paper trail’s Pulse: dissecting the search for Polly

The Baltimore Sun’s printer placed the ad in the last column of page 2, underneath a bounty for Peter Culver who had absconded with a “free boy, hired by me, named Alexander” and an ad for Ohio Flour.  

A historical advertisement from the 1850s offering a reward for the capture of a woman named Polly, describing her as a mulatto, not less than forty years old, last seen near West River.
“$150 REWARD,” advertisement. The Baltimore Sun (Baltimore, Maryland), July 29, 1855, p. 4. Accessed through Newspapers.com, July 10, 2025. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-baltimore-sun/176173526/.
Transcription of Bounty

$150 REWARD WILL BE GIVEN FOR THE POSITIVE CONVICTION of any one who shall be guilty of harboring my NEGRO WOMAN POLLY, after a knowledge of this notice, whom I purchased lately of the estate of Dr. Magill.—As I have bought Polly through motives of pure humanity, and at her own request, that she might enjoy the society of her husband and relatives, I feel satisfied that she will come to me unless deceived by some designing person in relation thereto. POLLY is not less than forty years of age, a mulatto of neat and tidy appearance, and was last seen on West River. I will give Twenty Dollars if in Anne Arundel, or Thirty if elsewhere, to any one who shall convince her of the fact of my purchase and secure her to me. I also subjoin a certificate of Dr. OGLE, the owner of Polly’s husband. WM. E. PEACH, M. D., Queen Ann, Prince George’s co., Md.


I hereby certify that I have talked with PETER, the husband of Polly, and he says he is very anxious that she should come home to her master, Dr. Peach, immediately. Peter is in bad health and unable to leave the house. [jy25-St*] GEO. C. OGLE.

Within this mundane context of commerce and control, William E. Peach’s advertisement primarily sought the conviction of the “designing person” who “deceived” Polly and harbored her away from Peach who had purchased her “through motives of pure humanity” and while placing a bounty on the return of Polly so he could “secure her to me” almost as an afterthought.

the skeleton layer: who, what, and where

The basic facts of the notice form the skeleton of the story. In July 1855, Wm. E. Peach, M.D., living near Queen Anne in Prince George’s County sought the return of Polly, “not less than forty years of age” who was purchased from Dr. Magill’s estate.  In her escape, she was last seen near West River in Anne Arundel County.  He offered a tiered $20-30 for Polly’s return and a significantly larger sum of $150 dollars for the conviction of the “designing person”.  

the sinews layer: the network of kin and property

The names in the advertisement are held together by a dense network of marriage and property. William E. Peach, son of Queen Anne District landowner Samuel Peach, had married Sarah Alexander Ma[c]gill in 1852. Sarah was the orphaned daughter of Dr. James Ma[c]gill and Julia Ann Compton, having lost her father in 1840 and her mother in 1846. Her life was split between Prince George’s and Anne Arundel Counties. Before her father’s death, she lived on his 740-acre estate along present-day Annapolis Road, situated between the Jesuit’s White Marsh plantation and Magruder’s Tavern, adjacent to Bel-Air, the Ogle estate.

After Dr. Ma[c]gill’s death, Sarah’s world was destabilized. Her mother’s remarriage to Septimus J. Cook and her mother’s subsequent death resulted in Sarah and her sister, James Anna, being shuffled to Anne Arundel County to live with their aunt and uncle, Samuel and Mary Carr. The Carrs owned land near the Ma[c]gill property at West River, which had been inherited by Sarah’s brother, James P. Ma[c]gill. The 1839 will of Dr. Ma[c]gill had stipulated that Polly and her children be conveyed specifically to his other son, Thomas Ma[c]gill.

This 1861 map of the Queen Anne District illustrates the dense network of kin and property that defined Polly’s world. Highlighted are the lands of S. Peach (the family of her new owner, William E. Peach), Dr. Geo. C. Ogle (the enslaver of her husband, Peter), and Dr. Jas Macgill (her previous enslaver). The close proximity of these estates visualizes the community she was desperate to remain within, turning her flight into a calculated risk to preserve her family bonds.

the heart: her husband and relations

As the estate was divided and re-divided, first through the death of James and then through the death of James’ relict and again, as the children came of age, Polly, “a mulatto of neat and tidy appearance” watched as her extended family was separated, corralled and moved from estate to estate.  Individuals were sold to new husbands or liquidated to cover bequests and estate charges.

Amid this decade of instability, a transaction was initiated that would move Polly from her legal owner, Thomas Ma[c]gill, to his sister’s new husband, William Elson Peach. Seizing on this moment, Polly appealed directly to the young doctor, requesting that the terms of his purchase ensure she “might enjoy the society of her husband and relations.” Her husband, Peter, was enslaved by the Ogles at Bel-Air, the neighboring estate. According to a “certificate” from Geo. C. Ogle referenced in the bounty notice, Peter was “in bad health and unable to leave the house.” For Polly, a move away from the Queen Anne area would mean the permanent loss of her husband and the kinship network she fought to maintain.

the skin layer: the language of control and value

At “not less than forty years old,” Polly was an elder in her community. Her labor was likely shifting from fieldwork to tasks essential for the plantation’s maintenance: cooking, nursing, gardening, and sewing. In the logic of chattel slavery, Polly’s advanced age meant her external market value had diminished. This is starkly visible in the twenty-dollar bounty Peach placed on her body; he valued the conviction of the person who disrupted his power more than seven times higher than the return of Polly herself. Peach’s language paints him as a paternalist allowing Polly to “enjoy” her family, yet he simultaneously admits his authority is so weak that he needs help to “convince her of the fact of his purchase” and to “secure her to me.”

Daina Ramey Berry, in The Price for Their Pound of Flesh, discusses the range of attitudes toward elderly enslaved people. While the enslaved community valued their wisdom and the connections they fostered, enslavers saw only a diminished capacity for labor. This led to either “neglectful paternalism” or “disregarded isolation.” Polly, legally conveyed to an orphaned son whose estate was managed by a series of guardians and second husbands, had likely endured years of disregarded isolation as her value was debated in inventories and accounts. Sarah’s marriage to the paternalistic William Peach provided Polly an opportunity to navigate from disregarded isolation into neglectful paternalism. In this transition, she found an opening to assert her own agency.

the blood of the veins: the flow toward kin

Polly was likely living in the Queen Anne District on the former Ma[c]gill estate when Peach finalized her purchase. From there, she had access to travel lanes and turnpikes leading toward Washington, D.C., and the free states north of Maryland. Yet Peach’s ad reports she was last seen in Anne Arundel County near West River, a journey east, away from the most direct path to freedom. This eastward movement was not a mistake; it was a choice. It suggests Polly was seeking reunification with the family members who had been separated from her years before, when James Ma[c]gill first established his Anne Arundel property. Her journey suggests she was seeking reunification with children or other kin who, despite the legal lines drawn in the will, were physically located at the family’s Anne Arundel property. Her flight was therefore a calculated risk, flowing toward the heart of her kinship network, wherever it was located.


I want to acknowledge historians Daina Ramey Berry (The Price for Their Pound of Flesh) and Edward E. Baptist (The Half Has Never Been Told), whose scholarship was foundational to the anatomical metaphor used as an analytical tool in this research.

For those who wish to delve deeper into these topics, I highly recommend reading these books. You can learn more about them on Bookshop.org (I do not receive a commission from these links)

James Stewart | Acquisition

What connection if any does James Stewart have to the enslaved of Notley Young of Prince George’s County?


After emancipation in 1864, James Stewart and many of his children, including Notley Stewart, stayed on the lands of Dr. Benjamin Lee in Queen Anne District in Prince George’s County, Maryland.

Annotated Excerpt from 1861 Martenet Map of Prince George’s County | loc.gov

Prior to emancipation, Stewart had been forced to labor for Marsham Waring’s estates, while his children labored on the estates on the Lee. Waring and Lee were brother-in-laws. Inventory records for Marsham (WAJ 2:321) and the post-emancipation records of the 1870 and 1880 records suggests that James was born a few years after 1800, and about a decade after Marsham Waring.

The name “Notley” has been used by multiple generations of the Stewart family — and one possible source for the given name is from the enslaver Notley Young. Other members of the Stewart family used names that were aligned to their (former) enslaver. For example, James’ son and daughter-in-law, George and Rebecca Stewart had daughters named Violetta and Eleanora, both names in common with the wives of Waring and Lee. Sarah (Sallie) Stewart and her husband Washington Lee named one of their sons, Benjamin, giving him both a given and surname that matches Sarah’s former enslaver, Dr. Benjamin Lee. The use of Notley in the family suggests a connection with a (former) enslaver named Notley, i.e., Notley Young.

There are three Notley Youngs in three successive generations:

  1. Notley Young (I) who died in 1802. His estates and property were located within the parts of Prince George’s County that would become the District of Columbia.
  2. Notley’s (I) son, Notley Young (II), a priest with connections to the Jesuits, Georgetown University and the White Marsh plantation along the Patuxent.
  3. Notley’s (I) grandson, Notley Young (III), son of Benjamin Young. Notley Young (III) married Eleanor Hall, his second cousin, and lived in Queen Anne District, before dying in 1846.

In the 1828 Tax List for Prince George’s County, Notley Young (III) owned practically 735 acres of land in the Collington & Western Branch Hundreds, from which part of Queen Anne District would become. Both Waring and Lee owned property before the Civil War along the Western Branch, which divided the two hundreds.

Map of part of the city of Washington shewing the situation of the mansion house, grave yard & buildings belonging to Mr. Notley Young : original proprietor of that part of the city. | loc.gov

View of the city of Washington in 1792. | loc.gov

Inheritance

There are three ways to acquire an enslaved person: 1. purchase, 2. inheritance/gift, or 3. natural “increase”, i.e., claiming ownership of the children of enslaved women.

James Stewart was born prior Marsham Waring acquiring his father’s estate, who died in 1813. On his inventory, there was a child called Jim (James) age 12 with an estimate birth year of 1801, which is consistent with calculated birth years from the later documents. This suggests that Marsham Waring (Sr.) conveyed James along with his other property to Marsham Waring (Jr.) of the 1860 Inventory, and opens the line of inquiry of how Marsham Waring (Sr.) acquired him.

Purchase from Notley Young, Sr.

Notley Young’s grandfather died in 1802. Included in his inventory is a James age 3, who would have been born in 1799. This is within two years of the age on the 1813 inventory of Marsham Waring (Sr.) After making some specific bequeathals to his wife and for his real estate, Young’s grandfather divided his personal estate (including his chattel) to be equally divided among his five identified children/grandchildren.

As noted on the family tree, a cousin of Notley Young (II) is George Washington Young, who inherited his father’s estate Nonesuch along the Eastern Branch (what would become known as Anacostia) and within the District of Columbia. When the District abolished slavery in 1862, G. W. Young filed a claim for compensation for his “loss” that included a “Stuart” family group.

This suggests that the Young family had enslaved members of the Stewart/Stuart Family group, perhaps even the one that James Stewart came from.

It is possible that the heirs of Notley Young sold James and separated him from his family, sending him to Marsham Waring (II) and his estates. Both Marsham Waring (II) and Notley Young were involved in the creation of the District of Columbia and engaged in business together. In the 1830s, their heirs were sued as together they had put up sureties for Thomas S Lee and a loan he had taken from Charles Carroll of Carrollton (Charles Carroll of Carrollton vs. Marsham Waring, et al June 1832).

White Marsh Baptism Record

In 1832, the enslaved population of Waring and Lee grew through “natural increase”, the term enslavers used to conflate the language they used to talk about their livestock and their enslaved people, dehumanizing the latter. James “Stuart” and Susan (Suky) had their son, James, baptized by the priests of White Marsh, the Jesuit Catholic plantation near Priest’s Bridge which also enslaved numerous people.

The baptism record notes that James (Sr.) was enslaved by “Master” Warring and that Susan (Suky) was enslaved by Dr. Lee in Marlborough. The record also notes the sponsor/godmother as a person enslaved by Notley Young, mostly likely Notley Young (III) based on the year of the baptism. The name was transcribed as “__rvelide?”.

“Content” | wikipedia.com
Dr. Benjamin Lee lived in this house in Upper Marlboro from 1821-1844 before moving to his estate in Queen Anne District. This is where Suky and her children most likely labored.

It is probable that the sponsor for the baptism of James and Suky’s son is a relative of either James or Suky, as godparents are usually chosen from within a kinship group, and therefore suggesting a connection between the Notley Young estates and James Stewart’s kinship group.

Reconstructing the Transcribed Name

My source document provides the typed transcription without access to the handwritten record of the priest, leaving the reader to guess at how the the transcriber interpreted the name. To complicate matters, the priests of White Marsh were not also fluent with Anglo-American names or the diminutives used by the enslaver and so there is often non-traditional spelling. With that in mind, the following three items helped to narrow the possibilities.

  1. The transcriber noted it was a godmother, therefore looking for women’s names
  2. The index to White Marsh Book 4 provides three plus page list of names of given names used by the priests, providing a sampling of names used during this time period by enslavers and enslaved.
  3. The final syllable “-ide”

These three items helped to identify Adelaide and its variations as a probable given name for the godmother. Another possibility includes names like Emeline and its variations, though Matilda and Cornelia are also likelihoods.

Of note, on the same page, a Adelaide was noted as a person enslaved by Benjamin Young, likely Notley Young’s brother. She had a son, Alexander who was baptized the same year as James. In 1818, Sandy [Alexander] and Adelaide were married at White Marsh with the permission of their enslaver, though the record does not note their enslaver. That said, the repetition of Alexander and Sandy in both records suggests that Adelaide and Alexander married and had a son, named for his father, Alexander.

A 1821 records provides more insight into the Alexander + Adelaide family group. Francis and Moses Sandy were baptized in 1821, as one-day old sons of Sandy and Adelaide Cosy, servants of Mr. Benj. Young. In 1817, Peter Corsey escaped from Notley Young, he may be related to the Cosy’s of Benjamin Hall.

A review of the 1809 Inventory (TT 1:321) for the estate of Benjamin Young (the son of Notley Young (I) and the father of Notley Young (II) and Benjamin Hall Young provided a possible family group for Adelaide. The Inventory appears to be groups in families, as a few adults will be named then children, then adults and children again. The group identified occurs near the beginning of the inventory. The list includes a Suck, a name variation for Susan; though Susan was an extremely common name for the enslaved communities of Prince George’s County.

NameAge in InventoryEstimated Birth Year
Dolly321777
Eliza211788
Suck151794
Louisa121797
Adelaid101799
Harry121797
John101799
Billey101799
Maria41805
Chrissy51804
Edward31806
Ned41805
Robert21807

Tentative Conclusion

The circumstantial evidence suggests that James Stewart came to the Waring family from the Young family.

  1. The use of Notley as a given name within the Stewart Family
  2. The presence of a James on the 1802 Notley Young (I) Inventory
  3. The inclusion of other Stewart family groups on the Compensation List for G. W. Young
  4. The presence of a White Marsh baptism record which indicates a godmother from the Notley Young estate for James Stewart’s son, James (Jr.)

related posts

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

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


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

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


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

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

In 1828, among the baptismal records of White Marsh was an April 9th baptism for “Mary, daughter of Thos. & Charity, 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.

NameAgeValue
Lucy + boy27 & 6825
Mary23650
Lewis29950

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.