Poplar Hill – stories of Then

Dinah Brown & Lawrence Wood

After the Civil War ended, Dinah Brown married Lawrence Wood. Dinah was the daughter of Charles Brown and Susan Wood. She was named for the grandmother of Susan, who had been enslaved by Robert Darnall. [See Fishwick v. Sewall, and the post on Dinah’s Descendants] Dinah and her descendants were enslaved by the Robert Darnall and then devised to Robert Sewall and his heirs.

Dinah was listed as the youngest of Susan “Suck” Wood’s children in the 1853 Inventory of Robert D Sewall’s estate at “Poplar Hill”. Her age was recorded as 7; her estimated birth year was 1846.

Her marriage to Lawrence Wood was solemnized in January 1866 when she was 22 years old.

early marriage years

After their marriage, they lived near “Poplar Hill” and Dinah’s brother, Joseph Henry Brown, near the Catholic Church where Rosaryville would develop into a town. The first map is from Martenet’s Map of Prince George’s County in 1863. The second map is from Hopkin’s Atlas of Prince George’s County in 1878. The development of Cheltenham and Rosaryville results from the building of the railroad and the development of villages after emancipation.

Excerpt from Martenet’s 1863 Map with my annotations | loc.gov

Excerpt from Hopkin’s 1878 Atlas with my annotations | loc.gov

In the 1870 census, they lived with their two children: Louisa and Buddy, and a teenager named Thorton. The 1870 census did not record relationships leaving us to infer relationships.

In the 1880 census, they are still living near Dinah’s siblings and her mother. They have an additional son, which they named after Lawrence. Dinah is working as a cook.

searching for Lawrence Wood prior to emancipation

Dinah’s family has strong ties to “Poplar Hill” and the “Woodyard”, her family having lived there since Susan’s grandmother was brought from Dorchester County prior to 1775, when Darnall moved to “Poplar Hill” with his step-daughter Jane Fishwick who had enslaved Dinah prior to Darnall taking possession of Dinah.

Lawrence does not appear in the 1853 inventory and his name, Lawrence is not one that appears in the 1821 inventories or other identified records related to “Poplar Hill”.

enslaved by Charles F Calvert

A “Lorenzo Wood” appears in the lists submitted to Prince George’s County Commission on Slave Statistics and compiled in 1867 & 1868. As enslavers had been been compensated for their “lost property” when the District had emancipated the enslaved in 1862, Maryland enslavers also hoped for compensation and many submitted lists to the commission. The Dangerfield family who owned “Poplar Hill” did not submit a list. However, Charles F Calvert submitted the name “Lorenzo Wood” along with sixteen other names.

Charles F Calvert was descendant from “the Calverts”. He purchased the tract of land he called “Belle Chance” which situation on the north part of the land that would become Andrews Air Force Base in the 1840s. Prior to his purchase of “Belle Chance”, he is listed in the 1840 census near Wm. P Brinham and Joseph B Hill, suggesting he owned land near the southern edge of “Poplar Hill”.

Calvert, before and after his purchase of Belle Change” was a neighbor of the Sewalls and the Dangerfields at “Poplar Hill”. As evidenced by the “Early Records of White Marsh”, Sewall allowed the people he enslaved to enter into relationships on neighboring estates. 1828 Baptismal Records identifies the following relationships:

James and Sarah were identified as husband and wife; James was enslaved by Arthur West and Sarah was enslaved by Sewall.
Barney and Betsey were identified as husband and wife; Barney was enslaved by Jane Stone and Betsey by Sewall.
Nicholas and Ann were identified as husband and wife; Nicholas was enslaved by Sewall and Ann by Joseph Hill.

The same may be possible for the Dangerfields who inherited “Poplar Hill” after 1853, allowing Lawrence “Lorenzo” Wood to meet Dinah Brown.

The list submitted by Calvert lists 4 people with the surname Wood:

Betsy Wood, age 49
Francis L. Wood, age 17
Josephine Wood, age 15
Lorenzo Wood, age 18

Lawrence Wood is listed as 27 in the 1870 Census records, nine years older than the age reported in the “Slave Statistics”. It is often ambiguous what age the enslaver used for the “Slave Statistics”. For example, Marsham Waring’s heirs used the same ages as on the early 1860s inventory compiled for his estate, even though the list suggests it represents their age at 1864. Others used their 1867 age. For Lawrence Wood and Lorenzo Wood to be within 9 years of each other suggests that they are the same.

The organization of his list makes it hard to tell if those with the same surname are closely related and if they are family groups. If we assume that they are, this suggests that Betsy Wood if the mother of the three teenagers.

Sources

Early Records of the White Marsh Church, Prince George’s County, Maryland. Bowie, MD: Prince Georges County Genealogical Society, 2005. Print.

Basil Medley, USCT

Lewis and Beck Medley, enslaved by Carroll family in St. Mary’s County escaped slavery by leaving with the British during the War of 1812. In the post [Lewis and Beck Medley | the British came], I speculated that because the Carroll family were neighbors to the Sewall family and both the Carrolls and the Sewall enslaved family groups with the names Lewis & Beck, that Lewis & Beck Medley may have been related to the Beck family group listed in the 1822 Robert Sewall Inventory of St. Mary’s County Property [TT 5:25].

1814 Claim	1822 Inventory
Lewis Medley, 21 [1793]	Beck, 45 [1777]
Beck Medley, 17 [1797]	Lewis, 16 [1806]
	Milley, 13 [1809]
	Barney, 11 [1811]
	Sam, 7 [1815]

Compensation for “Manumission”

Further documentation has been found to provide more information about the relationship between the two families.

In 1865, the Dangerfield Heirs of Robert D Sewall’s estate filed multiple Deeds of Manumission in Prince George’s County Land Records [FS 3:33-41 | mdlandrec.net]. These manumissions were filed in August 1865, almost a full year after the passage of the November 1864 Maryland Constitution which emancipated all enslaved people in Maryland. The manumissions effectively did not change the status of the named individuals as they had been previously freed by the State of Maryland.

Instead, these manumissions were filed in hopes of compensation for slaves who had been used by the US Army. In 1863, the US Government began to compensate slaveholders for the enlistment of enslaved people if they could prove their status. By filing the deed of manumission, the enslavers hoped to prove ownership of the enslaved people and receive $300 “upon filing a “manumission” or deed of ownership”. [US National Archives]. Multiple enslavers named those they had enslaved who enlisted in the FS Libers of the Prince George’s County Land Records. Some enslavers named the date of enlistment and the regiment within which the enslaved mustered. In the eleven manumissions filed by the Dangerfield Heirs, none stated a date of enlistment or regiment.

Basil Medley was one of the enslaved people named in the manumissions by the Dangerfield Heirs. USCT records have been located for him under the name “Bazil Medley” (fold3.com | ancestry.com)

Basil Medley was described as a 5 foot 6 inches man, 21 years old. He had brown skin with black eyes and hair. His birth (likely 1843) was listed as Prince George’s County, about ten years after Robert D Sewall inherited the St. Mary’s property and three years after Robert D Sewall sold the St. Mary’s property to George Forbes in 1840, consolidating his holdings in Prince George’s County.

Basil Medley enlisted into Company H of the 23rd Regiment in Washington DC in the spring of 1864. He signed his enlistment papers with his mark.

1853 Inventory

In the 1853 Robert D Sewall Inventory [JH 2:699], there is a family group that included the names Lewis and Basil.

It is in the portion of the inventory that lists the people “gifted” to William P Brinham and on the property in his possession. Brinham was a friend of both Robert D Sewall and Sewall’s brother, William HB. William HB Sewall had inherited the St. Mary’s property from his father in 1820 and upon his death in 1832 had devised it to Robert D Sewall. In the 1840s, Sewall had conveyed some of those who had previously been enslaved in St Mary’s county to Brinham [JBB 3:587]. Listed in the deed are “Louis and his wife Maria, and their children, to wit: Mary and John Louis.”

These names correspond with the first two children listed in the Lewis family group in the 1853 inventory.

From 1853 Inventory of Robert D Sewall, Image 380, first column

In the family group, Lewis is listed as the inferred father, at 48 years old. This places his estimated birth year as 1805, which is consistent with the 1822 St. Mary’s inventory which estimates his birth year as 1806. The two inventories alone however did not indicate a surname name for either family. This left it open as to whether or not Beck and her children were related to the Lewis Medley who escaped the Carrolls and his Medleys, or related to his wife, Beck, and therefore related to a different family surname.

The USCT records cite Basil’s last name as Medley, which suggests that Lewis (born 1805/6) was also a Medley.

The presence of Medley for Basil suggests that Beck’s children and grandchildren are related to Lewis Medley who left with the British in 1812. It is likely that Beck’s partner and Lewis’s father is the Medley.

Thomas Clarke (b. ca 1783) & Charity (b. ca 1790)

This post is one in a series in an attempt to identify members of the Clarke family groups among the people enslaved by Robert D Sewall at “Poplar Hill” in Prince George’s County

Thomas Clarke, age 70, is listed in the 1853 Robert D Sewall inventory with Charity, age 63. [JH 2:699]. Having lived at least two decades past forty, they have surpassed the usual lifespan of an enslaved person. They were listed without an appraised value. Berry, in the The Price for their Pound, discusses the life cycle of the enslaved and in the chapter on the elderly (any enslaved person over 40), she writes “As the enslaved aged, their monetary values decreased and they became worthless on the market. Despite low external values, their soul values [internal values placed on themselves and by their kin] excelled. They carried great wisdom and stability for the community and were respected by the younger enslaved family and friends.” (130-131)

Thomas Clarke and Charity lived at “Poplar Hill” surrounded by their nieces and nephews and their children. The Sewalls and Dangerfields likely no longer had them working in the fields or the house, and so they were more likely providing child care for the small children under 10 while their parents worked under the watchful eye of the overseers and managers.

Thomas Clarke and Charity are also listed in the 1821 Robert Sewall Inventory, though they are not listed together. [TT 4:352] Thomas is listed with other adult males (Tom, Sampson, Capt John and Capt George — “Capt” signifying carpenters). Charity is listed with other female headed family groups with three children: Bob, age 7, Nelly, age 2, and Henrietta, infant. Immediately following her family group was that of Easter and her two children.

The “Early Records of White Marsh Church” includes baptismal records from White Marsh. “White Marsh was the center of Catholic life in Prince George’s County.” (Maryland State Archives). It was a Jesuit plantation that used enslaved labor for the profit of the Catholic Church. The Sewalls were a Catholic family with a private chapel included in the dwelling plantation.

In 1828, among the baptismal records of White Marsh was an April 9th baptism for “Mary, daughter of Thos. & Charity, serv^ts [ensalved people] of Robert Sewall. The sponsor was Esther of same.”

This suggests the possibility that Charity and Easter/Esther are sisters and that they sponsored each others children.

The 1828 baptismal record also helps to the clarify the 1853 Inventory. Thomas and Charity Clarke are listed on page 1 of the inventory and the page breaks after their names. Without a value, they are not included in the subtotals on the first page or the second page, making it ambiguous if they are considered part of the family group that continues on page two.

Name	Age	Value
Lucy + boy	27 & 6	825
Mary	23	650
Lewis	29	950

Lucy [1826], Mary [1830], Lewis [1824] would have been born after the 1821 inventory and close to Charity’s child-bearing year range (1805-1825 +/- a few years).

The baptismal record however, shows an earlier birth year for Mary — 1828– which places her birth in closer proximity to Charity’s child-bearing year range.

Sources

Berry, Daina R. The Price for Their Pound of Flesh: The Value of the Enslaved, from Womb to Grave, in the Building of a Nation. United States: Random House Inc, 2018. Print.

Early Records of the White Marsh Church, Prince George’s County, Maryland. Bowie, MD: Prince Georges County Genealogical Society, 2005. Print.

Dinah and her Daughters

In a previous post, we explored the children of Susan Wood, who married Charles Brown, both of whom were listed in the 1853 Inventory of Robert Darnall Sewall. One of Susan’s children was named Dinah. She was likely named after Susan Wood’s grandmother, Dina.

Dina in 1821

Dina, age 66, is listed in the 1821 inventory of Robert Sewall. She would have been born in 1755. She is listed with two adult males, Abraham, 38, and Jack, 19. Their relationship to Dina is unclear.

Dina before the Sewalls

Robert Sewall inherited the legal authority to enslave Dina and her offspring when Robert Darnall died in 1803. Prior to that Dina had been in the possession of Robert Darnall and his step-daughter, Jane Fishwick.

Prior to reacquiring “Poplar Hill” in 1773, Robert Darnall had lived in Dorchester County across the Chesapeake Bay, with his wife, the wealthy widow, Sarah Fishwick. When he was able to buy back “Poplar Hill”, Darnall brought his wife and his step-daughter from Dorchester County to Prince George’s County.

When the Darnalls moved, Jane Fishwick brought her personal “servant” with her, separating Dina from kin in Dorchester and bringing her to work in the Darnall household.

While in Prince George’s County, Jane fell ill and died in 1775. Her illness required medical care, which Darnall was not prepared to pay without being recompensed out of Fishwick’s estate. As a result, he claimed Dinah and her children as his chattel property.

Decades after Fishwick’s death, other kin laid claim to Dina and her children, saying that Darnall had illegally taking possession of her and her subsequent children.

The ensuing legal case, “Fenwick v Sewall” [1818], named Dinah and her children and grandchildren, which when compared against the 1821 Sewall Inventory [TT 4:352], provides additional connections between family members. Those named include: Fanny, Phillis, John, Paul, Moses, Susannah, Pat, Isaac, Charles, Nelly, Sally, John, Sampson, Tom, Nancy, Kit, Anna, Harriott. [p. 397]

“Dinah had seven children, to wit, Fanny, Patt, &c named in the declaration all of whom were living, and were born after the death of the plaintiff’s intestate:

John &c are the children of Fanny
Isaac, Nancy &c are the children of Patt and
Harriott is the daughter of Nancy who is deceased and who is the daughter of Dinah.”

[Bulleting mine]

In the dispositions, Dinah was said to have been the mother of seven children and ten grandchildren. In a later case, an additional claim was made as Sal, Pat, and Phyllis [1821] had a child in the interim.

Many of these names correspond to the names included in the 1821 Inventory of Robert Sewall [TT 4:352], the heir of Robert Darnall who is alleged to have taken unlawful possession of Dinah and her offspring after Fishwick’s death.

Dina

Inventory Line Number	Name	Age	Est BY	Notes
81	Dina	66	1755	There are two women named Dinah enumerated (age 66 and 37) in the inventory. If Dinah was old enough to be a mother and grandmother of 17 people in 1818, as well as seen by Dr. Digges in 1775 with a nursing child, then this excludes the younger Dina whose estimated birth year of 1784 makes her too young. And assumes the older Dina who would have an estimated birth year of 1755. Dina is listed with Abraham, age 38, and Jack, age 19; neither are listed in the court case.

Fan & children (1 child + 4 grandchildren) [Wood]

In the 1821 Inventory of Robert Sewall, the following family group is recorded:

Fan is listed with her four children, John, Paul, Suck, and Moses, and her daughter-in-law Phillis and her two grandchildren, Eliza and Kitty.

Previous posts have talked about the children as individuals, and their children as identified in the 1870 census. [John Wood, Eliza Wood, William Hannibal Brown Gantt].

Inventory Line Number	Name	Age	Est BY	Notes
50	Fan	46	1775	Fan is likely Fanny. She is listed with her children, one of who has children of their own. Based on her age, she is inferred to be the daughter of Dinah.
52	Phillis*	24	1797	She is listed with two children: Eliza, 6, Kitty, 2. Neither of these children would have been born when the suit was brought forth in 1812, and are not likely to be listed in the original list of seventeen. Phyllis is named in the 1821 appeal for having a child in the interim and this could refer to Kitty born around 1819. In the case summary, Richard Burgess testified that all Dinah was mother or grandmother of all, except one which the witness believed was a female but her name he did not recollect” As Eliza was listed in the 1853 as a Wood, and John &c is named as a child of Fan and Phillis is listed prior to John in the list, it suggests that Phillis is John’s partner and not his sibling. [see below]
51	John	23	1798	John is likely the John Wood, age 55, named in the 1853 Robert D Sewall inventory [JH 2:699] who is listed between the family groups of Eliza and Kitta in the inventory. It is unclear from the 1821 inventory if John and Phyllis are siblings or partners. However, based on Burgess’s recollection it is likely they are partners. Since he is listed as a descendant of Dinah in the court case, therefore the grandson of Dinah.
56	Paul	19	1802	Based on his age and the fact he is listed below Fan, he is inferred to be the grandson of Dinah. Three Pauls appear in the 1853 Inventory, all born after the 1821 Inventory was compiled. One of the Pauls is the son of Charles and Suck. See more about this relationship in the row about “Suck”/Susannah.
57	Moses	13	1808	Based on his age and the fact he is listed below Fan, he is inferred to be the grandson of Dinah. He is likely the Moses named in the will of William H B Sewall, the son of Richard Sewall and the brother of Robert D. Sewall. William had inherited the St. Mary’s County properties from his father Robert Sewall upon his death in 1820 and the legal authority to enslave a portion of the people enslaved by the Sewalls. In his will dated 1824, he requested that Robert D Sewall “give my servant Moses his freedom when he arrives at the age of 23.” [St. Mary’s EJM 1:225] A Moses, 22, was included in Wm HB Sewall’s St. Mary’s County 1831 Tax Assessment. This is consistent with the age of Moses in the 1821 Inventory. In 1832, Robert D. Sewall fulfilled the request and registered Moses’ certificate of freedom in St. Mary’s County. As he was freed in 1832, it is not expected to find him in the 1853 inventory.
56	Suck	17	1804	Based on her age and the fact she is listed below Fan, she is inferred to be the granddaughter of Dinah. She is in the 1853 inventory as “Luck” and is grouped with Charles, her inferred partner, and their children. Among her children’s names are Paul, Susannah, Phillis, Dinah, John, Charles. All of these names occur in the list compiled for the court case. Death certificates for Susan’s children (who lived in Rosaryville after the Civil War and emancipation) name their parents as Charles Brown and Susan Wood.

Pat & children (1 child + 3 grandchildren) [Brown]

Inventory Line Number	Name	Age	Est BY	Notes
59	Pat	42	1779	Based on her age, she is inferred to be the daughter of Dinah. She is listed with Andrew, age 47, and who is not named in the list, suggesting that Andrew is Pat’s partner and not her sibling. In the 1821 inventory she is listed with children ranging from ages 1 to 18 [eight children total]. Of the children: Isaac, Kitty and Charles were born prior to 1812 and the start of the court case. Pat is named in the 1821 appeal for having a child in the interim and this could refer to her other children: Tom, Nancy, Milly, William and Nelly. Of these children, the names Tom, Nancy, and Nelly appear in the list, suggesting the familial relationship. She appears in the 1853 Inventory with her son, William.
60	Isaac	18	1803	Based on his age and the fact he is listed below Pat, he is inferred to be the grandson of Dinah. Isaac is likely the Isaac Brown, age 50, listed in the 1853 Robert D Sewall inventory. He is listed with an inferred partner, Sally Ann, and his children, among whom are Patsey, 20, Isaac, 19, Kitty, 11, Charles, 8, and Sam 6. These names correspond with the original list.
62	Charles	11	1810	Based on his age and the fact he is listed below Pat, he is inferred to be the grandson of Dinah. Charles does not appear to be listed in the 1853 inventory. Susannah “Suck” Wood, daughter of Pat, partnered with a Charles Brown and fathered many children. It is possible that she partnered with her first-cousin Charles, son of Pat. This has been ruled out due to the estimated birth years of both Charles. In 1821, Charles Brown, son of Pat, has an estimated birth year of 1810. In 1853, Charles, partner of Susannah, is listed as 54 years old, giving him an estimated birth years of 1799, a full decade earlier. His age in the 1853 inventory is consistent with the 1870 census which lists him as 75 and gives him an estimated birth year of 1795, ruling this Charles out as her partner.
61	Kitty	15	1805	Based on her age and the fact she is listed below Pat, she is inferred to be the granddaughter of Dinah. The five inferred children of Fan were listed immediately after Fan in the list provided by Berry and assumed to be copied in the same order as the primary source. However, Kit in the list, is not immediately after Charles, which suggests that it may be a different Kit/Kitty.

Nelly (1 child)

Inventory Line Number	Name	Age	Est BY	Notes
St Mary’s Inventory[TT 5:25]	Nelly	30	1791	Based on her age, she is inferred to be the daughter of Dinah. Like Moses, son of Fan, she appears to have been separated from her family and kept at the St. Mary’s County properties. She was listed with a child, Eliza, who would have been born after 1812 and prior to the 1818 judgment. She appears in Wm HB Sewall’s St. Mary’s County 1831 Tax Assessment; she is listed as 40, giving her the same estimated birth year of 1791. The assessment is sorted by age and so it is difficult to infer if she had additional children.

Sally (1 child + 1 grandchild)

There are three Sal/Sal/Sale listed in the Inventory, all roughly the same age: 26, 29, 24.

Inventory Line Number	Name	Age	Est BY	Notes
19	Sale	24	1797	She is listed as “Sale”, which makes her name the most phonetically similar to Sally, listed in the court case. However, where she is positioned in the 1821 inventory places her far away from the other children and grandchildren of Dinah. This suggests that is not the daughter of Dinah.
68	Sal	29	1792	She is listed amidst the other children and grandchildren of Dinah, heading a household that immediately follows Pat’s. This would lend circumstantial support that this is the correct “Sally” Additionally, she has two children: Hariot, age 9 and William, age 5. Sal is also named in the 1821 court case which suggests that William was born after the 1818 judgment, although his age of 5 suggests he was born before 1818.
St Mary’s Inventory[TT 5:25]	Sal	26	1795	Like Nelly and Moses, if this is the correct Sal, she would have been in St. Marys County. She is listed with her children immediately prior to Nelly, which suggests the relationship between the two as inferred sisters. Likewise, she is listed with three children: Tom, born 1811 and possibly named in the list, and two children born after 1818 (17 months and 3 weeks). The ages of the children align better with the details from the court case. Based on her age and the ages of her children, she is inferred to be the daughter of Dinah.

The Brothers Clarke (3 children)

Inventory Line Number	Name	Age	Est BY	Notes
73	John	41	1780	John Clarke “old” is listed in the 1853 Inventory after the Kitty (Wood) family group. He is listed without an age. Pat, his inferred sister, at 74 is listed as the oldest person in the inventory with a listed age. If “old” John Clarke is Pat’s brother, and the Capt John identified in the 1821 inventory, then he would have been born one year after Pat. The designation of Capt would indicate that he was trained as a carpenter.
72	Sampson	37	1784	After Sal, the inventory lists 4 adult males: Tom, Sampson, Capt John, and Capt George. These names [John, Sampson, Tom] occur in the same sequence and what we have seen is that the list of people mostly mirrors the list in the 1821 inventory.
71	Tom	32	1789	Thomas Clarke is listed in the 1853 Inventory near the start, between other identified Clarke children. He is listed as 70 (which may be an estimation of his old age). In the 1821 Inventory he is listed with his brothers away from his partner and children, as was typical of plantations. The 1853 inventory lists him with partner Charity, allowing us to infer that his partner and children are listed in the 1821 inventory, albeit in a different section [Line Number 90-93]. This places them as the second family group after Dinah the matriarch.

Nancy [deceased] ( + grandchildren)

[Nancy], Kit, Anna, Harriott “Harriott is the daughter of Nancy, who is deceased”

Nancy does not appear in the 1821 inventory and it is unclear if Anna or Harriot are listed. A Harriot is listed as 9 years old who is the daughter of Sal, who was previously discussed and set aside as the Sal mentioned in the courtcase. However, she is listed between Fan and Pat (and their offspring) before the Brothers Clarke and their inferred wives and offspring. This suggests that Ann and Sal may be the same, as Sally Ann is a common combination.

If “Isaac, Nancy &c are the children of Patt”, this would suggest Sal/Ann took in Harriott after Nancy died. Without further documentation it is speculation.

Eliza Wood

Eliza Wood is the daughter of John Wood; both are listed in the 1853 Inventory of Robert Darnall Sewall [JH 2:699].

Eliza’s Children

In the 1853 Inventory, Eliza is 38 years old and listed with six children. Her children are about two years apart. She is not listed with a partner, unlike other family groups. This suggests that her partner was likely enslaved by another. If Martha Ann is her oldest, then she began to have children when she was 26.

Name	Age	Est BY	Identified Name Connections
Martha Ann	12	1841
Henny	10	1843
John Robert	8	1845	John is the name of Eliza’s father
Mary Jane	6	1847
Fanny	4	1849	Fanny is the name of Eliza’s grandmother
Phillis	1	1852	Phillis is the name of Eliza’s mother

After Emancipation

Eliza and some of her children are identified in the US Federal Census as still living in close proximity to Poplar Hill after emancipation in 1870 and 1880. I have yet to locate John Robert and Mary Jane.

“Poplar Hill” can be identified on the 1863 Martenet Map of Prince George’s County by the name H(enry) Dangerfield, the guardian of Sewall’s nieces who inherited land from Sewall. Immediately south of Woodyard in the north part of Surrats District, the road leading south to Surratsville (present-day Clinton) cut the land into two pieces.

Martenet labeled a Mill near Henry Dangerfield and the Woodyard intersection. This mill can be identified in the 1870 Census as dwelling number 21, with Head of Household Henry Tarman who was identified as a Miller. Immediately enumerated after him is Annie Marshall in dwelling number 22. She is the mother of WH Marshall who is named on the map and who had moved out of state after the Civil War.

Households 23-32, 35-42, 47-49 are freed Black families who have names with connections to the 1853 Inventory. The enumerator appears to have followed the road south from Woodyard and then turned right [northwest] onto the road to the Jenkins property.

Members of the Eliza Wood family are enumerated among these households.

Eliza & ‘Feles’ with grandchildren

In the 1870 census, Eliza is listed as the head of household with her occupation listed as “keeping house”, a phrase usually reserved for a woman taking care of her own house (as opposed to “domestic” which indicated work as a servant). There is no indication of a partner. She is living with ‘Feles’, age 19, likely to be Phillis who was one in the 1853 inventory, and two children: Susanna Johnson, age 7, and Fannie Johnson, infant.

They are listed in dwelling number 26.

Phillis was married in 1870; the officiant McDonald, was a priest for the Catholic Church. She married James Clarke in September. James was listed in dwelling number 25 of the 1870 census.

Martha Ann & Charles Johnson

In 1870, Martha and Charles are not found in the US Federal Census, though to of their children are listed with Eliza (Susanna and Fannie). This suggests that they either lived separated from the Wood family, or the enumerator only listed those “at home” at the time of the record, rather than asking about additional family members.

In 1880, Eliza is living with the Charles Johnson household (dwelling number 173). She is listed as a “Cook”. She likely worked for a private family. She may work for the same private family as her granddaughter, Christiana, age 16, who is listed as a servant. They are living adjacent to the Tenley family and Walters Family, both white. James Walters is indicated on the 1878 Hopkins map of Surratts District, allowing us to identify their residence in 1880.

On the same Census page, James and Phillis (Wood) Clarke are listed. They are listed with three grandchildren: Rose, James, and Agustus.

James Wood

Between the two Wood families in the 1880 census, sits James Wood, age 45. He is living with his wife, Annie, and their children: Eliza, Catherine, Edward, Nancy, Susanna, and Martha.

Name	Age	Est BY	Identified Name Connections
Eliza A	16	1866	Possibly named after Eliza Wood, subject of post
Catherine A	13?	1867	Possibly named after Eliza’s sister, Kitty
Edward H	9	1871	[Not discussed in this post and “Ned” is a name that will repeat in generations of Woods]
Nancy	7	1873
Susanna	4	1876	[Not discussed in this post and “Susanna” is a name that will repeat in generations of Woods]
Martha	2	1878	Possibly named after Eliza’s oldest identified daughter.

The relationships of James Wood with Eliza Wood is unclear. The names of his children and his geographic proximity suggests a kin relationship.

If he is Eliza’s son, he would have been born around 1835 and he would have been older than the children listed in the 1853 Inventory. She would have been 20 when he was born which is within her child-bearing years.

It is possible, that he was sold as a teenager to a local enslaver, when Sewall needed ready cash. He was a reputed drinker and gambler. Berry, in The Price for Their Pound, describes how the teen years were when most separations from families occurred, as the children were older and able to perform heavy labor. “Most of the [enslaved people] sold in the Upper South were teenagers and young adults”. [p. 66]

In 1870, James and Ann are living in the Marlboro District with his two daughters, Eliza and Catherine and other freed people who appear unrelated (John King, Robert Smith, Henry Harley, Washington Marlow, Catherine Beall).

Henny

Henny, Eliza’s second oldest daughter, is listed with as the head of household of dwelling number 23 in the 1870 census. The enumerator records her as living with Lewis Brown, age 45.

Based on her listed occupation, “Domestic”, and that females were rarely listed as head of household if there was an older male, I propose the possibility that the enumerator miss identified the household. I suggest that Henrietta Wood, Domestic, age 28, should have been listed with the previous household, and Lewis should be head of household of his own house. If this is the case, then she would have been working the household of Annie Marshall, who lived in a dwelling house adjacent to the “Poplar Hill” tract of land.

Three years later, she married John H Jackson, in a ceremony officiated by Walsh. She and John moved to Rosaryville, nearby, and lived there with her children. They are living near the children of Charles and Susan (Wood) Brown, discussed in the post on William Hannibal Gantt Brown. Susan is like Henrietta’s great-aunt, as identified in the 1821 inventory [TT 4:352].

Sources

Berry, Daina R. The Price for Their Pound of Flesh: The Value of the Enslaved, from Womb to Grave, in the Building of a Nation. United States: Random House Inc, 2018. Print.

John Wood

John Wood is listed in the 1853 Inventory of Robert Darnall Sewall’s estate [JH 2:699] as a 55 year old man who was appraised at $400.

In her book, The Price for a Pound of Flesh, Berry talks about the stages of an enslaved person’s life. For John Wood, age 55, he would have been considered elderly as he had surpassed the age of forty, the boundary between mature and elderly. John may still have be performing labor for the Sewall family, and yet, he had surpassed the age of most of the enslaved whose life span was shortened by hard work and captivity. Berry described the work of the “able-bodied enslaved people” over forty as performing tasks including serving as cooks, body servants, gardeners, and caretakers of enslaved children. [page 133]

Berry separates out the “soul value” — “an intangible marker that often defied monetization yet spoke to the spirit and soul of who they were as human beings.” As an elderly member of the plantation, he would have been a valuable member for the community in terms of wisdom and kin connections. He may have taken on the role of caretaker as evidenced by his placement in the 1853 inventory.

John Wood’s Daughters

He is situated between two family groups: Eliza and her children and John and Kitta Brown and their children.

Annotated excerpt from 1853 Inventory showing John Wood between the two families.

It is inferred that Eliza and Kitta are John’s daughters due to their placement in the 1853 inventory, and when names and ages are compared with the 1821 [TT 4:352] and 1853 Inventory.

Name	1821 Age & EST BY	1853 Age & EST BY
John	23 – 1798	55 – 1798
Eliza	6 – 1815	38 – 1815
Kitta/Kitty	2 – 1819	34 – 1819

John Wood may have taken care of his grandchildren and other small children as the adults and older children were sent to the fields to perform labor. He has not been located in the 1870 census suggesting that he may have died prior to 1870; he would have been 72 had he lived.

John and Phillis, partners

The 1821 Inventory shows John listed with a partner, Phillis, the inferred mother of his daughters, Eliza and Kitty. Phillis, age 24, in the 1821 inventory, would have been born in 1797. She would have been 18 when she gave birth to Eliza and 22 when gave birth to Kitty. The inventories do not indicate if they had additional children. Eliza named her youngest daughter after her mother. Phillis, the grand-daughter, is listed with Eliza in both the 1853 inventory and in the 1870 US Census.

Phillis is not listed in the 1853 Inventory when she would have been 56. This suggests that she either died prior to the inventory was taken, or that she was sold by the Sewall family.

It is also unclear if the relationship between John and Phillis was self-selected or if the overseers and enslavers chose the relationship between the two.

Sources

Berry, Daina R. The Price for Their Pound of Flesh: The Value of the Enslaved, from Womb to Grave, in the Building of a Nation. United States: Random House Inc, 2018. Print.

Lewis and Beck Medley | the British came

Cedar Point sits at the mouth of the Patuxent River as it empties into the Chesapeake Bay in St. Mary’s County.

1873 Topographical atlas of Maryland: counties of Calvert, Charles and St. Marys. | davidrumsey.com

Its location was useful for the British during the colonial period as they established customs official there to collect taxes from the passing ships laden with tobacco. In the 18th century, the land was transferred into the Carroll family by way of marriage to Araminta Thompson, who was the illegitimate daughter of the customs official, and had been bequeathed the manor by her father, John Rousby II. [Collection on the Susquehanna estate, Carroll family, and Rousby family]

Charles J Carroll, son of Henry and Araminta [Thompson] Carroll, lived at the manor house, called Susquehanna, before and during the War of 1812. Its location was useful for the British in 1812 as well. The British navy plundered the estates on the waterways, and the manor on Cedar Point was exposed and the British took 5 of the people enslaved by the Carrolls with them, including Lewis and Beck Medley, husband and wife.

In 1828, the heirs of Charles J Carroll, applied for compensation for their lost chattel. The claim included “A lost of the [enslaved people] belonging to Charles John Carroll of the County of Prince George’s County and State of Maryland which were taken or carried away by the British from the mouth of the Patuxent River during the years 1813 + 1814”. [MSA]

In the claim, it is reported that Charles John Carroll, with Nicholas Sewall and Robert Holton boarded the British ship San Domingo in order to reclaim Adam, Phil and Sandy. Another deposition in the claim, mentions Lewis Medley and Beck Medley, the wife of Lewis Medley. They, too, went with the British and did not return to the Carrolls. In April 1814, the British had issued the Cochrane Proclamation:

To encourage further unrest, on April 2, 1814, Admiral Alexander Cochrane of the British forces issued a proclamation offering immediate emancipation to any person willing to take up arms and join the colonial marines. The proclamation also included the families of any person who joined the colonial marines and settled in British Colonies.”
Maryland State Archives

The claim recorded that Lewis and Beck Medley were on the list for Halifax. The Acadian Reporter issued announcements of ships that arrived in Halifax and it is estimate that 2000 refugees from slavery sailed to Nova Scotia between 1813 and 1816. Having escaped chattel slavery in the Chesapeake, the refugees in Halifax faced prejudice and resentment in Halifax at their arrival. [Nova Scotia Archives]

Lewis Medley, age 25, and his wife, age 21, with a child, is listed in the “Halifax List: Return of American Refugee Negroes who have been received into the Province of Nova Scotia from the United States of American between 27 April 1815 and 24 October 1818. [Nova Scotia Archives]

Halifax newspaper, *Acadian Reporter*, 13 May 1815 reporting the arrival of ships including Annapolis | Nova Scotia Archives

After the war, Carroll had moved to Prince George’s County, and had settled on the Patuxent River in the neighborhood of Nottingham, away from the British ships. Having escaped from the British, he died in 1815 from smallpox.

Daily National Intelligencer, Mar 9, 1815 | genealogybank.com

His children were raised by their grandmother, Araminta Thompson. His son, Michael B Carroll became a merchant and landowner; his daughter, Araminta Carroll, married John B Brooke, a wealthy lawyer, and settled at “Poplar Neck”, near Cheltenham and near the home of Robert Sewall of “Poplar Hill”.

Carroll-Sewall Connection

The Carrolls owned Susquehanna on Cedar Point in St. Mary’s County and were neighbors to the Sewalls, of Mattapany Sewall. Both families were prominent Catholic families with connections to power in colonial and early National Maryland.

Nicholas Sewall, who boarded the ship with Charles J Carroll, was a cousin of Robert Sewall, who had inherited “Poplar Hill” from the Darnalls. The Sewall’s owned land on Cedar Point throughout the 1700s.

When Robert Sewall died in 1820, he had land in both Prince George’s County and St. Mary’s County. As a result, he had two inventories. In the inventory for St. Mary’s County, he included the names of the enslaved people on the property [TT 5:25]. Among them was a family group including an inferred mother, Beck (45), and her children, Lewis (16), Milley (13), Barney (11), and Sam (7).

1822 Inventory of St. Mary’s Property | family search.com

This raises the question, as often names repeat across generations, if Beck and her son Lewis were kin to the Lewis and Beck who went with the British. Their enslavers were connected to each other politically, religiously and geographically.

1814 Claim	1822 Inventory
Lewis Medley, 21 [1793]	Beck, 45 [1777]
Beck Medley, 17 [1797]	Lewis, 16 [1806]
	Milley, 13 [1809]
	Barney, 11 [1811]
	Sam, 7 [1815]

Based on the given ages of the people in the two documents, estimated birth years can be given and from that, possibilities for kinship emerge. The Medley’s may be cousins to Beck’s children, either of their parents would have been in the same generation of Beck. Both Beck and the unknown parents could have used family names for their children. Or, Beck Medley, may be the daughter of Beck, as Beck would have been 20 when Beck Medley was born.

Alternatively, the reappearance of “Lewis” in both family groups could be because Lewis was a family name used by the Sewalls (see Nicholas Lewis Sewall, from whom Robert Sewall bought Mattapany Sewall) and the enslavers provided their own name to their enslaved.

Note on Plantation Size

Charles J Carroll died in 1815. His inventory was submitted to Prince George’s County County and included 11 names [TT 5:9] . Unlike Sewall’s inventory which appeared to be organized by family groups, Carroll’s is organized by age.

1815 Inventory of Charles J Carroll’s estate | familysearch.org

Carroll enslaved far fewer people than Sewall, which suggests that family groups were not sustained. In “Tobacco and Slaves”, Allan Kulikoff describes how enslavers with fewer people in captivity were less likely to sustain family groups. [See Chapter 9: Beginning of the Afro-American Family] He describes how [enslavers] would keep “women and small children together but did not keep husbands and teenage children with their immediate family” and that enslavers with small farms [enslaved less than 11 people] separated enslaved people “more frequently than those on large plantations” to pay debts or through bequeathals. This may explain why Sewall’s inventory was organized by family group and Carroll’s was not.

Of the five people who escaped with the British, there were four different surames: Barnes [Adam], Jackson [Philip], Lewis [Sandy], and Medley [Lewis]. This suggests Carroll bought enslaved people from other plantations and brought them to Susquehanna for labor. Kulikoff’s research into Chesapeake enslavers and the people they enslaved suggests that “cross-plantation” kin groups were established as often the enslaved were sold to and by neighboring enslavers.

The British took the four adult men with them, when they raided Susquehanna, as the 1815 inventory only lists males who are children: George, 10, Lewis, 6, Davy, 5.

Abraham Clarke (ca. 1815-1891)

Group 1: Polly & her children

This post is one in a series in an attempt to identify members of the Clarke family groups among the people enslaved by Robert D Sewall at “Poplar Hill” in Prince George’s County

Manumission

In 1852, Robert D. Sewall wrote his will, devising his property to his nieces and nephew. The majority of it went to Susan and Ellen Daingerfield, with some devised to his nephew Henry S. Mitchell. However, excepted from this was the man Abraham Clarke, as Sewall bequeathed “to my faithful and trustworthy house servant Abraham Clarke, his freedom”. Along with his freedom, Sewall bequeathed 400 dollars to allow him to move outside of Prince George’s County.

Robert D. Sewall Will | familysearch.org

When Abraham was emancipated by Sewall, he was living with his wife, Francis, and two children, Alice and John Henry, as evidenced by the 1853 Inventory. While his manumission provided freedom for himself and some money to establish his life, it did not grant his family freedom.

While Sewall died in 1853, it wasn’t until 5 years later, in 1858, Abraham Clarke was issued the certificate of freedom. He was described as of “light complexion, five feet six…with a small scar on the forehead near the edge of his hair and a large scar on the cap of the left knee occasioned by a burn when a small child.”

Life in the District

By 1860, Abraham had left Prince George’s County and was living in Ward 2 of the City of Washington, with his daughter Alice. It is unclear how he secured her freedom (by self-emancipation or purchase) and a new wife, Sarah. His home, about a half mile north of the White House, was on the north edge of the inhabited city where the buildings gave way to empty lots. It is unclear what the fates of Francis and John Henry were.

Family in the 1853 Inventory	Family in the 1860 US Census
Abraham, 38	Abraham Clarke, 45
Francis, 23	Sarah Clarke, 40
John Henry, 6
Alice, 2	Alice, 9

Abraham was the neighbor to James Johnson, a man manumitted by Robert D. Sewall in 1845. (Prince George’s County, Land Records, JBB 4:576 | mdandrec.net).

The 1860 US Federal Census records James Johnson working as a cook, Abraham Clarke as a servant. The City Directories for the 1860 lists his occupation as waiter.

1860 US Federal Census, DC, Ward 2, Image 192 | ancestry.com

Both men owned real estate and had a small personal estate. Based on the 1862 City Directory, they lived near Rhode Island Ave where it connects Scott and Logan Circles; an article in the Evening Star on May 7, 1863 describes it as 29 by 105 feet. In 1884, Sarah Clark, Abraham’s wife, died, bequeathing her husband use of lot 7 on block 211 during his natural life with her stepdaughter Alice (Clark) Jennifer. He died in 1891.

Author Annotated Excerpt of 1851 Map of the City of Washington DC | loc.gov

1821 Inventory and Family

While the 1853 inventory gave details of his adult life as a husband and father, the 1821 inventory gives evidence to his role as a son. Based on the ages provided in the Federal Censuses and the 1853 Inventory, we can estimate his birth year to be between 1815-1820. Most records suggest a year closer to 1820.

The 1821 inventory lists a two year old Abraham, grouped with inferred older sisters and his inferred mother, Polly. (page 354-355)

It is tempting to infer status in the eyes of the enslaver from arrangement on the inventory. The 1853 will bequeathed freedom to Abraham due to his “faithful and trustworthy” character, and he was listed first in the 1853 inventory, seeming to signify the closeness with which he labored to Robert D Sewall. In contrast, in the 1821 inventory lists Polly and her children toward the end of the list for the property in Prince George’s county. While it is tempting to drawn conclusions from this comparison, there is no indication that the organizers of the two inventories had similar thought processes.

George Brown | Escape

In May 1842, George Brown escaped.

[Legacy of Slavery Database | MSA]

Escape

The ad placed in the National Intelligencer by Robert D. Sewall’s plantation manager, Wm. G Jenkins, described George as “25 or 26 years old, 6 feet 2 or 3 inches high, dark complexion, very high forehead.” He was also described as “when spoken to has a quick speech and a smile on his countenance”.

He most likely worked in the fields of the large estate, raising the tobacco and wheat for the Sewall as he was described with a scar on his knee, “occasioned by a cut from a scythe”. Scythes were use to harvest crops or clear fields.

An allegorical 1863 print using a scythe to criticize the plantation system.
See loc.gov for more details.

During his escape he was seen on the stage road leading from Upper Marlboro to Washington. A 1848 Baltimore Sun edition posted the male stage routes and included route 1936 “From Washington DC by Long Old Fields, MD., Upper Marlboro, Queen Anne and Davidsonville to Annapolis, three times a week. [24 Jan 1848 | newspapers.com]

Excerpt from 1863 Martenet Map of Prince George’s County annotated with location of Poplar Hill in relation to the describe mail route

Fanny and Henrietta Brown, Sold

The same year, Robert D Sewall sold the legal authority to enslave eight people to William J Stone, a resident of the District. Stone owned a tract of land called “Mount Pleasant” and a residence in town.

In August 1842, four months after George’s escape, Fanny and Henrietta Brown was among those included into the sale to Stone. [Civil War Washington] Fanny was described as twenty-two years old in the sale. Henrietta Brown was fifteen.

It is possible that George, Fanny and Henrietta were siblings, as they shared the same surname and were enslaved by the same person and similar in age.

Unlike George, who toiled in the fields, Fanny was described as a “cook and house servant” in the 1862 petition paperwork Stone presented to be compensated for her emancipation. Henrietta Brown was not included in the 1862 petition for compensation from her emancipation. A note was included regarding the 1842 sale “Fanny Brown & Cornelius Digges were valuable Servants (the bill of Sale is for 7 servants)—but the others were not so much so & some of them an actual expense for many years before their services were of any value $2200 was the price for all”. This suggests that Stone may have sold the other five included in the Bill of Sale prior to emancipation as he did not see value in their labor.

In 1850, William J Stone [real estate valued at $250000] enumerated 14 enslaved people in the US Federal Census Slave Schedule, included three adults females, ages 30, 29, 27. Fanny is likely listed among them (she would have been 29 in 1850) and possibly Henrietta as well. In 1854, a William Stone (note no use of middle initial) committed two enslaved people, Simon and Henny, to the DC Jail for “safekeeping” [Hynson, 42-43]. They were released to him nine days later. In “Freedom Seekers: Fugitive Slaves in North America, 1800–1860”, Pargas states that enslaved people were put in the jail for “safekeeping” pending a sale or estate division (110). Henny may have been Henrietta.

1821 Robert Sewall Inventory

Fanny and Henrietta are not listed in the 1821 Robert Sewall Inventory [TT 4:352]. Fanny was likely born around the time of the inventory and therefore born after its compilation, while Henrietta, at 15, was born five years after the compilation of the inventory.

George has an estimated birth year of 1816 calculated from the age of 26 given in the advertisement. If he and his family had been enslaved by the Sewall’s in 1821, his name and age [George, 6] should be expected.

On the second page of the inventory, there is a family group listed that included George, 8. This may be the same George.

folio 354 of the 1821 Robert Sewall Inventory.

There is no documentation located that connects the three, other than the Bill of Sale and Runaway Advertisement that details that they both left “Poplar Hill” in 1842. If Fanny and Henrietta’s forced departure from “Poplar Hill” was connected to George’s escape, it was not detailed in the Bill of Sale.

Sources:

Pargas, Damian Alan. Freedom Seekers: Fugitive Slaves in North America, 1800–1860. United States, Cambridge University Press.

Hynson, Jerry M.. District of Columbia Runaway and Fugitive Slave Cases, 1848-1863. United States, Willow Bend Books, 1999.

Henrietta Clarke

This post is one in a series in an attempt to identify members of the Clarke family groups among the people enslaved by Robert D Sewall at “Poplar Hill” in Prince George’s County.

1842 Bill of Sale

In April 1862, Congress emancipated people enslaved within the District the Columbia. In May 1862, William J Stone, Sr. submitted a petition certifying that he was loyal to the US and that he claimed to have enslaved 8 Black people at the time of the act. Among them, Fanny Brown, age 43, “a good cook & family servant” and Cornelius Digges, age 23, “a good house servant, waiter and driver”, both of whom were purchased of Robert Sewall of Prince George’s County.

Petition #314 of William J Stone | ancestry.com

As part of Stone’s documentation that he was the rightful “owner”, he submitted the Bill of Sale between Robert D Sewall and William J Stone [Civil War Washington] which included the names and ages of other enslaved people that he purchased:

Fanny Brown, age 22
Henrietta Clarke, age 23
[Her Son] Nealy, age 2
Henrietta Brown, age 15
Minty Carroll, age 21
John Johnson, age 13
Basil Lee, age 8

Except for Henrietta Clarke, the people named were born after the 1821 Inventory of Robert Sewall’s Prince George’s Property.

1821 & 1853 Inventory

Henrietta, age 3 months old, appears in the 1821 Inventory in the family group with the inferred mother, Charity. This family group is immediately after the Polly [Clarke] family group with Abraham Clarke, who was manumitted by Robert D Sewall in 1852 and Charity (younger) who married Daniel Jackson [see additional posts].

1821 Robert Sewall Inventory [TT 4:352] | family search.org

I had assumed previously that Nelly was short for a female’s name. Comparing the 1862 Emancipation Petition and the 1842 Bill of sale with the 1821 Inventory, its possibly that Nelly is short for Cornelia for a female or Cornelius for a male. Cornelius Digges is listed in the petition as Cornelius, and assumed to be Nealy in the Bill of Sale.

While Henrietta is not included in Robert D Sewall’s 1853 Inventory, her parents, Thomas and Charity are.

1853 Robert D Sewall Inventory [JH 2:699] | familysearch.org

Thomas, while not included with Charity and her children in the 1821 inventory, appears to be included in the inventory:

He is on the previous page, about two-thirds of the way down the column, grouped with a cluster of adult men: Tom, 32, Sampson, 37, Capt. John, 41, and Capt. George, also 41.

Freed, Cornelius Digges

Based on the petition, which did not include Henrietta Clarke (or Digges), it is likely that Henrietta did not survive her captivity. Her son, Cornelius “Nealy” Diggs, did however, and was emancipated in 1862. The petition by William J Stone notes that he has a place near “Mount Pleasant”; it is unclear if Cornelius was held at “Mount Pleasant” in the county or at a city residence on 14th Street between F & G (Evening Star, 15 Sept 1859).

He was drafted into the 22nd Regiment of the US Colored Infantry and fought for the emancipation of all enslaved people.

After the war, he returned to DC where he found work as a coachman [1869], servant [1867] and waiter [1870], similar to the labor he preformed when he was held captive by Stone. (City Directories listed his occupation and residence in Ward 1).

In 1868, he married Evelina Moore, who had been brought to the District from Virginia by her enslaver, Mildred E Ewell, who was bequeathed the legal authority to enslave Evelina from her parents, Jesse Ewell and Mildred Ewell of Prince William County, 1848. She brought them to DC in 1851. (Emancipation Petitions, ancestry.com)

Notes on the Enslavers

William J Stone, Sr

In the 1860 US Federal Census, William J Stone is listed in Ward 2. He is estimated to have real estate valued at $157,000. In contrast, Robert D Sewall had real estate valued at $93,500 in 1850 and he was considered a wealth landowner by his peers. Stone was listed as a “Gentlemen” from England. He had an Irish servant listed with him in the census. His 1860 Slave Schedule lists six people (though he claimed eight on the petition). The ages roughly correspond with the petition (The Pleasants family and Fanny Brown) and appears to omit Cornelius. A web search shows that William J Stone was a engraver who was commissioned to reproduce the the “Declaration of Independence” and political ally of John Quincy Adams.