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.

Nathaniel Clark (1810-bef. 1880)

Group 2: Sue and her Children

1821 Inventory with Family Group | familysearch.org

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.

1853 Inventory of Robert D Sewall | familysearch.org

Nathaniel Clark, Carpenter

Near Woodyard, Martenet marked a mill on his 1863 map of Prince George’s County. This mill is adjacent to the lands owned by the Sewall-Dangerfield families. Its miller was enumerated in the 1870 census at dwelling number 21; the mother of W. H. Marshall at 22, and then the census enumerated 18 Black households among the next 24 households. These households are likely the households of freed Black people who had been held by the Sewall-Dangerfield families.

Among them, at household 25, is the household of Nathaniel Clark, his wife Milly, and their son, James. Nathaniel is listed as a carpenter.

1870 US Federal Census, MD, PG, Surratts, Image 4 | ancestry.com

As a carpenter, Nathaniel likely built and repaired carts, wheels, rakes, fences, while also maintaining the buildings, including quarters, barns, storehouses and the dwelling house itself. In the 1870 census, he was one of three carpenters in the Surratts District, along with two white carpenters (John Hutchison and John C Higdon).

Name in 1853 Inventory	Appraised Value
Ned Wilkes, 47	$550
Natt (Clarke), 50	$650
Henry Brown, 50	$700
Issac Brown, 50	$550
Robert Adam, 51	$500
Lewis, 48	$200

The table shows the names of enslaved men around the same age as Nathaniel Clark and their appraised value in the 1853 Inventory. His value of $650 is higher to most of the other men, suggesting that the appraiser took in account their labor skills in addition to age when providing a value. In the essay “Skilled Blacks in Antebellum St. Mary’s County, Maryland”, the author examines the occupations of both free and enslaved Black people in St. Mary’d county and states, “Carpenters were the most valuable of slaves skilled or otherwise.” The review of historical documentation revealed that skilled carpenters could be hired out for $100 annum in 1812 and $290 in 1824 for the enslaver. (Marks, p. 546)

His household in the 1870 census, is fairly consistent with the household of Natt and Milly in the 1853 inventory, with the age difference between Nathaniel and Milly about 5 years in both documents, and with James consistently having an estimated birth year of 1849 in both documents.

Family in the 1853 Inventory	Family in the 1870 US Census
Natt, 50	Nathaniel, 60
Milly, 44	Milly, 55
George, 19
Barney, 16
Susannah, 13
James, 4	James, 21

Son, James Clarke (1849-)

James, their youngest son, was still living with his parents in the 1870 census. A marriage record shows he married Phillis Wood, their neighbor’s daughter in 1870 (both enslaved by Robert D Sewall and identified in the inventory).

Like his father, he was a laborer and the 1900 census shows him with the occupation of carpenter. The 1880 census (in conjunction with the 1878 Hopkins Map; the map is rotated from a traditional north orientation) shows that he lived northeast of Robey’s Town (present-day Clinton), he is listed at dwelling number 177 near Joseph Stephenson and others.

Son, George Clark (1834-bef. 1880)

In 1870, George Clark, the oldest identified son of Nathaniel and Milly, was living in Marlboro District; he is enumerated at dwelling number 311, near the dwelling house of Thomas Clagett (310). He and his wife Ann have 4 children, all of whom were born after 1853. This location puts him on the road from Upper Marlboro to Rosaryville and northeast of Woodyard. He is working as a “farm hand” which suggests he is a tenant farmer after emancipation. His oldest son, Edward, is still living there in 1880 with his wife and children. George, Anne and the other siblings do not appear to be living in the vicinity.

Son, Barney Clarke (1837-1916)

Barney, the second oldest son, is enumerated as living in Marlboro as well, though not near the Clagett land. Like George, he is a tenant farmer.

He and his wife, Mary Ann Burgess, have their marriage made official in 1870, though the ages of their children suggest that they had been partnered for a decade or more.

1870 US Federal Census, MD, PG, Marlboro, Image 34 | ancestry.com

Mary Ann Burgess, enslaved by R. W. G Baden?

It is possible that Mary Ann Burgess was enslaved by R. W. G. Baden prior to the state emancipation in 1864. He lived in Nottingham District near Rock Creek. In 1867 he submitted a list of names that bear similarities to Mary Ann and her children:

Baden submitted a list Phoebe Clark and 5 children. With any of the lists submitted for the Commission on “Slave Statistics” it is ambiguous what age the enslaver noted, e.g., was it from 1864, when they were emancipated, was it from 1867 when the list was compiled, or was it from a previous list submitted without updated aged. For example, the Waring family submitted their list of individuals with ages from an 1860 inventory of their father’s estate (i.e., Mary Virginia Mackubin and Mrs. Elizabeth L Bowie). Additionally, the lists were voluntarily submitted meaning not every enslaver submitted a list. For example, the Sewall-Dangerfields did not submit a list for “Poplar Hill”.

[1] Considering Phoebe Clark, she is roughly the same age as Mary Ann (Burgess) Clark in the 1870 Census. Her name however is distinctly different. Two possibilities present themselves. First, the “slave statistic” list maker confused either Maria or Martha Ann for Phoebe and wrote the names incorrectly. Or, second, Phoebe was a name given by her enslaver, and Mary Ann chose Mary Ann for herself, and upon liberation chose the name she gave herself. Additonally, Mary Ann Clark or Burgess is not listed in the 1867 Slave Statistics.

[2] George Clark is roughly the same age as George Clark in the census

[3] William Clark is an outlier; and Will and Belle both contain an /l/ sound after a one-syllable name. The 1870 census could have misheard and wrote the wrong name.

[4] Lettie Clark could be L. A. Clark in the census. While the age is different, the names consistently begin with an “L”

[5] Both documents list a multi-syllabic distinct name that begins with “R”.

While there are similarities, this theory relies on a lot of errors on behalf of the record takers, and while probable is by no means definitive.

Barney Clark in 1870

Barney and his wife’s dwelling number 203 in the 1870 census places their residence north of Woodyard, closer to the village northwest of Woodyard which is represented by the cluster of names.

By 1880, the family has moved south to the Brandywine District. Brandywine was formed from the Nottingham District and suggests that the family moved into the area southwest of Woodyard, near the new villages of Rosaryville and Chelthenham, where many of the other formerly enslaved people of Poplar Hill settled. He is enumerated near Nathan Diehl, who bought the land of “Poplar Neck” [not to be confused with “Poplar Hill”] from Araminta Brooks in 1870. This places him and his family on the road running southeast to Rosaryville. He died in 1916, and is buried in Forestville, at the Mount Calvary Catholic Church Cemetery.

Census Comparison of Nathaniel Clark Family

Family Member	1870 Census	Marriage Records	1880 Census
Nathaniel Clarke & Milly	Surratts District Living with other freedmen near dwelling house of “Poplar Hill” Listed as Carpenter		Not found; inferred dead
George	Marlboro District Living with wife and childrenTenant farmer	Not located; inferred to Ann LNU	Not found
Barney	Marlboro District Living with wife and childrenTenant Farmer	Married to Mary Ann Burgess in 1870,	Brandywine District Living with wife and children Tenant Farmer
Susannah	Not found		Not found
James	Surratts District Living with his parents	Married Phillis Wood, 1870 neighbor, in 1870	Surratts District Marked on Hopkins Maps Occupation: Laborer

Sources

Marks, Bayly E. “Skilled Blacks in Antebellum St. Mary’s County, Maryland.” The Journal of Southern History, vol. 53, no. 4, 1987, pp. 537–64, https://doi.org/10.2307/2208774. Accessed 7 Apr. 2022.

William Hannibal Brown Gantt | Proposed Parentage

William Hannibal Gantt, a Black landowner in Cheltenham, died prior to 1898 and the use of death certificates in Maryland. The purpose of this post is to propose a set of parents and siblings for William Hannibal Brown Gantt.

A Note, first, on William Hannibal Brown Gantt and his Surnames

Connecting the 1870 & 1880 Census

In 1880, William H Gantt was enumerated with David Crack in the district of Brandywine. David and his family are listed first, at dwelling number 169, and William H Gantt, with his wife, Mary A, and children, are listed at dwelling number 170.

*1880;* Census Place: *Brandywine, Prince George’s, Maryland;* Roll: *514;* Page: *229B;* Enumeration District: *131* | ancestry.com

In 1870, a William Brown was enumerated with Davy Crack at dwelling number 20; his wife, Agnes is not listed, however, the children match those of the 1880 William H Gantt entry. The alignment of children’s names with the inclusion of Davy Crack suggests that William Brown and William H Gantt are the same person.

*1870;* Census Place: *Nottingham, Prince Georges, Maryland;* Roll: *M593_592;*Page: *115B* | ancestry.com

Land Records

Hannibal Gantt purchased property in Cheltenham, MD after the Civil War with David Crack that had been part of the “Poplar Neck” estate owned by the Brooke family in the 18th and 19th centuries. Araminta Brooke, the widow of John B Brooke, sold the land to Adam Diehl in 1870, who subdivided the land for small farmers. Their names appear on the 1878 Hopkins map of the Brandywine District as “H. Gaunt and D. Crack”. (Prince George’s Co. Land Records, HB 5:13-14, HB JWB 33:82-3, 79:99 | mdlandrec.net)

In the land records, he is consistently referenced as William H Gantt. In an 1874 Post Office Directory for Maryland, he is listed as Hannibal Gant, Farmer, which is consistent with the 1878 Hopkins map. This suggests he changed his surname between 1870 and 1874.

Marriage Record of Clora Ann Crack and Joseph Henry Brown

A review of the Index to Marriage Licenses for Prince George’s County does not return a marriage license for William Gantt/Brown and Agnes Crack. There are two entries for the surname Crack:

Clora Ann Crack to Joseph Henry Brown
John William Crack and Eliza Jane Savoy

As evidenced by the land records (namely the 1912 record in which the heirs of Clora Brown transfer their inherited property to Agnes Gantt: PG Land Records: 79:99), Clora Ann Crack and Agnes Crack are sisters. It appears that they may have married Brown brothers.

Brown-Wood Family Group

Joseph Henry Brown died in 1915; his death certificate lists his parents as “Charles Brown and ? Wood”. In 1870, Charles Brown, age 75, was living in the household enumerated immediately prior to William Brown. The geographic proximity of William Hannibal Brown Gantt to Charles and Susan Brown in the 1870 census with the twin marriages of siblings suggests further research into the Brown-Wood Family group to further identify relationships.

Death Certificates

In addition to Joseph Henry Brown, the following death certificates were identified:

John A Brown died in 1904; his death certificate lists his parents as “Charles Brown and Susan Wood”.
Crissie (Brown) Wilks died in 1912; her death certificate lists her parents as “Charles Brown and Susanna Wood”.

1853 Robert D Sewall Inventory

William and Agnes’s daughter, Ella Gantt married Frank Wilkes in 1898. In my search for Frank’s parents, I had researched the Wilkes family previous to this post. I have yet to definitively identify Frank’s parents. However, the search for Wilkes lead me to the Edward and Maria Wilkes family which had been enslaved by Robert D. Sewall, the owner of Poplar Hill, and identified on the 1853 Inventory of his estate.

“Poplar Hill”

Robert D Sewall owned Poplar Hill, a large tract of land near Woodyard, in Prince George’s County, MD. He died in the early 1850s, and as part of the probate process, an inventory was created of his estate (JH 2:699-703). It included the names and ages of over a hundred people he enslaved on the land. The Brown-Wood Family group is on page 702 in the portion detailed as “property managed by Mr. Jenkins”.

Charles and Luck are the inferred parents, Charles and Susan, from their ages of 54 & 47.

Sukey is a common nickname for Susan and the possibility exists that Luck was mistakenly written for Suck/Suckey. If so, this would suggest that the mother’s name was Susan

The 1853 inventory includes the names of eight children. No further information has been located for Paul, Michael and Philis.

Below, I attempt to track Charles and Susan, and their children, across the census records.

Census Comparison

The 1870 Census

Cheltenham

In 1870, Charles and Susan Brown (parents) are enumerated living in the Nottingham District in the neighborhood of the TB Post Office. Based on the landowners enumerated around them, it can be inferred that they are closer to what would become Cheltenham by the late 1870s.

On the annotated map, the villages of Upper Marlboro, Surratsville, Croom, Brandywine and TB are marked with white lettering. By 1880, the additional villages of Cheltenham and Rosaryville were developed and are seen on the 1878 Hopkins Map. These are marked in light gray.

Two tracts of land are identified in light green and placed by their landowners: Robert D. Sewall’s land (Poplar Hill) which is identified by the name Henry Dangerfield that guardian of Sewall’s heirs and the land of the Brooke family (Poplar Neck) which is identified by the name Mrs. Brooks, the widow of John B Brooke. The numbers represent the dwelling numbers, or the sequence of households visited by the census enumerator in the 1870 census.

Charles and Susan Brown are enumerated at dwelling 19, with their son, John Brown and a child named Alice Willis. They are enumerated next to William Brown (dwelling 20). William Brown is living with his father-in-law Davy Crack, who was enslaved by Mrs. Brookes on the “Poplar Neck” track. Davy Crack, his wife, and children were identified in the 1853 Inventory of her husband John B Brooke (WAJ 1 3-5). William Brown and Davy Crack purchased land in Cheltenham, which is at the center of the circle. They are identified on the 1878 Hopkins Map as H. Gaunt and D. Crack.

Charles is listed as 54 in the 1853 census and 75 in the 1870 census. This provides an estimated birth year range of 1795-1799.

Susan is listed as 47 in the 1853 census and as 60 in the 1870 census. This provides an estimated birth year range of 1806-1810.

John Brown appears unmarried in the 1870 census. Later census records suggest that he may have been married with two small toddlers living with his wife at another location. A marriage record for John Arthur Brown and Mary Jane Jackson is consistent with the older census record.

Susan Brown (age 40), the daughter of Charles and Susan, is living nearby working for the household of Martha Townshend.

Year: 1870; Census Place: Nottingham, Prince Georges, Maryland; Roll: M593_592;Page: 115B

Rosaryville

North of Cheltenham is the Holy Rosary Catholic Church, around which the village called Rosaryville developed. Rosaryville, not present on the 1861 map of Prince George’s County, is shown on the 1878 Hopkins Atlas of Prince George’s County. It sits on the border of the Brandywine District and Upper Marlboro District.

Joseph Henry Brown, the third youngest child in the 1853 inventory married Clora Ann Crack, the daughter of David Crack, in 1865 (Index to Marriage Licenses, PG Co).

In 1870, Joseph Henry Brown and his family were living in Marlboro District, at dwelling number 456 & 457. Joseph is listed in the household of Lawrence Wood, and his wife, Dinah. Chloe/Clora is listed in the next household with their children, James, Julia, Peter. The names of the children are consistent with the heirs of Clora Brown named in a 1912 land record (Liber 79, Folio 99).

Year: *1870;* Census Place: *Marlboro, Prince Georges, Maryland;* Roll: *M593_592;* Page: *104A*

They listed immediately prior to a merchant named Washington Beall. Both Beall and Joseph Brown are labeled on the 1878 Hopkins Map of Marlboro, showing their location in the village of Rosaryville.

Two land records show that Joseph H Brown purchased land in Rosaryville (JWB 1:130 & JWB 1:220). The first, dated 1882, shows that Joseph purchased a parcel of land from the tract “Woodstock” owned by Henry Clagett and adjoining the residence of Charles Brown. It is on the north east side of the main road leading from Rosaryville to Centreville. This is consistent with the map, as the pink area is north and east of the road that leads to Centreville (which is northwest of Rosaryville). The second, also dated 1882, shows that Joseph purchased land from James Belt, next to land owned by Peter Wood and Washington Beall.

Croom

Charles Henry Brown, the third oldest child of Charles and Susan (Wood) Brown was likely married to Annie Gordon in the 1850s, after 1853 (the inventory) and before 1856 (birth of his eldest child in the 1870 census.)

In 1870, he was enumerated in Marlboro District, at dwelling 105, living near the landowner W. D. Bowie.

This places him in the larger neighborhood of the Charles/Susan Brown family groups living near Cheltenham and Rosaryville. The proximity to W.D. Bowie suggests that he is on the road that runs between Rosaryville and Croom, which is the border between the two districts, Marlboro and Nottingham.

Charles’ household is himself, his wife Annie, and their children, whose ages range from 14 to 1, which allows for the estimated marriage year in the mid 1850s.

Immediately enumerated after Charles and his family are Joseph Gordon, age 50, and Polly, age 78. Based on Annie (Gordon) Brown’s death certificate, it is inferred that Joseph is an older brother, and Polly is her mother.

1880 Census

Rosaryville

By 1880, the surviving members of the Charles-Susan Wood Brown family named in the inventory had moved to Rosaryville. Joseph Henry Brown, though documented in 1882 land records to be in the area and marked on the 1878 Hopkins Map, is not recorded in the 1880 census. His other siblings and mother are however.

Dwelling Number	Head of Household	Notes
139	Cornelius Gordon	Possibly related to Charles’ wife, Annie Gordon
140	James Dorsey	Contains the household member Lawrence Wilks
143	Henry Claggett	Large Landowner prior to the Civil War Residence noted on the 1878 Hopkin Map
146	John Brown	Son of Charles Brown and Susan Woods
147	John Thomas	Occupation listed as Teacher, suggesting residence near School House
151	Barney Johnson	Residence noted on the 1878 Hopkin Map
153	Lawerence Wood	Husband of Dinah WoodIncludes both Susan (mother) and Susan (daughter) in household
154	Charles Brown	Son of Charles Brown and Susan Woods
155	Robert Wilkes	Husband of Crissy (Brown) Wilks
157	Uriah Goldsmith	Residence noted on the 1878 Hopkin Map

As recorded in the Brandywine District Map

1900 Census

By 1900, Susan Brown has died, and Dinah (Brown) Wood, a widow, has moved to the District of Columbia.

The remaining male siblings are still living in Rosaryville. The census enumerator did not record complete details for the series of dwelling numbers recorded below. Ages and birth years are missing and relationships are not obviously clear. Numbers are crossed out in the column for dwelling numbers and other numbers are scribed above them.

Dwelling Number	Head of Household	Notes
40/41	Joseph Brown	Living with his daughter Mary, son Peter, his daughter-in-law- Mamie, and Peter and Mamie’s child, Ellen
41/42	Robert Wilks	Husband of Crissy (Brown) Wilks
42/43	John A Brown	Living with his wife and children
43/44	Barney Johnson	Residence noted on the 1878 Hopkin Map
54/53	Charles H Brown	Living with his wife and children

Christianna “Chrissy” (Brown) Wilks

Crissy Wilks is not included in the 1853 inventory of Robert D Sewall’s estate, though her estimated birth year (1840) suggests that she should have been if she was living with her family. Her husband, Robert Wilks, is listed on Sewall’s inventory, with the Wilks family group.

1853 Inventory of Robert D Sewall | JH 1:699 | familysearch.org

1870 Census

In 1870, Edward Wilks and his children are enumerated in the Surratt’s District in the neighborhood of the TB Post Office. They appear to be still living in the quarters provided them on Poplar Hill with a number of other people enslaved by the Sewalls/Dangerfields prior to emancipation in 1864.

Dwelling Number	Head of Household	Notes
21	Henry Tarman	His occupation is listed as a Miller; a mill is indicated on the Martenet Map at Woodyard, where “Poplar Hill”, or Sewall’s estate is located.
22	Annie Marshall	White landowner, likely the mother of William H Marshall who is listed as a planter with real estate valued at $14000 in Surratts. In 1870, he has moved to Kentucky.
24	Edward Wilks	Edward and Maria, inferred parentsLawrence, Richard, Susan, Washington are listed in household
29	Robert Wilks	Sole member of the household
30	Christinia Wilks	She is listed with 5 children, suggesting they had been married since at least 1860.

1880 & 1900 Census

Edward Wilks died in 1879. His account in the Freedmen’s Bank references his death and directs payments to his wife, Maria Wilkes, who is living with Robert in the 1880 census. His original deposit slip also notes his relationship to Poplar Hill.

As noted above, Robert Wilks, his wife Chrissy and his brother have moved to Rosaryville by 1880. Robert and Christiana/Crissy are enumerated as neighbors of the Brown siblings in both the 1880 and 1900 census.

Conclusions

Although there is no direct documentary connection between Charles and Susan Brown with William Hannibal Brown Gantt, I suggest that that the families are connected and that it is highly likely that William was the son of Charles and Susan and sold to another enslaver prior to the 1853 inventory.

They were neighbors in the 1870 census
Both William Brown and Joseph Henry Brown married daughters of David Crack
Crissie Brown married into the Wilks family; a daughter of William Hannibal Brown Gantt married a Wilkes man (connection unclear, though the surname occurs only in the Surrattsville/Rosaryville area)

Based on these reasons, I propose that Charles Brown and Susan Wood are the parents of William Hannibal Brown Gantt.

Thomas Reeder, Sr |

Jane Reeder and her children are recorded in the records of the Freedmen’s Bureau, both as residents at Kendall Green, a converted army hospital for refugees from chattel slavery, and as depositors in the Freedmen’s Bank. These records suggests that Jane and her children were among the refugees who came to DC looking for freedom from bondage. None of these records suggest a partner for Jane or father of her children.

In 1873, Jane Reeder is listed in the City Directories as “wid. Thos.” which is the only located record that connects Jane Reeder with Thomas Reeder as partner.

1873 City Directory of Washington DC | ancestry.com

Enslaved by James L Foxwell

Jane and her children escaped from enslavers in District 1 of Saint Mary’s County, Maryland, as documented by the St Mary’s “Slave Statistics”. St. Mary’s County in on the peninsula between the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay; District 1 encompasses the southern tip of the county.

St. Mary’s County, 1866 | davidrumsey.com

In 1867, Maryland created the “Commission of Slave Statistics” for former enslavers to submit enumerated lists of the people they held in bondage on November 1, 1864, when the new Constitution of Maryland emancipated the enslaved people of Maryland. The names of Jane and her children, as well as Thomas, were submitted by enslavers living in District 1 [St. Inigoes’s].

James L. Foxwell submitted a list of 34 names of people whom he enslaved, among them Thomas Reeder, age 45, who left with the Union Army on Dec 28, 1863. In the 1850s and 1860s, James L Foxwell purchased multiple tracts of land along St. Jerome’s Point called “Fresh Pond Neck” and purchased oyster patents.

Annotated Excerpt from 1866 Map of St. Mary’s County | davidrumsey.com

In addition to owning several schooners and purchasing oyster patent, Foxwell ran advertisements for his “Foxwell Wheat”.

Baltimore Sun | 18 Sep 1852 | newspapers.com

This suggests that the people he enslaved were forced to work the land and the water for his profit.

1850 and 1860 Slave Schedules

In 1850, James L Foxwell enumerated 8 people that he enslaved; 6 females and 2 males on the US Federal Census Slave Schedule. The males were under 10. This suggests that Thomas, who would have been 30, in 1850, was not held in bondage by Foxwell, but a different enslaver.

Foxwell most likely purchased the legal authority to enslave Reeder in the 1850s, as the 1860 US Slave Schedule enumerated 20 people, including a 45 year old male, which corresponds with the age of the list submitted to the commission on “slave statistics”.

Escape

Foxwell recorded that Thomas Reeder, with Nellon Biscoe and Moses Cornish, left with the Union Army on Dec 28, 1863. Many of the people enslaved in St. Mary’s County made their way to Point Lookout, the site of a Union Hospital and Prison. Here, the Army had constructed “contraband” quarters to house the refugees from chattel slavery. Often, the sympathetic nurses and other Lookout personnel would help the refugees find boats to take them north to the District.

Moses Cornish, instead of going north to DC, made his way from Point Lookout to Fort Monroe, Virginia. Fort Monroe, a Union Fort, in Confederate Territory, attracted refugees from slavery as it was where the term “contraband” was coined when Maj. Gen. Butler deemed refugees “contraband” so as to avoid returning escaped people back to their enslavers. Butler was not anti-slavery; he simply did not want the Confederates to benefit from the labor the enslaved people were compelled to do, especially as enslavers shifted their duties from agricultural pursuits to fortifications.

Multiple boats traveled the waters between Fort Monroe and Point Lookout, steamboats, schooners, etc. Any of these may have been used to help Moses travel south instead of north.

Once Moses Cornish made it Fort Monroe, he enlisted in the US Army, joining Battery B of the Regiment 2 of the US Colored Artillery. The two other refugees, Nellon Biscoe and Thomas Reeder, do not appear with Cornish in the ranks of the US Colored Artillery, suggesting that they did not follow him to Fort Monroe.

Nancy | Sold

The legal authority to enslave Nancy passed from Lewis Smith, when he died, to his heirs, including his children, George L and Sarah C Smith. Nancy, age 7, was listed in his 1853 inventory of goods and chattel. Her estimated birth year is 1846.

Parentage

It is unclear who her parents were.

Nace, age 45, likely Ignatius Gough, is the sole adult male listed on the page. His wife, Sarah and other children are held captive by an unknown enslaver as they do not appear in the 1867 lists submitted to the Commission of Slave Statistics and they are reunited with him in the 1870 census.

Louiza, age 20, could be her mother, as Nancy and Mary Ellen are listed below her in the inventory list.

Other records, however, indicate that Mary Ellen is Mary Ellen Reeder, the daughter of Jane Reeder, who was enslaved by Ann M. Chiveral during the Civil war. Mary Ellen and her mother are reunited after the war in the District of Columbia.

Louiza can be identified as Louise Demine, age 38 in the 1867 list submitted to the Commission of Slave Statistics. She and her children (Peter, 7, Teresa,5, Alexander,3, Cecilia,1) are listed. She and her children escaped from Abell’s estate in May 1864, most likely headed to Point Lookout.

Hired Out

Abell hired out Nancy and the other people the Smith children enslaved. In 1858, he recorded receiving $18 for her hire in the Guardian Accounts. In contrast, Abell received $60 for John’s labor and $30 for Stephen’s labor. This suggests that he hired her out for “unskilled” tasks such as a laundry or other domestic tasks.

Sold

She was sold in 1859 to Wm T. Campbell, affording the Abell family a $700 gain on the Smith estate. For Nancy, the sale of her body most likely meant a removal from St. Mary’s County and proximity to her kin.

Account of Sale, 1859 | familysearch.org

In 1860, William T Campbell is enumerated in the federal census as a trader who lived in Allens Fresh, Charles County, Maryland in the neighborhood of Port Tobacco, the major trading port of Charles County.

Year: *1860;* Census Place: *Allens Fresh, Charles, Maryland;* Roll: *M653_473;* Page: 21 | ancestry.com

In 1860, Peter W. Crain, a landowner in Charles County, advertised the self-emancipation of Rose, who had fled her captivity on Crain’s farm in lower Charles County. He advertised for her return to his captivity: “I will give the above reward to any person who will deliver her to me, or to William T. Campbell, at St. Thomas’ Manor, Charles County, Md.” [Port Tobacco Times and Charles County Advertiser, May 24, 1860] This suggests that Campbell had the means to “store” Black people while waiting for enslavers. Evidence from Alexandria slave pens other slave trader sites suggests that Campbell had a store with cells and shackles to restrain Rose and others he held captive before selling.

Port Tobacco and Charles County Advertiser | chroniclingamerica.loc.gov

In 1860, William T Campbell is enumerated as enslaving seven people at the time of the census. Among them, a 25 year old female. This age is consistent with Nancy. Campbell did not submit a list to the Commission of Slave Statistics.

Dina in 1821

Dina before the Sewalls

Dina

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

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

Nelly (1 child)

Sally (1 child + 1 grandchild)

The Brothers Clarke (3 children)

Nancy [deceased] ( + grandchildren)

Eliza’s Children

After Emancipation

Eliza & ‘Feles’ with grandchildren

Martha Ann & Charles Johnson

James Wood

Henny

Sources

John Wood’s Daughters

John and Phillis, partners

Sources

Carroll-Sewall Connection

Note on Plantation Size

Group 1: Polly & her children

Manumission

Life in the District

1821 Inventory and Family

Escape

Fanny and Henrietta Brown, Sold

1821 Robert Sewall Inventory

Sources:

Group 2: Sue and her Children

Nathaniel Clark, Carpenter

Son, James Clarke (1849-)

Son, George Clark (1834-bef. 1880)

Son, Barney Clarke (1837-1916)

Mary Ann Burgess, enslaved by R. W. G Baden?

Barney Clark in 1870

Census Comparison of Nathaniel Clark Family

Sources

A Note, first, on William Hannibal Brown Gantt and his Surnames

Connecting the 1870 & 1880 Census

Land Records

Marriage Record of Clora Ann Crack and Joseph Henry Brown

Brown-Wood Family Group

Death Certificates

1853 Robert D Sewall Inventory

“Poplar Hill”

Census Comparison

The 1870 Census

Cheltenham

Rosaryville

Croom

1880 Census

Rosaryville

1900 Census

Christianna “Chrissy” (Brown) Wilks

1870 Census

1880 & 1900 Census

Conclusions

related posts

Enslaved by James L Foxwell

1850 and 1860 Slave Schedules

Escape

Parentage

Hired Out

Sold