the Narragansett planters were unhappy over the prospect of losing their enslaved workers, mainly because the they could enlist under their own volition. Upwards of a hundred did enlist.

            The reaction to the new act by Lodowick Updike is unknown, but we know that by March of 1778, Moses and Caesar became two of the enslaved Black men from Rhode Island that enlisted in the Continental Army in exchange for their freedom.[29] Much information can be garnered from the “General Treasurer’s Account,” the list used by the state to compensate the owners of the enslaved that had enlisted, and other treasurer’s records and general assembly records. Between February 15th and June 10th, some 100 plus men enlisted, most of whom had worked at Kings County's prominent plantations. Lodowick Updike was compensated £120 for the loss of Caesar's service, which was the maximum allowed.  However, the plantation owner received a reduced rate of £93 for Moses, an indication that the enslaved man may have been older or had some physical limitations. It is believed that the total number of enslaved mustees, mulattoes, Indians and Blacks that eventually joined the “outfit” was around 125.[30] This number increased when free men of color that had previously joined the army were added to the 1st Rhode Island Regiment that summer. Caesar and Moses were now Updikes, and they were off to war with those other men of color from the nearby farms.

General Treasurer’s Accounting List on which Moses and Caesar appear.

            The unit raised by the 1778 legislation, and that Moses and Caesar became members was known by many as the "Black Regiment." James Mitchell Varnum's extraordinary plan was not to only incorporate some formerly enslaved men into some regiments of the Rhode Island contingent but rather raise an entire regiment of Black soldiers.[31] It was expected that some 300 enslaved men of Rhode Island would enlist, but that notion was destined to fail. Under increased pressure from slave owners, the General Assembly reversed the enlistment legislation after a few months and effectively ended nearly all enlistments of enslaved. Even though most of its companies were made up almost entirely of men of color at the reformation of the 1st Rhode Island Regiment in the summer of 1778, and after a series of reorganizations coupled with the losses of men of color being replaced by white soldiers, the regiment became increasingly white over time. None the less, when the call to action came to the 1st Rhode Island in their very own state later that first summer, it was segregated and made up entirely of formerly enslaved Blacks led by white officers.

            After “learning the manual of arms” in the first weeks after enlisting,[32] Moses, Caesar, and their compatriots soon found themselves heading to Aquidneck Island, where Newport was located. At the time, the British still occupied Newport but had pulled back troops at the island's northern end. With the impending arrival of the allied French fleet to the south, American officials decided it was time to take back Newport by siege from the north in August of 1778. Unfortunately, an early departure by the French fleet and other factors led to the patriot's being forced to retreat off Aquidneck Island. By the end of August several engagements took place with the British and loyalist forces as the American troops retreated. Caesar appears on muster roles before and after what is known as the Battle of Rhode Island, and the 1st Rhode Island Regiment was pressed into action that day, so we can assume Caesar was present. Moses is listed as “Sick Absent” on the muster just prior to the Battle of Rhode Island, so his participation is in doubt. Several other soldiers suffered from disease at the time, including some that perished. As the retreating American troops were being pursued by the British, the Redcoats were “met by firmness” from the 1st Rhode Island.[33] Caesar and Moses's role on that day will more than likely never be known, but it should suffice to say they answered the call to defend their country.

The first muster roll of Moses and Caesar from July of 1778.

            Several months after the Battle of Rhode Island, the 1st Rhode Island Regiment was at their winter quarters in Warren, Rhode Island. That will be the last we hear of Moses Updike as the muster roll for December lists him as deceased on December 20, 1778. Whether Moses eventually perished from disease as did thousands of others in the Continental Army will remain a mystery.

            Caesar spent the next few years in anonymity other than appearing regularly on the muster rolls. His regiment was attacked at Pines Bridge in New York, where several soldiers, including officers, were killed, but Caesar, like most soldiers who participated in the American Revolution, remains unnamed in accounts of the fighting. At the Siege of Yorktown in 1781, it appears that Caesar's company was not involved directly at the frontlines, which was true of the vast majority of the soldiers present for the decisive victory. A march to Oswego, New York, that ended without any fighting would be the last event of Caesar’s five-year military stint. He was furloughed at Saratoga along with many of the formerly enslaved men from Rhode Island on June 15, 1783 and later honorably discharged.

            Moses and Caesar Updike were relatively obscure figures like most men who fought for the American cause. The story of the two Updikes was fairly typical of the enslaved that chose to fight to gain their individual freedom while serving the fledgling nation. Many died, while some served for five years and were honorably discharged. Yet, an analysis using the list of enslaved men that enlisted from “General Treasurer’s Accounts,” along with individual entries of payments made to additional slaveholders by the treasurer[34],  payments ordered by the general assembly to owners of enlisted slaves[35], the military records and compilations found in the Regimental Book for Rhode Island[36] and Forgotten Patriots,[37] tell us that Moses and Caesar, and the men that enlisted with them, were anything but typical. Of the approximately 125 former slaves from Rhode Island, 51 died of unknown causes (most likely disease) during the five years from 1778 to 1783, at least 11 were killed in action, 3 of the several POWs were never seen again, 3 never mustered in after signing up, 8 deserted permanently (a number well below the Continental Army average), and 42 were honorably discharged. Many suffered from starvation, injuries and illnesses that were never documented.

             The Declaration of Independence inspired “the notion that enslaved people had their natural liberty stolen.”[38] The Updikes saw it that way, and their enlistment is the confirmation. They served virtuously for America in the process of getting back that freedom. Caesar was awarded an Honorary Badge of Distinction for giving five years of his life to the cause. Moses gave his life. Only Caesar was rewarded with something that both Updikes believed was worth dying to achieve.

Notes:

[1] Christian McBurney, The Rhode Island Campaign: The First French and American Operation in the Revolutionary War (Yardley, Pennsylvania: Westholme Publishing, 2011), 10.

[2] Howard Millar Chapin, The Trading Post of Roger Williams with those of John Wilcox and Richard Smith(Providence: E.L. Freeman Company, 1933), 16.

[3] Wilkins Updike, History of the Episcopal Church in Narragansett Rhode Island (New York: Henry M. Onderdunk, 1847), 180.

[4] Carl R. Woodward, Plantation in Yankeeland (Chester, Connecticut: The Pequot Press, 1971), 63.

[5] Joanne Pope Melish, Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and “Race” in New England 1780-1860 (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1998), 13.

[6] Lorenzo J. Green, The Negro in Colonial New England (New York: Columbia University Press, 1942), 98.

[7] Woodward, 72.

[8] Jared Ross Hardesty, Black Lives, Native Lands, White Worlds: A History of Slavery in New England (Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2019), 91.

[9] General Assembly of Rhode Island, Census of the Inhabitants of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in 1774 (Providence: Knowles, Anthony & Company, 1858), 239.

[10] Ibid., 239.

[11] Ibid., 83.

[12] Woodward, 53.

[13] Updike, 174.

[14] Rhode Island Historical Cemetery Commission, “Cemetery Database,” cemetery number 246, accessed January 3, 2021, rihistoriccememteries.org/newsearchcemeterydetail.aspx?ceme-no=NK346

[15] Bruce C. MacGunnigle, Regimental Book for Rhode Island 1781 &c. (East Greenwich, Rhode Island: Rhode Island Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, 2011), 37.

[16] Christy Clark-Pujara, Dark Work: The History of Slavery in Rhode Island (New York: New York University Press, 2016), 27.

[17] Ibid., 51.

[18] G. Timothy Cranston and Neil Dunay, We Were Here Too: Selected Stories of Black History in North Kingstown(Create Space Independent Publishing, 2015), 85.

[19] Greene, 105.

[20] Hardesty, 86.

[21] Greene, 119.

[22] Woodward, 73.

[23] W.B. Hartgrove, “The Negro Soldier in the American Revolution,” The Journal of Negro History 1, no. 2 (1916): 112.

[24] Benjamin Quarles, The Negro in the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1961), 13.

[25] Ibid., 55.

[26] Rhode Island State Archives, “Act creating the 1st Rhode Island Regiment, also known as the "Black Regiment," 1778," accessed January 19, 2021, https://www.sos.ri.gov/assets/downloads/documents/Black-Regiment.pdf

[27] Woodward, 133.

[28] Rhode Island State Archives, “Act creating…”

[29] Rhode Island State Archives, “General Treasurer’s Accounts 1761-1781,” accessed January 9, 2021, https://sosri.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_69917081-a9d3-4b27-bfb6-9b45994e00ad/

[30] McBurney, 47.

[31] Robert A. Geake and Loren Spears, From Slaves to Soldiers: The 1st Rhode Island Regiment in the American Revolution (Yardley, Pennsylvania: Westholme Publishing, 2016), 20.

[32] Quarles, 77.

[33] McBurney, 187.

[34] Rhode Island State Archives, “General Treasurer’s…”

[35] Rhode Island and John Russell Bartlett. Records of the colony of Rhode Island and Providence plantations, in New England: Printed by order of the General Assembly. Providence: A.C. Greene and brothers, state printers [etc.], v8-10.

[36] MacGunnigle, 59-79.

[37] Eric G. Grunset, Forgotten Patriots: African American and American Indian Patriots in the Revolutionary War(Washington, D.C.: National Society Daughters of the American Revolution, 2008), 187-252.

[38] Hardesty, 128.

Were The Updike's Loyalists or Patriots?

by John B. Dower, Robert A. Geake, Marilyn T. Harris

Their World Turned Upside Down: Were the Updikes Loyalists or Patriots?

     Among the anecdotes on the history of Smith’s Castle collected and recorded by Austin Fox, owner of the property and the Cocumcussoc Dairy in the early twentieth century, was an amusing story. The tale claimed that the interior shutters in the dining room were installed during the time of the American Revolution so that neighbors could not spy the family drinking British tea.

 The few 18th century neighbors the Updikes had were quite far removed from sight of the house.  One could , however, argue that a determined patriot might have gained access through Updike Harboras it was called on the 1777 British period map on display in the dining room, to seek evidence of such “disloyal” activity. While we find the idea of the shutters being constructed for that purpose as amusing today as it would have for the guests of Mr. and Mrs. Fox regaled with the tale, it seems the neighbors may have had other good reason to suspect the family of Loyalist tendencies.

 The colonists who most opposed war with Great Britain were wealthy merchants, and those men whose farms supplied goods to British and West Indian ports. Several of the famous Narragansett Planters were identified as loyalists, others were suspect throughout the conflict and into the years beyond. At the beginning of the unrest between British authorities and the Massachusetts Bay  Colony, avowed loyalists had fled to Newport where the ports remained opened. They continued there for the duration of the British occupation of Aquidneck Island (Dec. 1776-Dec. 1778). It was especially during this time that suspicions reached their peak, and Rhode Island’s authorities openly questioned the loyalty of Lodwick Updike. 

 Lodowick Updike was fifty-two years old at the time the conflict with Great Britain began, and his loyalty was questioned almost from the beginning. At least one neighbor did so publicly. On the basis of this accusation, the Town Council refused to let him add his signature to the oath of allegiancewith the other colonies.

 Such a ban not only placed a public stain on the accused, but could also mean outright banishment. Most suspected loyalists were no longer given the protections and rights of ordinary citizens. They were often prohibited from practicing their profession, given higher tax rates, and banned from purchasing any land. For Updike, a prolonged period of punishment could have ruined the family export trade.

Among Sheriff Beriah Browns papers were the documents detailing at least some of the suspicion. 

 An order issued by Rhode Island’s General Assembly on April 19, 1777 reads in part:

     Whereas Mrs. Sarah Slocum and her family are suspected of having communicated intelligence and afforded supplies to the enemy at Newport. It is therefore resolved that Mr. Lodowick Updike be requested and enpowered forthwith to remove the said Mrs. Sarah Slocum and her family from his farm in North Kingstown…[i]

 The order further stated that if Updike refused to remove the family within ten days, 

The Sheriff for the County of Kings County (Beriah Brown) is hereby directed to remove them, and that she with her family reside in such parts on the main as are distant not less than two miles from the salt water.

 An entry from minister Ezra Stiles shows that the Slocum family may well have been engaged in such activity, and potentially worse enterprises. Stile’s entry for May 17, 1777 reads:

 This Day Hart executed at Providence for Treason by Judg at a court Martial. He was connected with the Slocums of Updikes Newtown in giving Intelligence to the En(em)y, in putting off forged Money, Enlisting &c. He avowed it & openly approved of the Kings Cause & wished Success to it. He was apprehended Tuesdy or Wedy last, a Court Martial found him guilty on Thursdy, two ministers attended him on Friday, and this day the Gallows were made & he was executed, as one told me who saw the Execution, This is speedy Justice[ii].  

 This was John Hart, born in Little Compton, but now returned to Rhode Island under nefarious business, the forgery and counterfeiting of paper currency. Such an act was condemned by General Washington because it deflated the actual Continental funds that supported the Army. Hart’s name was known to Washington, as he wrote to Jonathan Trumbell Jr. nearly a month before the arrest of the forger:

    …one John Hart is gone to Rhode Island to pass Counterfeit Money-it highly imports us to detect and apprehend these Villians whose Crimes are of great enormity…[iii]”

 The Providence Gazette and Country Journal of 17 May 1777 reported that on 12 May

     “a Person by the Name of Hart was taken at Exeter, and committed to Gaol here as a Spy. A Number of counterfeit Forty-eight Shilling Bills, dated November, 1776, in Imitation of the Massachusetts Money of that Date, were found on him, which he confesses he brought from New-York. He was Yesterday tried by a Court-Martial, and we hear is to be executed this Day, at Eleven o’Clock[iv]”.

 As for the Slocums family, despite the clear order that the sheriff should remove the family if Updike refused to carry out the order, a second order from the Assembly on December 21stshows that if the Widow Slocum and her sons had been removed to another location, it did not deter their efforts. Given Updike’s reputation, it is also likely that the first order was simply ignored. The second order, composed in the Upper House of the Assembly, should have made the seriousness of the matter perfectly clear:

Wheras this Assembly hath received information that a Correspondence is maintained with the enemy at the House of the widow Slocum in North Kingstown, and it being known that the Family there are very unfriendly to the Liberties of America whereby it is very unsafe for the Welfare & happiness of this State that said family should be suffered to continue any longer in Possession thereof. 

 Whereas Resolved, that the Sheriff of the County of Kings County forthwith remove the said widow Slocum and the Family that t lives there to some other place at least ten miles distant from the shore…

 That same day, the Lower House of the Assembly passed the order and amended that:

 …if the said Sarah Slocum, or either of her Children shall after their said removal be found in any part within this State within the said distance of ten miles of any of the shores thereof, The said Shefiff of the County in which they, or either of them may so transgress, or his Deputy is hereby empowered and directed forthwith to apprehend and Commit them to the Gaol in said County…

 There is no documentation of Lodowck’s response.

 Records of the February Assembly session of 1778 revealed that at least some of the local population were loyalists and had chosen to abandon their farms and businesses. The Assembly noted that they had received notice that 

 Samuel Boone, William Boone, John Wightman, son of Valentine, Ephraim Smith, Ebenezer Slocum, Charles Slocum, and Thomas Cutter, have gone to the Island of Rhode Island, and have joined the Enemy…

 Sheriff Beriah Brown was then ordered to confiscate and make a full accounting of all property.

 Lodowick Updike did not leave Cocumscussoc, neither did his brother-in-law Benjamin Gardiner. Both estate owners had been persistently accused of disloyalty by a Mr. Phillips, which prevented them from signing the oath. Now the men petitioned the General Assembly for permission to sign.

     The year 1778 was one of upheaval for the Updike family and there way of life. Indeed, it was their world turned upside down. One disruption was caused by a reduction in their work force. In the month of February two, possibly three slaves enlisted in the Continental Army when the Assembly passed an Act permitting enslaved men to enlist and earn their freedom. Then there was the necessity of appearing before the Assembly to settle the matter of the oath.

 Sixteen year old Daniel Updike recorded in his 1778 diary that in July he travelled with his father to Providence for his appearance at the Assembly, along with his Uncle and their legal representatives:

 Sept. 30th

…Went to Assembly with my Father for hi to have permission of signing the First Oath; which the Town Council had denied him, and my Uncle Benja Gardener by the influence of P. Phillips. 

 31sr Benja Gardners case came on anf he was allowed to sign by all the lower house but six & and all the Upper house but one. Accordingly my Father & I went to NKingstown this night. N.E. storm

 November 1st My Father and I attended the assembly but his affair would not come on as Mr. Phillips had let the Evidences on his side go home to delay the ,atter. We staid at Mr. Robinsons all night. Bad Storm at N.E. & it was observed by all the House tha Mr. Phillips concerned himself very much in these matters or cases which made him appear interested in it, as I believe he was[v].

 The young, and soon to be lawyer Daniel suspected that Phillips was profiteering from the property confiscated from the families who had fled to Newport and was trying to force Lodowick to do so as well. However, there were further delays in resolving the matter.. His Father’s case was adjourned until December. They travelled home in a heavy rain, as the storm continued through another day. 

 On the last Monday of December, the General Assembly convened once again, and during the proceedings voted and resolved that 

 “Mr. Lodowick Updike be, and is hereby, permitted to subscribe the test, heretofore ordered to be subscribed by the inhabitants of this state; and that hereupon he is entitled to all the privileges of a subject of this state”.

 The father was thus acquitted in the eyes of authorities, but the records of his sons service during the war would later come under question.

 On October 18, 1779 Daniel recorded in his diary:“Went up to the Hill where I trained with militia first time”. This specified first date of service would cause him much delay and bring renewed suspicion on himself when he applied for a pension in July 1833. The problem was that in his pension testimony before Chief Justice Thomas W. Green, Daniel Updike, then seventy-two years old claimed that he “had enrolled in Captain John Browns Company of Militia in said North Kingstown in Col. Dyer’s Regiment early in the spring of the year 1777. He also testified that he was drafted several times & served in said Company in the Course of that year, not less than four moths…”

 Updike claimed to have been stationed in Wickford, patrolling Boston Neck, and Bissel Mills[vi], as well as serving a month at the encampment of troops positioned for General Jeremy Spencer’s planned invasion of Newport. 

 Daniel claimed also to have served in the same company in the following year of 1778, mentioning a brief episode against “the incursions of Wallace”, and later to have served in the Battle of Rhode Island. All these events of course, took place before the date that Daniel himself had recorded as his first training with the militia (October 1779).

 There may be a logical reason for this discrepancy. Perhaps he meant two different militias and enlistments? Wickford had its own Newtown Rangers.In the spring of 1777, the time Daniel mentions in his pension testimony, enrollment in the local militia would have been a far less risky enlistment, and a popular option for the sons of wealthy plantation owners. The date of his later first training with the militia came just a week before the British evacuated Rhode Island.

 His diary from 1778-1779 , while sparse, does mention Col. Harry Babcock, the Major-General of the Rhode Island Militia, with whom at 16, he was familiar enough to call at his home. The diary contains references to Babcock’s brother-in-law John Bours, and meeting Captain Dudley Saltonstall, then returning from the beating his fleet had taken from the British on the Penobscot River.

 So what are we to make of the discrepancy in years served? In the difference between the testimony of joining in the spring of 1777 and the recorded evidence of its being in the fall of 1779? To further complicate matters, nearly two years after Daniel’s pension was filed, a questionable came in reference to the pension application filed by younger brother James Updike.

 James Updike had enlisted as the record shows “being then 14 years of a age…was received as his father’s substitute”. He claimed in his application that at the age of 15 he was appointed adjutant, a position of staff officer that came with much responsibility and the recording of received and written orders.

In a lengthy letter, a man signing himself as “Your Friend, A Republican Farmer”, lists a number of hopeful pensioners who he resoundingly felt did not deserve a cent of government money.

 Dear Sir, You have begun a good  work in this town by Suspending two of the Revolutionary pensioners namely Samuel Thomas and James Updike for they have already drawn from our government more dollars than they ever did hours service in the Revolutionary War to my Certain knowledge …I have known them both from my Cradle and I am sure that these two men never did more than one week service in that war.

 Now Sir, if you will suspend 8 or 10 more of them that I allege never did one year’s service in that war….I will give you their names:

 Daniel Updike never did one day of service in that war

Daniel E. Updike        Do.                   Do.                   Do.

 The Republican Farmer’s letter continues to name others who he claimed had falsified their pension applications, including  Augustus Hurling, John Northup, Isaac Spink, Isaac Hall, and William Reynolds who did but “four months service”. His letter lists another slew of men who served three months or less, but who he believed had falsified their testimonies; even Major Harry Babcock, who the writer claimed “got some of his drunken Generals to testify for him[vii].”

 Clearly the writer of the letter had a bone of contention with these men. Or did he possibly misunderstand or disagree with the 1833 Act of Congress that allowed men who had served in militia units to apply for pensions?

 Let’s re-examine Daniel Updike’s testimony about enlisting in the spring of 1777. The previous year had seen the formation of the Newtown Rangers after a field cannon had been sent from the State for the towns defense in March 1776. The Newtown Rangers trained themselves in its usage and set up three fortified locations in town from which they could fire it, should the need arise[viii].

 Such fortified sites were constructed at Quidnesset. Poplar Point, and Barbers Heights above Saunderstown. The Newtown Rangers, as historian G. Timothy Cranston has described them “were made up of boys too young and men too old to serve in the armies of the Revolution…”. Daniel Updike would have been fifteen at time he recalled enlisting.

 That year of 1777, the Rangers fended off an attempted landing by scoring a direct hit on a British sailing vessel from Poplar Point. This may be Daniel’s recollection of fending off an “incursion” that he testified as occurring a year later. Further, the afore-mentioned Col. George Babcock commanded the Newtown Rangers during that encounter. 

 It would seem that Updike was recalling his time with the Newtown Rangers, and that he would have joined another unit after turning sixteen by 1779, the year he remembered as training with a militia the first time. The distinction between a unit trained in Artillery and one trained as a field unit, is distinct on many levels. 

 Further evidence can be found in an Order issued on the same day his Father was absolved of any disloyalty through involvement with the Slocums and John Hart. The Assembly ordered that the militia in Updike’s Newtown be “formed out”, or inactivated. Daniel may well then have had his first formal muster and drill as a member of the Rhode Island militia the following year, after the Continental Congress commissioned the states to formalize the previously loosely regulated bands of independent units from New England communities.

 James Updike was awarded a pension of $80.00 per annum on April 25, 1831. Claims that he served less than his application stated were rebutted by numerous witnesses who stated that he had served two years and “entered the journals of Colonel Dyer”. Daniel Updike’s widow Ardelissa was awarded a payment of $240.00 on November 4, 1834 for her husband’s service as a private for two years under Captain Brown of Colonel Dyer’s Regiment.

 It seems then that the Updike’s did everything they could to prove they were loyal to the patriot cause, even if they did like to sip their tea behind closed shutters.

[i]Arnold, James ed. Narragansett Historical Register Vol. 3, p. 57

[ii]Diary of Ezra Stiles Vol. 2, p. 160

[iii]

[iv]http://founders.orgUniversity of Virginia See Washington’s Letter to Jonathan Trumbell Jr. April 12, 1777

[v]As transcribed by Robert A. Geake from A Diary of Daniel Updike, in the Years 1778-1779 Rhode Island Historical Society. Published in A Cocumscussoc ReaderRIFootprints Press 2017 pp. 40-41

[vi]An early name for the area near Tower Hill.

[vii]NARA M804. Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land Warrant Application Files. 2435  Page 55 

[viii]Cranston, Tim The Oft-Forgotten Story of the Wickford Gun The Independent, July 15, 2018

A Lonely Country: The Trials of Esther Smith

By Robert A. Geake

 Unlike Joan Smith, the enterprising wife of Richard Smith Sr., the woman whom her son came to marry would not find comfort or opportunity in the wilderness of Cocumscussoc. For Esther Smith, her time on the farm at Smith’s Castle might as well have been an eternity and her declining health is recorded in a series of letters between her husband and his friend Governor John Winthrop Jr. of the neighboring colony of Connecticut. By the time of her arrival at Cocumscussoc, the estate had already begun its transition from trading post to plantation. She oversaw a slave woman named Sarah whose five young boys likely herded the over one hundred cattle on the farm, as well as goats and hogs that were kept on the plantation. The production of cheese was still a staple of the farm, and by 1666 Richard Smith Jr. was sailing a pair of boats loaded with sundry goods back and forth to Barbados as well as to England several times over the years. As to the heavy labor at Cocumscussoc, this was left to Sarah’s husband Ceaser, and another slave named Ebed-Melich[i].

John Winthrop Jr., the son of John Winthrop, the founding governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, was a learned man, and is generally acknowledged to be one of the first trained physicians in America. When Esther began to fall ill at Cocumscussoc, Richard Smith Jr. turned to Winthrop for help through frequent correspondence.

Our first glimpse of an illness plaguing Esther comes from a letter dated January 11, 1665, in which he thanks Winthrop for 

    …all you(r) love and care which you have taken about her. We received the rubla powder sent, as also the black salve sent last with your letter dated November 24th. My kindswoman hath received much good by what she hath taken from you. It still remayns layme and in payne, it running two and froe sumetimes in her neck and shoulder & arme & hand and sumtimes in her hips, thys, and kne, they being still week.  We have hopes that she will in time with the helpe of God and you(r) good remedys grow well[ii]

At least one application of the rublia powder had enabled her to resume basic tasks for a colonial wife:

     My kindswoman had an extreme payne in here hand rist since you(r) worship sent the last rubla powder, in so much that she could not sewe nor nett or doe anything at all with her hand: then she tooke a porchine of it according to you(r) worships derecion and it made her hand well, removed the payne that nowe she hath good use of it[iii]”

By early August, Winthrop’s prescriptions seem to have temporarily cured most of her ailments.

   …my kindswoman hath fowned much benifitt in what she hath taken from you. She is much amended and can gooe aboutte a great deall beter than she could, butt her tooe on the other foote is bade still, as also that foote troubells her, having a numbness and the tooe as it was, the bottom of the foote is painefull to her…she bathes her tooe according to your derecione.[iv]

By April of 1666, Esther was in great pain again, and her husband wrote again to Governor Winthrop, seeking more medicine:

     I make bould to trobell you as relating to my Couzens distemper, its still bad, she being still lame in her kne, hipe & thye, & often it runes up and downe in her arams & showldrs & necke & baike. Also she is trobled with a tingling in her thyes, but her you(r) Rubela powder doth remove it so that nowe she is indifrent well: butt onley in her knee, thy & hipe & too ether it constantly remaynes & sumtimes runes in to other parts as above exprest. She had an intent to have come up to you this Spring but the wether being could & the journey fare (far) & she not abell to ride, it being could to gooe by water, doe make bould to request forder favor that you would advise her by wrighting and sending what may be good for her to take…[v]

Despite her ailments, the work on the farm went continued. Along with the letter, Esther sent two cheeses to the governor that had aged over the winter.

Winthrop sent Esther Smith a supply of new medicines, and a grateful Richard Smith Jr. reported to the governor again in the spring of 1667:

     Those things that you left with my Couzen she hath according to you(r) derecions made use of, and I judge under God it saved her life this winter; for she was troubled with a husking coufe (cough) and a great stopige in her stomok, in so much she was almost spent, and had bin in her grave had it not bin for you(r) morning Powder, or that you derected her to take in the morning. The first time she tooke of it she found ease, so she tooke it all, seven months together, and it clearly cured her of that distemper[vi]

Still, other ailments plagued Esther. In the same letter her husband added:

   …She is att times troubled with a great paine in her knee, espesaly when she does much sture, and most twowards night, & seldum or never free of sume payne in it. Acording to you(r) derecion I bought a Cupping glase at Bostone,  butt we knowe not howe to use it. Sir, she hath bin very lame this 3 weeks: its probell she cached cowld; he fisick she hath taken I think all. If you please to acomadate her farder with any thing that you think mett we shall be very thinkfull…[vii]

Once again, Winthrop’s remedy provided Esther some relief, and in June he penned:

   …This is to returen you thainkfullnes for those things you last sent by Capt. John Alyne, which my Couzen intends to take according to you(r) derecions. She hathe bine very lame this spring att times, but when she takes of you(r) fisike, she is much bettered by it. Sir, that powder you wright to knowe what it was which did her so much good I cannot better describe it than to the leafes of dryed rosemary rubd, for coulor, & it would swime on the beare sume of it. Its all spent, so that she hath non left for a sampell.[viii]

The Governor sent along more medicine, for which the Smiths were most appreciative:

   Many thainks for you(r) love and care about her: she hath taken latly of you(r) pisike and powder sent by Edward Mesenger, she finds it doth her much good. The rubella powder sinc she toke it she is far better then she was, and it wrought well, & also the other powder you left her when you was last here she hath taken of it. She had a stopig in her stomok as formarly, but that powder sent by Edward Mesenger hath done her much good…[ix]

Although Esther’s problems continued into the new year (1669), she continued to be helped by the Governor’s treatments:

   You(r) leter, with what you sent last, came safe to hand…According to you(r) derecions shee hath taken her phisicke and aplyed bathing and that playstar to her ainkell. Her phisik wrott well and her ainkell is much bettered by it, sumtimes no payn in it att all…[x]

Apparently the slave Sarah was also suffering from some ailment, for Smith noted in the same letter that “Sarah is much better since you(r) Worship gave her that powder.”

In May, Smith informed the Governor that Esther “…hath bine better this winter then usually shee hath bine other winters.” While this was a stroke of good fortune for her, others in the colony were suffering:

     Here is many pepoll deed (dead) at Rode Island the later hand of winter and this Springe 30 or 40: Mr. John Gard  thr chife, others those you know not, and very sickly still; it takes (them) with a payne in hed & stomoke & side, on which folowes a fever & dyes in 3 or 4 dayes maney.[xi]

Smith himself resorted to taking some of the doctor’s “physik” during this season, and reported that “I found it did me much good, Sir.”

He wrote in the same letter of his intention to leave Cocumscussoc for several months, though he takes pains to assure him that Esther will be looked after:

     Sir, I have an intent for Eingland suddenly, I hope to gooe in June next…I intend to    returen next yeere if God please to give me life and helth…My Couzen Ester I shall leve at Narragansett; were it not that shee hath fownd so much helpe and favor from you I knowe I could not perswayde her to staye, for shee accounts her life is preserved by what you send her, with God’s blessing to it.[xii]

Esther herself included a brief note to Winthrop, doubtless with the hope of his continued ministrations:

     Hounored Sir,  humbell service presented. I make bowld to present you herwithall with a pr of socks, stiripe hose and stokings and shoos. They are butt meme, I could wish they were beter. Be plesed to except of them from shee that is never abell to recompenc you(r) great love and favor  to me.[xiii]

On the 2nd of June, Richard sent a letter from New London, explaining that he was leaving earlier than expected, and sending his hope that the governor keep in touch with Esther and would “still be assistant to her in what may doe her good”.

After his journey to England, and the outfitting of a ship for trade with Barbados, Smith  thanked Winthrop once more 

“…for you(r) kindness to my Couzen in my abstance; that bathing powder did her much good and for a good continyance of time it made her lame lige with outt ache or payne…she bathed the lige with you(r) powder and untell Aprell from January shee had no payne, butt since Aprell she is sumtimes troubled against chayng of wether.[xiv]”

Being consumed over the next few years with the continuing struggle to keep the Narragansett Country intact, Smith barely mentions Esther’s condition again until the summer of 1672, when he wrote that she “…is better than ever she was since she was first lame.”

The continuing struggle to keep the Narragansett Country intact continued, and dominates his correspondence over the next two years. In one missive he complains that ”Rode Island Generall Asemly have made many strainge kind of Aicts, or Lawes as they call them, and quitt contrary to reason.[xv]”

The following March, it was the Smiths turn turn to comfort Winthrop, who was recovering from illness himself, and had lost his wife the previous November. Richard consoled that they were both “hartaly sorey for the lost of Mistris Wintrop” and “my wiufe deseyred me to present her service to: you, with many thaings for all you(r) love. She hath herewith sent you a small token, namly sixe cheses and one small caske of Shuger. She is manye times trubled with payne in her kne, butt is far beter than formally she was…[xvi]”

Shortly after this letter was written however, Esther fell ill again. In May of 1673, she was very ill, and that the ministrations of a local doctor had only wrought more suffering. 

John Winthrop Jr. courtesy of the Massachusetts Historical Society.

     My lost is likely to be also considerabell, my wiufe being at this time very sicke & weeke having a continuall payne in her bowles & and all about her, her stomoke gone, and littell rest & very faint. Itt toke her about sixe wecks agooe with a payne all around her midell. One Doctor Greneland gave her sumthing which did sume what medigatt the payne for a while, but nowe shee is in extremity with it daye & night, no partt of her body fre from payne, in so much that I doutt shee will not continue longe…[xvii]”

Richard Smith prepared himself for the worst, but he was not giving up on Esther. Two days later, he wrote frantically to Winthrop for help. The document itself is testimony to a time when medicine, still in its infancy in the late 17thcentury, could hardly assure people of a cure; and it bore witness as well, to the expression of utter helplessness that came when a loved one fell so critically ill. 

From the letter it is clear that Esther was in the fight of her life:

     Sir, I have sent this indyan to you to gett sumthing of you for my wiufe, she being exceeding ile and wecke, being taken this day seven weckes with a great payne toke her in her hipes & her thyes & with a sorenes all round her as if it had bin a mighty swelling. The next daye itt came into her bowells with a raiking payne as if her bowells had bin rotten, as if her bowells would drape from her. She being thus 12 dayes and all most ded, I goot Doctor Grindland to come over to her, whoe gave her two glisters & sum cordial which did medigatt the payne, with a dry glister blowne up of tobacco which did cause wind to expel; this did ease for a while, butt nowe she hath had the licke payne this sixteen dayes and very restles, cannot slepe and her stomoke gone. Sir, shee having had such experience of you(r) love to her is nott willing to take aney thing more of Mr. Grindland; therfor have sent this barer up to you deseyring you to send her what you thinke may doe her good, you having already bin under God the preservacion of her liufe…She toke of you(r) phisicke about a wecke before shee was taken sicke, which did worke well, butt nowe is so wecke shee cannot take aney, or dare nott except you(r) advise. Praye dispatch the indyan baicke with all spede.[xviii]

The next day, Richard Smith dispatched another letter:

“MUCH HOUNERED SIR, …yesterday I sent an Indyan to you requesting sumthing for my wiufe, butt had forgot to deseyr to send sume of thatt powder tyed up in the browne paper to be taken at midnight or when paines take her. It was sent first, shee perceves it doth her much good, deseyrs you to send her sume by the first.[xix]”

 The medicines from Winthrop arrived within a few days as Smith acknowledged on the 25th of June 1673.  However, within that letter was the caution of a greater calamity coming to Cocumscussoc and impending hostilities with the indigenous neighbors.

“The newes is all wares and great preperacon for it.” he wrote Winthrop, “This barer Indyan I sent about 6 dayes agooe, who returned for fere of the Wampequags, & have gott him nowe to adventure to fech what you(r) plesewer (pleasure) is to send.”

Smith’s mention of the Indian bearer’s fear of the Wampanoag reflects the tension of the times, as Metacom, (also known by the English name Philip) was attempting to form a gathering of tribes against the United Colonies of Massachusetts and Connecticut. Although Rhode Island, being under Quaker governance was shunned for inclusion in the United Colonies, its authorities would ultimately maintain the peace. Smith himself often found himself acting as a mediator between the tribe and the United Colonies as tensions escalated.

Smith’s use of Indigenous people to act as couriers of important messages, and even the delivery of life saving medicines was not uncommon in the 1600’s. The practice, however, remains one of the most underwritten histories when trade, interdependence, and trust aligned the settlers with local indigenous people. 

At the time of his letter, storm clouds were just beginning to gather, and in the remoteness of Cocumscussoc, Smith was obviously relieved that he could still rely upon the services of the Narragansett runners who relayed messages swiftly up and down the coast of Southern New England.

He would write again to Winthrop in July that: 

     I make bould to aquaint you thatt the things sent by the Indyan came saufe, and sume since, & according to you(r) derecion she toke the pills which did not oparate enoufe to cause a stole, butt towards the evening toke a glister, then it caused severall stolles. The next pills did the licke with the help of a glister, and the two last times shee toke pills it did operatt with out a glister. She hath taken all the pills, and according as derected doe take the Cordiall powdrs as derected for the daye time, as also that powder for night times, tied up for distincion in the browne paper, which she greatt help and ease by. In extremity of payne it causeth ease & rest, itt shee still remaynes wecke, ille and faint, and butt litell or no stomoke. In the evening she is troubled with a payne in her beley, baicke, hipes and thyes, which runs to and fro all night, so that she cannot rest; butt in extramaty of payne and towards daye itt abates somewhat, butt shee is ille every daye also, butt not halufe so bad as att night…Shee is nowe taken with a tingling numbnes in her hips and thyes, a dednes in them, and payne thatt she can hardly lye in her bed. She drinks a pretty deall of saike to suportt her when redy to faint with extrematy of payne. Sir, I humbly thainke you for you(r) great love in sending whatt already receved & doe make bould  to aquaint you with her condicion nowe, requesting you(r) farther favour to send her whatt elce you judge mette, shee being ferefull if she should recover this fitt of ilnes that she shall lose the use of her limes (limbs).[xx]”  

On July 8th, Smith wrote that although ”the things by this barer…came safe to hand”  in the interim, 

“My wiufe was taken the last Lords daye was seven nights with a great payne in her shouldrs & armes & hands, and contunys in such extrematy that they are as itt were mortified & deed with payne, not numbred payne. Her right armen & hand is the worst, and the other decayes and wecknes apace, and with such extrematy of payne shee is in, that shee is sensless with itt for a while.[xxi]”

Her husband believed that she might be suffering from extreme gout. Esther he wrote, was especially anxious that the Indian bearer return and bring back some of the rubila powder she had taken before with great relief.

In a postscript he added  “Shee hath her uayans of hands and arms swelled much & looks black with the blod in ym”.

By the end of the month, Esther was responding to the doctor’s medicines. Smith sent a message from Hartford by a Native American named Wonacquomuchquen. “This Indyan I mett with axidentally, gooeing about his owne bisnes to Coneticott” Smith explains, “by whom I make bould to give you an aco: of my wiufe…”

That account included that  ”…twise she hath taken of the rubella powder which did worke: butt nott downwards; but by glisters shee kepes her body solabell. The greatest payne shee now hath is in her arems, and most in her right arme which she cannot stire or move.”

Esther rallied once again. By the end of that summer, Smith wrote  that 

     My wiufe is much betred by those mdnes you sent her. Shee is lame in one arme most and full of payne, butt the swelling is abated by menes of oplying that salve one a plaster you sent her..Shee hath taken of your fisicke also several times. She is much betred, tho wecke as yet and full of payne, in her right aram espessly having a kind of numb coldness in her thyes & hips & body. Her bely payne is gone… [xxii]

And by December, Esther was well on the way to recovery. Her relieved husband thanks Winthrop

     …for all you(r) love and favour extended in her extreme ilnes, which nowe is much a bated, and shee mends and gaynes a litell strainth in her armes, although usles as to doe aney thing at present. Her stomoke is pretty good & takes rest, so I hope shee maye recover.

In a postscript, howver, he suggested that darker times were yet ahead:

”Our Indyans hath done us dameg: by stelte hath nowe & then killed us sume catell, butt we are not att present capabell to right our selves on them, butt hope with Coneticott asistanc in time shall.[xxiii]”   

In February of 1674, Smith sent Winthrop a message that both had fallen ill once more, Esther with her usual maladies, and Richard with a recurring bout with kidney stones. A “phiseke” sent by the doctor allowed him to “ make water…a good quantity att once came freely from me and with it sume small stones and gravel, sume of the biggest I have inclosed sent…”

As for Esther,

      Shee is much amended of what formerly, having use nowe of her hands, although butt weacke. She useth you(r) oyntment one her armes,, & you(r) black salve shee constantly aployes to the baikes of her hands one playstars.  She cannot well clinch her hands nor bowe them downwards from the wrist when clinched, which makes  me thinke sume senews maye be shrunken it…Shee hath a numbnedse in her thyes still, butt not constant…Shee is latly troubled with much payne in her bones night times, having nowe not anney  phisick this winter, butt intends to take some shortly. The payne lyes in her baick, shoulder, and necke nights times…[xxiv]

With the letter, Esther included a few gifts in appreciation of medicines he had sent previously, namely seven cheeses, and two turkeys, as well as a firkin of sugar received from the West Indies.

The modern reader of Esther’s trials can only assume that much of the time she was incapacitated during these recurring bouts of illness, yet the life and production of the farm went on as usual. 

During this period, visitors came to Cocumscussoc from near and far, Richard writing several times to Winthrop of acquaintances dropping by. Smith’s Castle also served as a place of negotiations between Rhode Island authorities and parties associated with the Atherton purchase. Smith was also for a time named magistrate for Narragansett Country, and the manor house was then the scene of inquiry. This is what we know of today as the sitting of a “grand jury”. Sea Captains bound for Wickford would anchor off Cocumscussoc and be rowed ashore to visit the estate. Even Roger Williams came occasionally to preach to the Narragansett who were inclined to hear of this “religion from across the sea”. He was well received:

”Mr. Williams doeth exaceys amongst us and sayeth he will contuny itt; he precheth well and abell, and much pepell comes to hear him to theyr good satisfaction”. 

 One of his visits to Cocumscussoc was in June of 1675 while Richard Smith was away on business at Long Island. Esther received him cordially, and he later commented about her that, ”Mrs. Smith, though too much favouring the Foxians (called Quakers),… is a notable Spirit for Coutesie toward strangers…[xxv]”

In spite of her infirmities, there is, in fact, evidence that Friends meetings were actually held at the house on at least two occasions during Esther’s time as matron of the “great house”.  In 1672, during the visit of Quaker minister George Fox to Rhode Island, he was accompanied by Governor Easton into Narragansett Country where he held a meeting with ”people of Connecticut and other parts round about”. Fox would record that their meeting was held “at a justices where Friends never had any before, but he had been “invited to come again”. The justice at this time in Narragansett Country was Richard Smith Jr. as he had been appointed the seat of Magistrate. Fox would not return, but he recommended the site to his fellow missionary John Burnyeat, who recorded some time later that while on a trip to Connecticut, “…We had a meeting at one Richard Smith’s , and next day took our journey towards Hartford.[xxvi]”

Williams’ mention of Esther’s Quaker leanings likely gives some insight to her interactions with the indigenous people, whose messengers carried news of her condition and returned with medicines for her treatment. Her Quaker beliefs also give a possible clue as to why Richard added a provision in his will, proved in 1660, to free Ceaser and Sarah, upon his death, giving them 100 acres of land. The will also manumitted their three children when they reached the age of thirty. Het set Ebed Melich free upon his death as well, and the former slave would appear in a court case early in the 18thcentury, represented by none other than Richard Smith’s great nephew, Daniel Updike.

Esther left Cocumscussoc when the threat what is now called King Philip’s War was imminent. On June 27, 1675, Roger Williams would write to Winthrop that 

“Yesterday Mrs. Smith (after more yea most of the Women and children were gone) departed in a great shoare (shower), by land, for Newport, to take boat in a vessel 4 mile from her howse[xxvii]” Richard Smith and some of the other men remained on the estate as long as conditions allowed.

Smith, despite his earlier attempts to mediate between authorities, ultimately supported the United Colonies militia who came in December, 1676 to initiate a raid against the neutral Narragansett at the Great Swamp. He was involved in ferrying Massachusetts troops into Rhode Island and allowed the encampment of the United Colonies soldiers on the premises. In retaliation for the hundreds of innocent indigenous people killed and captured at the Great Swamp, the block house that Smith had inherited was burned to the ground in the spring of 1676 by Narragansett warriors.

Smith would not return until two years later, his house presumably rebuilt in a large salt-box style, with two gables on either side of the front entrance, and a long, sloping roof in back. It is not clear whether Esther was with Smith when he wrote to Winthrop again in June of 1678, but it seems the house has not yet been finished, as the ”Rhode Island men intends to kepe Courtt att Thomas Goulds house fryday next or saterdaye…”, hearings that were previously held at Smith’s house.

By May of 1679, he mentions Esther once more in salutations, in a letter to New London, and in subsequent letters to Winthrop discussing the leasing of land on Boston Neck, and the building of boats for the governor, there is not a word of illness or ailment. Esther’s trials seemed to be over at last. 

In May of 1682, Smith wrote:

     Worthy Sir,. my self and my wiufes servis to you & gives you thainks for all you(r) kind favors. You(r) by Robert Sinomen recd. Fower dayes since I sawe you(r) indyan, who intends to come to you & his wiufe, as he sayeth, this wecke. I looke for him over here everey daye, in order to his gooeing to you & have promised him to write to you by him in favor of him. I shall be glad to see you here & from hense shall waigt one you where you please.[xxviii]

The last known letter from Smith to Winthrop came from Cocumscussoc on July 15th 1684, in which he sends greetings “from me & myne to you and your(r) in hops that this will find you in good health as we are…” There are still grumblings about disputes and Rhode Island claims, but a contentedness seems to have come with age and finally, good health. Not forgetting his friend and physician all these years, Richard Smith closes his letter to Winthrop, 

”My wiufe presents her humbell servis to you & you(r) frends & so doth him who will ever owne himselvfe you(r) obliged frend & servent”.

In his will, Richard left the Plantation to Esther, though it is unclear whether she would have stayed at Cocumscussoc on her own. Most accounts say that Esther died before Richard’s death in 1692. One genealogical account puts Esther’s death at 1699. Both Esther and Richard Smith are believed to have been buried in the Ayrault-Congdon-Updike lot on what was then the property of the Castle, though any remains of the markers are their graves have long disappeared. 

[i] Dunay, Neil, Captives at Cocumscussoc: From Bondage to Freedom from Cranston, G. Timothy We Were Here Too: Selected Stories of Black History in North Kingstown CreateSpace 2016 p. 68

[ii] Updike, David Berkley Richard Smith First Settler of the Narragansett Country, 

Rhode Island Boston, The Merrymount Press 1937 p. 79

[iii] Ibid.  79

[iv] Ibid.  80

[v] Ibid. 81

[vi] Ibid. 82

[vii] Ibid 83

[viii] Ibid. 83

[ix] Ibid. 84

[x] Ibid. 84

[xi] Ibid. 85

[xii] Ibid. 86

[xiii] Ibid. 86

[xiv] Ibid. 88

[xv] Ibid. 88

[xvi] Ibid. 93

[xvii] Ibid. 94

[xviii] Ibid. 95

[xix] Ibid. 96

[xx] Ibid. 97

[xxi] Ibid. 98

[xxii] Ibid. 99

[xxiii] Ibid. 101

[xxiv] ibid. 102

[xxv] LaFantasie, Glenn The Correspondence of Roger Williams Providence, Rhode Island Historical Society Vol. 2 p. 693

[xxvi] Woodward, Carl, Jr. Plantation in Yankeeland Wickford, The Cocumscussoc Association 1971 p. 34

[xxvii] Lafantasie, Vol. 2. p. 698

[xxviii] Updike, D.B. Richard Smith… p. 118