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, servts [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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Charity in 1821
Charity is listed in the 1821 inventory alongside Abraham Clarke, who was manumitted in Robert D Sewall’s will and who lived in DC after his manumission.
Charity in 1853
She is listed immediately after Abraham’s family in the 1853 inventory with two children: Daniel, age 14, and Mary Mag, age 8
Excerpt from 1853 Inventory of Robert D Sewall | familysearch.org
The 1870 Census returns a record for Charity Jackson, age 50, living in the neighborhood of TB, in the Piscataway District. Piscataway is the district immediately south of Surratts, where Poplar Hill is located.
Husband Daniel
She was living with her inferred husband: Daniel Jackson, age 40, and their two children: Alfred and Caroline. The Prince George’s Marriage Licenses show they formalized their marriage in 1872. Both were listed with the last name Jackson, suggesting they had been married informally for decades prior.
1870 US Federal Census, MD, PG, Piscataway, Image 4 | ancestry.com
A Daniel Jackson, age 40, is listed in the Prince George’s County “Slave Statistics”; Mrs. Jane P Williams submitted his name as a person she enslaved as of 1864. She and her husband owned real estate valued at $10,000 in 1860 and personal property (including value of enslaved people) was recorded as $25,000. In 1870, she was a widow with real estate valued at $8000 and personal property of $600.
Prince George’s County Commissioner of Slave Statistics 1867-1869 CE404 | Maryland State Archives
1870 Residence
The approximate location of Charity and Daniel’s residence after the Civil War can be inferred from the use of Martenet’s Map of Prince George’s County which shows landowners [1863] and the dwelling numbers of the landowners in the 1870 census. Williams can be identified on the road parallel to the district boundary, while W. A Gibbons is close to the TB Post Office, and Marshall and Gwynn are to the west.
Charity and Daniel are listed at dwelling number 25, suggesting that they are on the roads near Gibbons and the TB post office.
If Charity lived on “Poplar Hill” during her captivity by Sewall and if Daniel lived on the Williams’ tract of land (and possibily the residence he inhabited after emancipation by the state), this suggests that they were forced to live apart during their marriage.
If either of them had been granted a pass to visit the other, the walk would have been about 8 miles from one estate to the other, and would have taken about 3 hours.
Family in the 1853 Inventory
Family in the 1870 US Census
Charity, 38
Charity Jackson, 50
Daniel Jackson, 40
Daniel, 14
Mary Mag, 8
Alfred Jackson, 7
Caroline Jackson, infant
Died prior to 1880
Daniel Jackson (Sr) is recorded in the 1880 census with a wife, Clarisa, and his children Alfred and Carolina. Listed with the family is Elizabeth Duckett who is labeled as “mother”. The age difference between Daniel and Clarisa is small, Daniel is 54 and Clarisa is 53. This suggests that Charity died prior to 1880 and Daniel remarried.
Son, Daniel Jackson, Jr
Charity’s son, Daniel Jackson, is listed in the 1853 inventory with her and not in the 1870 census. His estimated birth year, based on the 1853 inventory is 1839, which in 1870, would make him 32. As an adult, it is likely he is in his own household.
In the 1870 census, a Daniel T Jackson is living next to Abraham Clarke in the City. He is the correct age to be Charity’s son, Daniel. This suggests Daniel left Poplar Hill in pursuit of freedom during the Civil War, like many enslaved people who used the proximity to DC as a means for emancipation after 1862.
1870 US Federal Census, DC, Ward 2, Image 315 | ancestry.com
Daniel married Annie Lowe in 1867 and settled into a home near his uncle. The 1880 census indicated Annie had consumption, and she must have died by 1882, as the Evening Star lists an Equity Case (Lowe vs. Jackson), in which Daniel T Jackson was appointed guardian ad litem.
1880 US Federal Census, DC, ED 23, Image 9 | ancestry.com
A Daniel Jackson, widower, died in 1886. His estimated birth year was 1836 and he was buried in Mt. Olivet Cemetery, suggesting like many of the residents of Poplar Hill, he was Catholic.
stories of Then 