A Closer Look at Prince

 

By Sarah Lindecke

This blog post is an update to one posted by Schuyler Mansion in February 2021 discussing Prince, a man who was enslaved by civilian commissary Alexander McCullough of the British Army and was later purchased by Major General Philip Schuyler. New research has uncovered more information on Prince’s life during 1775 as he was captured and made a prisoner of war.

The Invasion of Canada during the winter of 1775-76 was considered a major failure for the Continental Army. The army was able to capture Montreal but failed spectacularly when attacking Quebec City. After capturing Fort Chambly, several officers and civilians were taken prisoner of war. Civilian commissary Alexander McCullough was among them.[1] Alongside the capture of Alexander McCullough, but not mentioned in many official papers, was Prince, a man enslaved by McCullough who was also made prisoner. 

Fort Chambly National Historic Site.
Parks Canada.

              Prince’s life prior to his capture is unclear. It is not known if Prince was born in Africa, the Caribbean, the North American colonies, or Canada. He may have known several languages, French and English being most likely, because of his current situation in the English-French province of Quebec in Canada. His enslaver, Alexander McCullough, lived in Quebec with his family prior to the Continental army invasion.[2] It is presumed Prince accompanied McCullough to Fort Chambly, but it is unknown how long Prince was enslaved by McCullough prior to their capture.

In addition to a lack of records relating to Prince’s origins, it is unclear what labor he provided to McCullough. As commissary, McCullough was likely tasked with providing needed supplies, such as food, arms, munitions, clothing, and pay to soldiers stationed at Fort Chambly, and Prince may have served McCullough as an assistant in this business. Though the work of enslaved people was often implied rather than explained directly, there are several examples of those who performed assistant work to their enslavers. William Lee, a man enslaved by George Washington, traveled alongside his enslaver for the entire Revolutionary War. Lee’s role as valet saw him constantly attending to Washington’s needs whether that meant carrying messages or assisting with dressing.[3] Prince, though never referred to as valet or manservant in any known primary sources appears to have taken a similar place with McCullough and Philip Schuyler.

Primary evidence indicates to us that Prince could read and write. One example, which we will return to, was written to Catharine Schuyler in 1776 in which he described his situation and personal details. Much later, on October 8^th, 1791, Major General Philip Schuyler wrote to his son John Bradstreet Schuyler, “Prince mentioned boards [planks].”[4] From this example, it is possible to suggest that Prince was reading over Philip Schuyler’s shoulder and making informed commentary to remind him not to leave out important information. The exact nature of his labor while enslaved to McCullough and Philip Schuyler is oftentimes unclear, but it is possible that Prince served in a capacity that required literacy in both situations.

An engraving of carpenters,
A Panorama of Professions and Trades.
Edward Hazen, 1837. 

The first known mention of Prince appears in a letter from Philip Schuyler to Brigadier General Richard Montgomery on November 5^th, 1775.[5]   Schuyler noted, “Mr. McCullough has a Negro at St. Johns named Prince … should You become Master of that Place, I wish You to secure him, that his Master may have him again.” Fort Chambly and Fort St. Johns were about 12 miles apart. It is likely McCullough’s commissary duties required him to travel between the local forts. During the siege in which the forts were taken, McCullough happened to be at Chambly, away from St. Johns where Prince had remained. As soon as General Montgomery could arrange matters, Prince was to be returned to McCullough. Separated from his enslaver, the record shows that Prince was working for the master carpenters at St. Johns.[6] Prince was likely working outside of his usual duties at this time. Despite the separation, and temporary work assignment, Prince would be returned as “property” to McCullough, even though McCullough was now in custody as a prisoner of war to the Continental Army.  

Major General Philip Schuyler, decided at the request of the captured British officers, that the prisoners of war would be marched to Trenton, New Jersey.[7] Many of them, including McCullough, had already traveled south to Fort Ticonderoga, where Philip Schuyler was stationed. Schuyler gave McCullough permission to remain at Ticonderoga to “make suitable arrangements for his wife and children at Quebec.”[8] Later, on November 19^th, 1775, Schuyler wrote that McCullough was permitted to return to Quebec to make arrangements for his children, alongside the message that McCullough’s wife had died.[9] By late January 1776, arrangements were still unsettled for the care of McCullough’s “four small children.”[10] The fate of these children is unclear.

A 19th century engraving of the Albany City Hall.
People of Colonial Albany.

To date, evidence does not reveal the whereabouts of Prince from November to February, but it is likely that during this period he was making the trek southward from Canada to Albany. By early February 1776, Prince was held prisoner in the jail below city hall in Albany, awaiting another 200+ mile journey to Trenton, New Jersey. While imprisoned, he seemingly experienced significant shortage of provisions, as well as illness from the long trek to Albany during winter. His situation was dire; he could either remain in prison or seek another situation enslaved in an Albany household. Neither option was desirable, but Prince made the choice to advocate for himself and his safety. Sometime prior to February, he wrote to Major General Philip Schuyler. After receiving no response, he decided to write to Schuyler’s wife, Catharine, at the family home in Albany. The text of this letter reads:

“To The Honourable Lady Schuyler. –

The Humble Petition of Prince the Negro Belonging to M^ac

Colough - - -------------------

Most Humbly Sheweth that as Your Petitioners in the Greatest

Distress & Lowest Situation being almost set up With

Verment & have Quick Lost the use of My Limbs With Cold
for Want of Cloaths & Blankets – & to Inform Your Ladyship
that I Wrote to his Excellency the General but Received no
intelligence of My Being Released from my Long & Miserable
Confinement I am Very Willing to Go to Work for his
Excellency the General at any Sort of employ or any of the
Inhabitants in the Town for My Vituals & Cloaths. Therefore
I Humbly Beg Your Ladyship Would be so Good & to inter
cede With His Excellency for Me and Get Me Released as i am
Informed My Master M^r. M^acCulough is in Remedy and Your Good
Great & Bountious Goodness I Shall be as in duty Bound
ever Pray

                                                                        Prince the Negro”[11]

              This letter provides good evidence that Prince was literate. As a prisoner and an enslaved man, it is unlikely Prince found a helpful jailor to transcribe his plea. The letter is also signed by “Prince, the Negro.” It was commonplace for illiterate individuals, free and enslaved, to have written documents for property transactions or other business. However, these people would often sign with a distinguishing mark or an “x.” The signature, in the same hand as the rest of the letter, suggests that Prince wrote it himself.

              A response from Catharine Schuyler has not been found, but by March 20^th, 1776, General Schuyler returned to Albany. He received a letter that McCullogh “has sent him the Negro man Prince together with the Bill of Sale.”[12] Philip Schuyler purchased Prince, and he was brought to Schuyler Mansion where he would begin his enslavement to the Schuylers. However, within a few months, matters involving Prince appear to have been less than settled.

On May 27^th, 1776, Philip Schuyler wrote to his secretary, Richard Varick, expressing frustration with Prince: “[I] cannot keep such a worthless scoundrel in my house. If you have already written to [McCullough], pray write again.”[13] Schuyler does not explain to Varick the matter of contention with Prince, but Prince’s own letter may add vital context.

Winter Landscape
Caspar David Friedrich, 1811.
Gallery of Old and New Masters, Germany.

In his February 1776 petition to Catharine Schuyler, Prince writes about the “loss of the use of my limbs with cold.” This debilitating situation was likely the result of the long trek to Albany during winter without proper clothing and footwear. Frostbite may have been the result—a common condition among many enslaved people in the Northeast. The weeks Prince spent in jail were likely no better, as conditions were often cold and damp. Upon coming into the Schuyler household, Prince may not have been in a condition to do labor of any sort. Schuyler likely felt his investment a poor choice. The weakness in Prince’s physical body may have severely limited him, requiring time to recover. For Prince, a change in his situation was a matter of life-or-death. For Philip Schuyler, the choice to purchase Prince was a business decision that went awry.

The next month Alexander McCullough responded to Richard Varick. On June 22^nd, 1776, he wrote:

“I am Extremely Sorry to find that the Negro man does not now answer the Character I entertained of him, for I flattered myself that having no Complaints during my stay at Albany nor any time till now that he was the General’s property agreeable to his Bill of Sale to all Intents … Let General Schuyler keep the Negro, until my Releasment, which I hope will be soon, shall make him abalement in his price or take the Negro to myself if the General still persists.”[14]

              McCullough’s response was cordial, considering the situation. He remained a prisoner of war but believed he would be released. Once released, he would either reduce the purchase price for Schuyler or take possession of Prince again, if Schuyler wished. Neither party involved give insight into Schuyler’s specific grievances, however, Schuyler had missed out on months of expected labor if Prince was still recovering in June 1776. Little is known about Schuyler’s expectations for those he enslaved, and it is unclear how he treated the people he held in bondage, but whatever those standards were, it is clear that at least for the first months of his time with Schuyler, Prince was not complying with them. 

In the case of Alexander McCullough, it is unclear if he was ever released from captivity as he had hoped. Letters between General Putnam and George Washington from May 1777 state that no “officers have been returned in exchange for those you mention; proper notice will be taken respecting them.”[15] McCullough made it to New Jersey where he was in captivity, but a full year after the sale of Prince to Philip Schuyler there is no evidence that he had been released or was in any position to repurchase Prince.

Prince does seem to have recovered from his winter-related illnesses, as is evidenced by his continuing presence within the Schuyler household. A receipt from Dr. Stringer, the family’s primary physician, in 1787 suggests that Prince was one of the individuals who received medications, but none listed for him suggests a lingering winter related illness.[16]

Once recovered, Prince remained enslaved by the Schuylers, and from Schuyler family records, it appears that Prince stood apart from others enslaved by the family. The name ‘Prince’ for enslaved men is often associated with people who are perceived to have been descended from royalty. A great-granddaughter of Philip Schuyler, Katherine Schuyler Baxter, in her book A Godchild of Washington, alludes to Prince’s personality and how he behaved differently from the other people the Schuylers enslaved.[17] This descendent tells a romanticized story based on the memories of her grandmother Catharine ‘Caty’ van Rensselaer Schuyler (1781-1854), who had not been born until several years after Prince came into the Schuyler household. Caty had grown up with Prince already incorporated into the household.  Baxter’s narrative relies on common 19^th century stereotypes about slavery that imagine a familial relationship between the enslaver and the enslaved.  These biases do not account for the inhumanity and violence inherent in the ownership of another person.

Prince’s story after becoming the “property” of Philip Schuyler remains partially unknown. The exact nature of Prince’s duties is not documented in primary documents, but references suggest his work likely was as a butler or valet. Every mention of Prince does seem to associate his labor closely with Philip Schuyler. The role would have required the sort of person, like Prince, who had documented literacy and attention to detail. It is likely that Prince became integral to the household in the eyes of the Schuyler family. 

There are mentions of Prince throughout the correspondence of the Schuylers’ and friends. In a letter written by John Jay to Philip Schuyler on February 19^th, 1780, a keyword of a cypher is determined, which was likely based on Prince’s name. Jay wrote: “Let the Keyword be the name of the man who so long and regularly placed every day a Toot-pick by Mrs. Schuyler’s plate, written backwards, that is…”[18] The letter does not clarify the name being used but the keyword it would need to be an intimate detail, something that only someone close to the Schuylers would know. A valet or manservant likely would have been the one to place a “Toot-pick” on Mrs. Schuyler’s plate. Every indication from other sources places Prince in the role of valet, which Jay would have known.

              It is possible that Prince died sometime in the 1790s as there are no known references to him after 1794. Prince is also not listed in the manumission register for Albany in 1804 in which seven individuals enslaved by Philip Schuyler were listed as freed by the executors of his estate. It is possible that Prince was among the enslaved individuals above the age of 50 and ineligible for manumission after Philip Schuyler’s death. Several of these individuals were incorporated into the households of the Schuyler’s six surviving children—all of whom enslaved people during their lifetimes.[19]  

              Though the majority of Prince’s life remains unknown, his story can show us how evidence is lost when a person is considered property rather than a person whose life’s experience warranted memorializing. Through persistent research, more evidence of Prince’s life has been discovered over the last several years. The staff at Schuyler Mansion will continue to seek more answers about Prince and the 60+ other individuals enslaved by the Schuylers, in order to better understand their lives, stories, and for some, their paths to freedom.

 

---

[1] https://www.loc.gov/resource/bdsdcc.00601

[2] ("Letterbook 1" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1775 - 1776. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/43915150-8829-0134-2908-00505686a51c, Unnumbered, p. 248.) Full letter Images 10-11, Excerpt Image 11.

[3] https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/william-billy-lee

[4] October 8^th, 1791, Philip Schuyler to John Bradstreet Schuyler, NYPL Philip Schuyler Papers, Letters to Family.

[5] ("Letterbook 1" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1775 - 1776. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/43915150-8829-0134-2908-00505686a51c,  No. 162, p. 224.) Image 08

[6] "Letterbook 1" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1775 - 1776. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/43915150-8829-0134-2908-00505686a51c, No. 162

[7] Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. 3, p. 359

[8] ("Letterbook 1" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1775 - 1776. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/43915150-8829-0134-2908-00505686a51c, No. 161, p. 218.) Full letter Images 02-07, excerpt Image 02

[9] Ibid.

[10] ("Letterbook 1" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1775 - 1776. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/43915150-8829-0134-2908-00505686a51c, No. 225, p. 311.) Full letter Images 12-15, Excerpt Image 13

[11] Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library. "Lists of Tories; oaths; petitions" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1775 - 1777. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/edc87a90-3735-0134-36ca-00505686d14e) Image 16

[12] (Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library. "1776 March 20" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1776. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/58be18d0-3733-0134-628d-00505686d14e) Images 17-18

[13] https://www.carpelibrumbooks.com/philip-schuyler-autograph-letter-signed-to-richard-varick-on-the-war-in-quebec-and-his-slave-prince-1776) Image 19

[14] (NYPL Schuyler Papers Reel 19, Box 38) Images 20-21.

[15] (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-09-02-0398)

[16] NYPL Philip Schuyler Papers Reel 2, Box 3, Schuyler to Samuel Stringer Jan-Dec 1787.

[17] A Godchild of Washington, Katherine Schuyler Baxter (pg 435-436).

[18] Schuyler Mansion Collection found in A Godchild of Washington

[19] November 30^th, 1804, John Barker Church to Philip Jeremiah Schuyler, New York Historical.

---

Stepping into History: The Complicated Process of Studying A Ledger of Shoe Purchases from Cornelia van Cortlandt Schuyler

 By: Sarah Lindecke

Historians and researchers work with a myriad of written and object sources when trying to learn about topics in history. What happens, though, when sources are inaccessible because accessing them requires specialized knowledge, language skills, or transcription that are beyond a researcher’s ability? In this blog post, we will explore a ledger made for Philip Schuyler’s mother, Cornelia van Cortlandt Schuyler, for shoes purchased and repaired between 1754 and 1762. Examining this ledger will allow us to examine the challenges associated with primary sources and how researchers work through these complications.

Schuyler family home at the corner of State St. and South Pearl in the 1880s

            Cornelia van Cortlandt Schuyler was born into the interconnected and wealthy Van Cortlandt family in Manhattan. Her father was Stephanus van Cortlandt (1643-1700) and her mother was Albany native Geetruijd “Gertrude” Schuyler van Cortlandt (1654-1732). Cornelia was the youngest child born to her parents but was still a wealthy heiress expecting to inherit lands in Manhattan, as well as from her family’s manor in present day Westchester County. At twenty-five, Cornelia made an advantageous match when she married Johannes Schuyler Jr. (1697-1741). The couple lived mainly in Albany where Johannes’ family and businesses were. Johannes’ prominence would grow during the early years of their marriage, and he soon became a leader in Albany’s politics and society. Their home was a prominent house on the intersection of State and South Pearl Streets. Though no period images exist showing the house when Schuylers lived there, it remained standing until the end of the 19^th century.

            Cornelia and her husband had ten children, with only a few surviving childhood. The children who are known to have survived are: Gertrude Schuyler Cochran (1724-1813); John Schuyler (1725-1746); Philip John Schuyler (1733-1804); Cortlandt Schuyler (1735-1773); and Stephen Schuyler (1737-1820). These children were raised in the multi-generational home on State Street.

            Unfortunately for the family, Johannes Schuyler Jr. passed in 1741 at forty-four years old. He’d been a merchant and civic leader during his lifetime and was serving a term as mayor in the City of Albany at the time of his death. Cornelia was given autonomy over personal property in the household following Johannes’ death. Under English rule, this was somewhat unusual, but in the Hudson River Valley, where continued adherence to Dutch traditions offered women inheritance rights and access to autonomous ownership of property and businesses, and Cornelia was well within her rights to inherit property from her husband. By comparison, women living in more traditionally English communities expected strict legal bars on their ownership of businesses or property under the legal framework of coverture. Cornelia may have experienced her share of hardships following her husband’s death, as she was left with least five children who needed education and care. The job of raising these children fell to Cornelia but also to the enslaved in her household.

           With the setting established, we can look to a document likely created for Cornelia by her son, Philip Schuyler. This ledger was kept between 1754 and 1762, with notes from Cornelia’s estate made after her passing in 1762. The text itself is in Dutch. As Dutch settlers, Cornelia and her family were deeply connected to the language. It was common throughout New Netherland and early New York for many families to continue using Dutch as a primary language, even through the 19^th century. For researchers, this document presents the additional puzzle of considering the deviations between Dutch spoken in New Netherland and modern Dutch. In the 18^th century, the Dutch written and spoken in New York was considered “low Dutch.” Due to the natural evolution of language since the 18^th century, the Dutch used by people like Cornelia van Cortlandt Schuyler is not entirely intelligible, even by a modern native Dutch speaker. It takes time to translate documents, and for the purposes of historical research the translation needs to be done accurately. Cursory use of various translation apps can provide some direction in the process of translation, but without the nuances available only to a native speaker, the translation is not exact.

            When looking at the text of the ledger there are a few words that are repeated on many of the lines. This can help to speed up the translation process by establishing patterns. It is important to remember spelling was not yet consistent in the 18^th century. For Cornelia’s ledger, the text also has several common shorthand notes representing various things repeated in the content. In the text of the ledger, most of these markings are representative of “ditto.” This was an abbreviation meant to express the current line had the same word as the line directly above it. In the case of this ledger, most of these “ditto” marks note that the ledger continues to discuss shoes. The mark before most of the “ditto” symbols are standing in for “pair,” as in pair of shoes or boots.

            Each line generally has the same structure with a date beginning the line, followed by text that typically appears like this sample, (approximately translated to English):

1757 

Feb 8 for 1 pair shoes for Stephen                                                                                           0n 9n 0

ditto for 1 pair for Coff                                                                                                            0n 9n 0

March 14 for 1 pair for Dick                                                                                                     0n 9n 0

ditto for lappe (cobble?) for Cesar                                                                                           0n 0n 9

July 3 for 1 pair shoes for Dick                                                                                                 0n 9n 0

ditto 18 for 1 pair ditto patched for Coff                                                                                 0n 2n 0

Sept 16 for 1 pair adjusted and new heel?                                                                              0n 4n 0

Dec 19 for 1 pair for Coff                                                                                                     0n 10n 0

            This selection of lines from 1757 there are representative of the ledger as a whole document. The line for “Feb 8” lists one pair of shoes for Cornelia’s youngest son Stephen, who was twenty years old, which cost “0n 9n 0.” As this ledger comes from the period where British money was used, the columns along the right side denote value in that currency. From right to left the values are pounds, shillings, and pence, in decreasing order of value. Stephen’s shoes therefore cost 9 shillings. The sum for a new pair of shoes had seemingly risen from earlier years, as at the beginning of the ledger, 1754, a new pair of shoes was 8 shillings and at the end of the ledger, in 1762, the cost was 10 shillings.

            Reading further down in the ledge excerpt, there are two listings for July 3^rd. The first is a new pair of shoes for Dick for 9 shillings, and the second listing is repair of shoes for Coff for 2 shillings. These two people were enslaved men in Cornelia’s household. The price for Dick’s shoes is of note since it is the same as what was paid earlier in 1757 for Cornelia’s son Stephen. Oftentimes fictional accounts or popular assumptions about the clothes of enslaved people suggest that all were clothed in inferior quality items, which was not always the case. However, repairs or better-quality items provided for enslaved people did not imply that their enslavers were kind for these provisions. Dick’s labors may have necessitated Cornelia to hire a cobbler either for new shoes or repairs frequently. The names of various people who were likely enslaved are recorded throughout the ledger for the purchase of new shoes or repairs made. Dick’s name is mentioned 13 times over the period of eight years the ledger covers.

            In comparing the prices from other ledgers at the same time period, Cornelia was paying higher prices for the shoes she purchased for her household. On June 22, 1760, George Washington’s cash accounts show a payment of 6 shillings for a pair of shoes for a man listed as ‘Peter the Smith,’ likely an enslaved man working as a blacksmith. Though this price is lower than Cornelia’s, the shoes Peter may have required for his work may have been treated shoes that would protect from the hazards of blacksmithing, like sparks. A ledger kept by Elisha Blackman in Pennsylvania between 1770 and 1804, shows various purchases and wages paid to members of his family. In 1784 he paid 7 shillings and 6 pence for one pair of shoes. Since Cornelia paid 8 shillings for shoes for an enslaved man in 1756, twenty-eight years earlier, we can see, shoe prices remain somewhat steady, but that costs were higher in Albany than in other locations. The prices Cornelia paid only increased by two shillings over the course of eight years but were still higher than those paid by Washington in Virginia and Blackman in Pennsylvania.

Of course, these numbers are not exactly comparable to each other as there were significant time, place, and possibly labor differences between ledgers. They do indicate, however, that Cornelia was paying a relatively average price (if sometimes higher) for the shoes she bought. Throughout the entire 18^th century there were constant fluctuations in all colonial currencies because each colony used both their own printed money and British currency interchangeably. Prices on ledgers were often listed in these various currencies because exchange rates were indeterminate. Additionally, due to regional fluctuations in material and labor costs during the later 18^th century, it can be difficult to determine how prices compared to each other regionally.

            Cornelia van Cortlandt Schuyler’s shoe ledger concludes with notes after her death in 1762. The notes mention the total price of 22 pounds, 10 shillings, and 8 pence. Cornelia paid this amount to the person who the account was kept with, possibly a cobbler named “Jillis” or “Jellis”. Further down there is a note “Cornelia Schuyler/ My Mother” which further supplies evidence that this account was kept in part by one of Cornelia’s children. The ledger was passed down through Louisa Lee and Georgina Schuyler, two of Philip Schuyler’s descendants. It is likely Philip kept his mother’s accounts and papers after her death. Other notes seem to be added by later curators or owners for the purpose of adding context to Cornelia being “mother of gen. Schuyler.”

            It is also possible to connect this ledger to Philip Schuyler’s own household. Several of the names of the enslaved people mentioned throughout the ledger show up in accounts from Philip Schuyler’s household after Cornelia’s death. In a ledger from Philip Schuyler’s household on December 16^th, 1771, also for the purchase of shoes, several of the enslaved people from Cornelia’s ledger are named as having shoes made or repaired. The names of these people are Bett, Cesar, Dick, and Coff (his name is also written as Cuff in some sources), and it is possible that these are the same people referred to in Cornelia’s ledger. Cornelia’s will does not make provisions for the lives of these enslaved people after her death, but it stands that many of the people from Cornelia’s household were inherited by her son Philip Schuyler. Since Philip Schuyler was Cornelia’s eldest living son, and he and his wife lived with Cornelia at the State and Pearl Street residence, it is likely that he took possession of the household property, which included the people enslaved there.

           Researchers often encounter challenges in their search through primary source materials. These documents are often inaccessible for various reasons: language, handwriting, document condition, etc. Cornelia van Cortlandt Schuyler’s ledger is a complex document to use as a source, not only because of the language, but because of the mundanity of the contents. So much historical research has been conducted on 18^th century topics, but because prices and currencies were in flux, it becomes difficult to grapple with actual prices and compare and contrast costs in Colonial America. Cornelia’s ledger is a useful document because, while it is a micro part of the 18^th century story, it helps better the understanding of the structure of an upper-class household in Colonial Dutch Albany.

 

Sources:

“Cash Accounts, June 1760,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/02-06-02-0238. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Colonial Series, vol. 6, 4 September 1758 – 26 December 1760, ed. W. W. Abbot. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1988, pp. 429–431.]

Report of the Statistician: Farm Prices in Two Centuries; Extracts from the account of Elisha Blackman, 1770-1804. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015035798035&seq=4

Shoe ledger of Cornelia Van Cortlandt Schuyler kept between 1754-1763, in SM collection.

Shoe ledger of Philip Schuyler from December 16^th, 1771.

Black History Month in Review: The Little Details

When we tell the history of the enslaved, the focus is sometimes on large, sweeping stories as opposed to smaller, more individualized ones. While there are smaller details in the archives to draw from, they often aren’t enough on their own. They require research and contextualization that can be daunting to the untrained historian, but, with practice and patience, the stories that unfold are rich and vital. The most important thing is to talk about the possibilities these details offer us.

Below we’ve highlighted a handful of individuals and told their stories through what little details we know. We took those details and tried to expand them into a more complete image that gives us a glance into a specific moment in their lives. While there is so much we don’t know, it’s important to highlight and discuss what we do know.

This is Black History Month of 2025 in review.

Britt

Botanical illustration of ginger plant from 
'The beauties of creation, or, a new moral
system of natural history; in five volumes: 
consisting of quadrupeds, birds, fishes, and 
reptiles, trees and flowers, vol. 5, trees' 
Printed by George Riley.

In April of 1787, Britt was prescribed multiple medications by the Schuylers’ doctor. She was given liniment sapo, camphor gum, and ginger. On their own, the first two medications were used to treat pain, and could suggest treatment of injuries caused by repetitive motion, such as hauling water or sewing. But ginger was commonly prescribed to induce labor—a speculation further confirmed when, two months later, a stomach soothing medication was prescribed to “Britt’s child.” This receipt allows us to say more that “Britt had a baby.” We know she took ginger to induce her labor and took medication for the pain it caused. We know her child may have suffered from stomach aches as an infant. A singular receipt has shed light on this important moment in Britt’s life and allowed us a more personal glimpse into her world.

Stephen and Peter

This story comes to us via a 1775 letter written by Dr. Samuel Stringer, doctor to and friend of the Schuylers. The letter discusses the present state of affairs with the Six Nations, who had recently visited Albany as part of a peace negotiation.

Engraving of Six Nations people trading with 
Europeans (1722) by French artist Bacqueville 
de La Potherie.

In Dr. Stringer’s letter, he mentioned that “by some of [illegible] Schuyler Family, of whom we got long Stephen and Peter [illegible], and sent by them to antient belts of Aliance as tokens of the Old Covenants…” The two men mentioned in the letter, Stephen and Peter, were enslaved by the Schuylers. They had been sent to German Flatts carrying what was most likely wampum belts, which were essential in establishing continuing relations between the colonists and the Six Nations. The bringing of the “antient belts of Aliance” to the Six Nations would have been a major signifier from the colonial settlement of Albany that peace and communication were desired. This letter gives us a glimpse into an important trip Stephen and Peter took, and the knowledge that they played a role in an important diplomatic mission.

Will, Britt, Susannah, and Herry

View of Dutch Reformed Church in Albany prior to being
torn down in 1806.

Now we turn our focus to Will—a father separated from his family.

One of the very few mentions of Will is from the Albany Dutch Reformed Church, where he was recorded as “Serv. of P. Schuyler”* for a special occasion—the baptism of his daughter. On March 4^th, 1772, Will and Britt, who was enslaved by the Ten Broeck family, baptized their daughter Susannah. Normally separated by two miles, the church was the midway point where they could reunite as a family.

Two years after the birth of their daughter Susannah, Will and Britt welcomed a second child, Herry, into their family. Herry was baptized on June 26^th, 1774. While there are no known records about Herry, Will, or Britt after the baptisms, Susannah was eventually manumitted by the Ten Broeck family. Susannah’s children, Dinah, Susan, and Mary were manumitted alongside their mother in 1811, under steep conditions on their freedom. When their enslaver, Elizabeth Ten Broeck, died in 1813, the family was freed without condition.

*”servant” was used interchangeably with “slave” in the 18^th century

Protecting the Saratoga House

Drawing of Schuyler House, Schuylerville, New York
from 1887 by artist Ernest C. Peixotto.

Finally, we focus on the contents of a letter Philip Schuyler wrote to Governor George Clinton on April 17^th, 1778.

During the fall of 1777, the Battles of Saratoga tore through Philip Schuyler’s Saratoga estate. His home was burnt alongside much of his farmland, but, within weeks, Schuyler rebuilt his house. In a letter to Governor George Clinton, Schuyler wrote: “I do not however mean to bring away my Servants as I shall erect a picket Fort round my House and let them, if possible, keep it ….” Schuyler didn’t mention any enslaved people by name, but referred to a collective group of them as “Servants,” a common 18^th century phrase for enslaved people. Schuyler planned to erect a “Fort” around his house, which likely meant he wished to build a protective structure to guard it from an attack. Schuyler told Clinton that he would leave the enslaved people there in an attempt to protect the house.

It's unknown if the enslaved people were provided weapons while they were protecting the house. Perhaps they felt fear, but perhaps they also felt some freedom in not being watched by Schuyler. Regardless, these men and women were on the front lines of an attack, should one come—a huge weight for anyone to bear, let alone someone potentially fighting on behalf of property and freedom they didn’t own.