Schuyler Siblings Land Squabble

By Jessie Serfilippi

Eliza Schuyler Hamilton in 1787.

The early 1800s were a trying time for Eliza Schuyler Hamilton. In 1801, Eliza’s sister, Peggy, died of what was likely stomach cancer, and her eldest son, Philip, was killed in a duel at the age of nineteen. In 1802, her nephew, Alexander Church, died at the age of ten, while in 1803, her mother died of a stroke. In July of 1804, her husband, Alexander Hamilton, died from the wound he received dueling Aaron Burr. Just four months later, in November of that year, her father, Philip Schuyler, died at his home in Albany. While the sheer number of losses she faced in the span of just four years was painful enough in and of itself, Eliza also faced massive debt, seven children to raise, and some unsupportive, selfish younger sisters—Cornelia Schuyler Morton and Caty Schuyler Malcolm.

Within a month of their father’s death, the Schuyler siblings were already fighting over money and land. Not long after interring their father in the Ten Broeck vault, Cornelia and Caty accused Eliza of accepting extra money from Schuyler in the months following Hamilton’s death. Eliza was greatly offended that her siblings even thought she might do so, and vehemently denied ever accepting money from him. As if that wasn’t enough, Cornelia and Caty then tried to take land that was rightfully Eliza’s. Overall, this battle between the sisters began in 1804, and did not end until 1810, even after Cornelia and her husband, Washington Morton, died in 1808 and 1810 respectively.

The first look we get at the effects of the fighting between Eliza and her younger sisters is in late

December of 1804. On December 28, 1804, Thomas Copper sent a letter to Stephen Van Rensselaer III, one of the wealthiest men in the United States and Peggy Schuyler’s husband before her death in 1801. Stephen was one of three executors Philip Schuyler named in his will. In his letter, Cooper updated Stephen on the public opinion in New York City of Schuyler’s will and the resulting chaos from the accusations being thrown at Eliza. It’s unclear when these accusations are first made, but it seems to be within a month or less of Philip Schuyler’s death. Cooper wrote:

“I find the Current of Public Opinion here pretty strong against the executors of genl Schuyler for making any question about the deed to Mrs. Hamilton___ Her friends have advised her I am told to take no legal opinions on the subject but to demand the Deed and take posesion [sic] of the property”

Apparently, it was known in New York, where both Eliza and Cornelia lived, that there was a dispute over lands Eliza claimed to be hers. It seems as if, following the tragic death of Eliza’s husband, other New Yorkers were shocked that her better-situated siblings were attempting to take that land from her and that the executors of Schuyler’s will were not interceding on her behalf.

As Cooper recorded in the letter, consensus had it that the land was rightfully Eliza’s and that the executors should send her the deed, which was apparently executed to her, but not in her possession at the time Schuyler died. It was the fact that Eliza did not physically possess the deed that was giving her so much trouble.

Even if a deed is executed and signed to the intended grantee (Eliza, in this case), the physical delivery from grantor (Philip Schuyler) to grantee is necessary for the legal completion of the process because it denotes the willful transfer of the deed.  While Schuyler had executed and signed the deed, it hadn’t been delivered to Eliza because she’d left for Manhattan before the deed was ready to be delivered. Without it being in her possession, Cornelia and Caty were technically within their legal rights to dispute Eliza’s claim to the land, despite every sign that their father had intended it go to Eliza.

Cornelia Schuyler Morton in 1807.

While Cornelia and Caty seemed to believe that they had a chance at getting the land because the deed had not been properly delivered, lawyers familiar with the dispute at the time Cooper wrote his letter to Stephen Van Rensselaer disagreed:

“the Lawyers here I am told are generally of the opinion […] myself though I have not carefully examined the Question___ at any Rate she is entitled to the Deed good or bad­__ If possessing it will not give it validity_ I think therefore the Executors ought to send it to her”

The consensus among the lawyers Cooper knew was that Eliza was entitled to the deed. He even said that he believed the executors—which included Stephen—should send her the deed so the delivery process could be complete.

Not long after this letter was written, on January 10, 1805, Eliza herself wrote a letter to her younger brother, Philip Jeremiah, also an executor to his father’s will, in which she lamented the division within their family and laid the blame for the infighting at the feet of her two younger brothers-in-law, Washington Morton and Samuel Malcolm:  

“This is our family situated, differences have arisen, and neither can recollect how much it is encumbent [sic] on them to be at peace […] as to myself I am satisfied you can arrange for me, but you see how we are here the two younger brother in laws will not meet…”  

From this letter, it becomes evident that it was Washington Morton and Samuel Malcolm, neither of whom were executors of Schuyler’s will, who were causing issues during the settlement of the will.

Eliza turned to Philip Jeremiah for a reason: as an executor of the will, he could convince the other two executors, Stephen Van Rensselaer III and John Barker Church, Angelica’s husband, to settle the dispute. From what records survive of this tumultuous time, it seems as if the executors either could not or did not act. Why they failed to or were prevented from acting on Eliza’s behalf is unclear.

The dispute continued and, at some point between 1805 and 1807, went to court for the first time. Records of this first case are currently not known to survive, but they are mentioned in the later court case Eliza started. From what is described in the later proceedings, it seems as if Cornelia and Washington Morton went to court in 1807 to take the land from Eliza. The ruling on that case was not in the Mortons’ favor. On December 14, 1807, a judge overruled the Mortons’ claim and decreed that they must pay taxes, which probably meant they had to cover any legal fees. Even though the judge who presided over this case did not believe there was enough evidence to strip Eliza of her right to the land, it was also not the last time the siblings would go to court.

On May 19, 1810, Eliza brought her own case to court in order to prove that she had proper rights to the land. Even though the deed was executed to her, her siblings believed it rightfully fell under the “fee simple” section of Schuyler’s will, which gave them the option of claiming it as theirs as part of the “equal part eighth” that each child (or grandchild in place of a deceased child) was granted, as described in the will:

“…all the rest, residue and remainder of my real estate, whether in possession, remainder or reversion, or wheresoever situate, I devise and bequeath unto my dearly beloved Grandson Philip Schuyler, my dearly beloved son Philip Jeremiah Schuyler, my dearly beloved son Rensselaer Schuyler, and my dearly beloved grandson Stephen Van Rensselaer, and my dearly beloved Daughters, Angelica, Elizabeth, Cornelia and Catherine, to them their respective heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, as tenants in common in fee simple, and I do hereby authorize and empower my executors to make or cause to be made partition thereof between my said children, and grand children in such manner that each may become entitled to one equal eight part of the value as nearly as may be.”

As “tenants in common,” each person named in the will would receive an equal share of the land. The land Philip Schuyler willed to Eliza would normally have been included under the land the children would split “one equal eight part.” From the court proceedings, it’s clear that Eliza’s lawyer, Nathaniel Pendleton, explained how Eliza had come into possession of the land. He stated that Philip Schuyler

“did, by Indenture of bargain & sale bearing date the Fourteenth day of August in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred & four duly convey to the Compliant [Eliza] a certain price or parcel of land part of the farm whereon he then lived, described in fee simple, that the said Philip Schuyler the elder had previously made his will devising his estate generally among his children as Tennants [sic] in Common that the said Cornelia Morton and Catharine Malcom, were two of the children and devisors of the said Philip Schuyler deceased, and had set up a claim to the said land, in the said and mentioned under a pretence [sic] that the said deed had never been duly delivered to the Compliant”

The land referred to here is likely land to the front of the Schuyler Mansion, which sat on about 80 acres of farm land at the time Schuyler promised certain parcels of it to Eliza. Cornelia and Caty had “set up a claim to said land” and said the deed to the land in question had “never been duly delivered” to Eliza. That much, at least, is true. The proceedings go on to describe what happened with the deed:

“the said deed was duly executed & delivered & found among the papers of the said Philip Schuyler after his death, and was then put into the Complaint’s [Eliza’s] possession and she took possession of the lands there in mentioned”

What Eliza wanted from the suit was to claim the land by “perpetual injunction,” or a court order prohibiting her siblings’ claims. The claims her siblings had made to the land were preventing her from being able to dispose of it as she wished. Eliza wanted to sell the property, and it was because of the multiple claims to the land that no buyers would purchase it.

Caty Schuyler Malcolm as a mother.

While the case Eliza filed directly involved the Mortons and Malcolms, Stephen Van Rensselaer IV, Peggy’s son, and Philip Schuyler, John Bradstreet Schuyler’s son, were mentioned as well. This was likely to prevent them from ever laying claim to the land, but the suit itself was not brought against them. Neither the Malcolms nor Mortons appeared in court that day. In fact, the Malcolms had failed to respond to the “Complaint’s bill,” and, as of July 3, 1809, were “Ordered to be taken pro confesso as against them on the hearing of the said cause.” In other words, because they failed to appear in court, the court considered the matter confessed to by the absent party.

The Mortons failed to appear as well, but they had a good excuse: they were both dead. So instead of the case being brought against them, it was brought against their “Infant children.” Those children—Catharine Van Rensselaer Morton, Alexander Hamilton Morton, Philip Schuyler Morton, Cornelia Lynch Morton, and Mary Regina Morton—were between the ages of twelve and two at the time. Their legal guardian— Thomas Smith, a clerk in Chancery­­­­­­—answered the suit for them. Their guardian did not seem to challenge Eliza’s claim to the land.

During the proceedings, it became clear that the land was rightfully Eliza’s. Samuel Stringer, who had been Schuyler’s physician for many years and had attended him in his final months, testified in court that he had witnessed Schuyler execute the deed in question on August 14^th, 1804. Stringer said:

“…he [Stringer] knew the said Philip Schuyler in his lifetime and saw him sign, seal, and deliver, the said deed as his voluntary act for the purposes therein mentioned & that Philip Schuyler gave him the said deed & requested him to subscribe his name as a witness to the execution thereof”

With his testimony, the court decreed that “the land tenements, & hereditaments therein mentioned & described, did thereby pass to and became vested in the Complainant and her heirs in fee simple.”

Not only did the court rule in favor of Eliza, they also declared that if any of the Malcolms or Mortons attempted to take or claim the land, they would be fined $20,000. With that, the deed was officially “conveyed to the said Elizabeth Hamilton the Complainant,” and Caty and Samuel Malcolm had to “Pay the Complainant her Costs of this suit.”

As for the Morton children? They had until “six months after he or she shall have attained his or her age of Twenty one years, to show cause if any he or she hath against this decree.” There is no record that any of the children challenged it upon coming of age.

After five years of fighting, Eliza finally had the land that had been rightfully hers to begin with. By 1811, Eliza seemed to have sold the land to Benjamin Lattimore, who used it to found the “Albany School for Educating People of Color.”

In the end, Eliza may have won the land, but what did the court case do to her relationships with her siblings—especially Caty, who not only lost the suit, but had to cover Eliza’s legal fees? Look out for more on Eliza and Caty’s relationship after the court case in an upcoming blog post.

Ran Away on the 28th Ultimo: Freedom Seekers and Self Manumission at Schuyler Mansion

By Ian Mumpton

On March 4^th, 1797, two years before the Gradual Manumission Act of New York was passed, Philip Schuyler sent a letter to Mr. Samuel Jones esqr. offering his critique of a bill Jones had submitted to him on the topic of abolition:

                Dr Sir
                …Inclose [sic] your draft of the bill for Abolishing Slavery – and if you think proper you may either add the Inclosed [sic] properly corrected by you, or to offer it as a Substitute, I believe it would be more Agreable [sic] to the owners of slaves. That It should be a substitute for the whole bill.
                I am Dr Sir
                                Sincerely your &c
                                                                Ph. Schuyler

A life-long slaveholder who had just left the NY senate to resume his seat in the US senate, Philip Schuyler had little interest in abolition outside of the political capital to be gained as more and more politicians embraced the idea (in theory if not in their daily lives). Schuyler’s concern was to ensure that the slaveholding families of the state be as little discomfited as possible by the process. Even at the time of his death in November of 1804, at least seven people, including three children, still labored in slavery at his estate in Albany. 

While these individuals were freed shortly after his death, this was entirely at the discretion of the executors of the estate, as no provision was made for their manumission in Philip’s will. As of December 18^th, 1804, the last people to be enslaved at the Schuylers mansion in Albany were free or had been transferred to the estates of other family members, possibly including that of the youngest son of the Schuyler family, Rensselaer.

But not everyone enslaved in the Schuyler household had waited this long. At least three, possibly four, men, and one woman had already sought to escape the bonds of slavery and reclaim their freedom elsewhere.

The first of these self-manumitters was a man named Haare, who fled slavery in 1768. At the time of his escape, Haare was somewhere in his early 30’s, a young man still, but with many years of hard labor under his belt. Philip Schuyler placed a “runaway” advertisement in the New York Journal that offers a description of this individual. According to Schuyler, Haare was “short, [with] broad shoulders, large staring eyes, remarkable small legs, large feet, and walks something lame, having had his toes frozen...” Philip also specified that Haare spoke both English and “Low Dutch”.

Harre's 1768 Runaway Ad

While some of these descriptors, e.g. “large staring eyes”, are thought to have relied on exaggerated racial features aimed at a primarily white audience, others give us a detailed depiction of this young man and hint at the sort of work he performed for the Schuylers. For example, he walked “something lame” due to having had his toes frozen. We know from other records that Philip sent enslaved men out in frigid conditions to cut firewood. Perhaps it was a similar incident that gave Haare his notable gait. Unfortunately, we do not know what ultimately happened to Haare, and there is no indication as to whether or not he was able to avoid recapture.

After Haare, every other documented escape attempt by people enslaved by the Schuylers took place during the turbulent times of the American Revolution. The next person to attempt escape from the Schuylers' estate was a woman named Diana. No runaway ad is known to exist for Diana, depriving us of the sorts of physical description available for Haare. All that we have to document her escape is a letter detailing its unfortunate conclusion. As John Lansing reported to Philip Schuyler on February 3^rd, 1779:

John Lansing Jr., who assisted Philip
Schuyler in recapturing Diana in 1779

                Diana was last night brought to Town[.] From every Circumstance attending her Apprehension it is probable that she has been harboured for a considerable time by a Scotchman, who lives in the neighborhood of Mr. Amory’s farm. I have directed her to be committed to goal [jail] to prevent another Elopement, and shall keep her there until I receive your Directions respecting her.

The difficulties attending any effort to escape the bonds of slavery are evident here. Despite finding refuge with someone willing to aid her in her attempt, Diana was recaptured and imprisoned. No letter survives regarding Philip’s directions, but it is likely that Diana was sold. While physical punishment was not uncommon at the time, neither Philip nor Lansing reported whether this was the case for Diana. All that is certain is that this is the last known reference to Diana in Schuyler’s papers.

On November 4^th, 1782, Philip Schuyler ran another runaway ad, this time for a man named Claas:

                                        TEN DOLLARS REWARD 

Ran away on the 28^th ultimo, from the Subscriber, a MOLATTO, named Nicholas (commonly called Claas); he is about five feet eight or ten inches high, slender made, large eyes, much given to liquor: he had on when he went off, a whitish stuff coat, striped linen waistcoat, linen breeches, blue yarn stockings, tow cloth shirt, and large silver buckles on his shoes. Whoever apprehends said Runaway, and commits him to any Goal [jail] in this State, shall be paid TEN DOLLARS in Specie, and all reasonable charges by                                                PH SCHUYLER

 This description gives us little idea of what sort of work Claas had performed prior to his escape. What is of particular interest here, however, is the detail with which Philip describes his clothing. As the 18^th century had a thriving second-hand clothing industry, Claas would likely want, and have the opportunity, to change his clothing soon after his escape, both to alter his appearance and to fund his travels. For someone who owned no property of any kind, the clothes on his back, and especially the silver buckles on his shoes, represented his entire financial means for aiding his escape. By detailing Claas’s attire at the time of his flight to freedom, Philip both made sure that Claas was recognizable, and that he was less able to sell the clothes he had.

Sir Henry Clinton, who issued the Philipsburg Proclamation

Claas was taking a huge risk in his attempt. On November 7^th of 1775, in an effort to weaken the revolutionaries’ resources, the British governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, had issued a proclamation offering freedom to any enslaved person claimed as property by the revolutionaries, who made their escape behind British lines. This was reinforced in 1779, when Sir Henry Clinton passed the Philipsburg proclamation, promising freedom for anyone enslaved by the revolutionaries. Despite the opportunity for freedom, however, the Revolutionary governments of the colonies did not intend to simply allow their slaves to join the enemy.

The British proclamations were met with outrage throughout the colonies. In 1775, a law* was passed in Albany, that any enslaved man found more than a mile from home without his master’s permission could be shot on sight. This was in reaction to the fear that slaves would use the disruptions created by the war to attempt to escape or coordinate some sort of resistance to the slave-holding class. While Claas made his escape attempt later in the war, he ran the same risks. It is likely that he sought to escape to the British, but, to this day, it is unknown if he was successful.

While Claas’s intention of joining the British can only be guessed at, the remaining two individuals did in fact join the British during the war, and traveled to Nova Scotia as free men after the end of hostilities. At the end of the war, approximately 3,000 freed slaves who had served with the British were transported to Nova Scotia where they became known as the Black Loyalists. Their names and many personal details were listed in a British document known as “The Book of Negroes”. Amongst these three thousand were two men, Scipio Scuyler, and Adam Way, both of whom have connections to the Schuyler family.

Scipio Scuyler listed himself as having escaped from enslavement by a man referred to as “Philip Schuyler of Albany” in 1779. Scipio gave his own birth year as 1752, meaning that he was in his early thirties when he joined the British. Scipio was described as being of stout build when he sailed aboard the Prosperous Amelia for Port Roseway in 1783. There were several Philip Schuylers living in Albany in 1779, meaning that the Philip Schuyler referred to may be our Philip Schuyler, or one of his cousins. For Adam Way, however, the evidence is much more concrete.

Adam Way was described as being at least 80 years old and “worn out” when he sailed for Annapolis and St. Johns aboard the Clinton in 1783. He reported his former owner as “General Broadstreet” of Albany. This is believed to be a mistranscription of General John Bradstreet. Bradstreet was not only a close friend of Philip Schuyler, serving as Philip’s commanding officer and mentor, but he helped supervise the construction of the Schuylers’ home and lived with them for many years prior to his death in 1774. Adam Way is believed to be the same Adam listed in a December 16^th, 1771 “Account of Shoes” in the Schuyler Household, where his shoes were repaired for two shillings and six pence. It is not clear whether he was enslaved by the Schuylers after Bradstreet’s death, or if he was passed through other hands prior to his escape, but, at long last, a man born into slavery in 1703, who had likely labored for multiple families over the course of his life, was free.

As Professor A. J. Willaims-Meyers, of SUNY New Paltz, writes in the foreword to In Defiance:Runaways from Slavery in New York’s Hudson River Valley, 1735-1831:

The vast number of runaway slave notices during this period[…] speaks to the magnitude of the struggle for freedom being fought by an oppressed and enslaved people. The dangers of running and the consequences if caught were dire and had to have struck abject fear into the hearts of those contemplating such a feat. Yet, for many, the opportunity to live as a human being, out of bondage, able to breath the air in freedom, was worth the dangers. It was a courageous choice.

For many, there was no choice. Of the approximately thirty people enslaved at the Schuylers’ home in Albany, roughly half were women, but only one woman, Diana, was able to run the risks of escaping. It is important to note here that women were much more likely to be enslaved with their children in the Schuyler household, making it much more difficult to escape. Philip always purchased men separately from other family members, which meant that they only had to coordinate their own escape. It is possible that this separation from other family may have even encouraged men to leave at a higher rate than women, as they sought to reunite with families they had been separated from.

Nevertheless, despite the difficulties and dangers, between 13.33 and 16.67% of the enslaved population at the Schuylers’ estate over the years did make the choice to leave in search of the freedom owed them as human beings. While not all, perhaps not even most, succeeded, it is important to remember the efforts and courage of these self-manumitters when telling the story of slavery at this site.

If you are interested in learning more about the enslaved population of New York, check out our other articles in this series by clicking on "The Servants" above. Another great resource, used in the writing of this article, is the New York Slavery Record Index, which you can search by clicking here.

*See Page 301

Inquire of the Subscriber at Rhinebeck: Philip Jeremiah Schuyler and Slavery

By Jessie Serfilippi

Philip Jeremiah Schuyler in the 1790s.

It is no secret that Philip Schuyler enslaved people of African descent, but what kind of relationship to slavery did his children have? While research is still ongoing, it is clear that six out of eight surviving Schuyler children enslaved people at some point in their adult lives. The fifth surviving Schuyler child, Philip Jeremiah, born on January 21, 1768, was one of those six children. Until recently, the only definitive connection that could be drawn between Philip Jeremiah and slavery was his part in manumitting some of the people enslaved at Schuyler Mansion upon his father’s death. Based on this fact alone, it seemed possible that his views differed from those of his father—that he did not partake in the institution of slavery once out of the family home and under his own roof. Recent discoveries have forever put that theory to rest.

When Philip Jeremiah married Sarah Rutsen on May 31, 1788, there is no evidence that either of them immediately brought enslaved people into their new household. In the first census that the couple appears on, the 1790 Rhinebeck census, their household included three free white males over the age of 16, one free white male under the age of 16, and one free white woman. This would have included Philip Jeremiah, Sarah Rutsen, their newborn son, Philip, and two unknown free white males—possibly relatives of Sarah’s, since it was her hometown that they resided it in. There is nobody listed under the category of “slaves.”

Yet the lack of enslaved people on Philip Jeremiah’s property in 1790 does not necessarily mean he was an abolitionist. It more likely indicates that he was not in the financial position to enslave people at the start of his marriage. Philip Jeremiah was born into a high-class society that saw slavery as means to show off status and wealth. It is likely that, like his father, he believed in these notions. He was not the only one to think that way, either. Contrary to popular belief, slavery was still rampant in New York in the 1790s, and continued well into the 1800s. While there was a series of laws passed that worked toward an eventual end to slavery, these laws did more for enslavers than the enslaved. In 1799, the state legislature passed the Gradual Emancipation Act, which promised eventual freedom to all children born to enslaved mothers on July 4, 1799 or later. The catch was that these children would have to stay enslaved for over twenty years—women were enslaved until the age of 24, and men until the age of 28. This would make it easier for men like Philip Jeremiah to continue enslaving people while New York—on paper, at least—worked toward manumission.

By 1793, Philip Jeremiah was on better financial footing and had just finished building his home, The Grove. On January 9, 1793, he placed an advertisement in the Poughkeepsie Journal:

Wanted to purchase, A Faithful, steady, single young NEGRO MAN, of any age between 16 and 20 years, who can be well recommended, has been accustomed to farming business, and the care of horses -- he will be demanded a short time on trial. Inquire of the subscriber at Rhinebeck, or the printer at Poughkeepsie.

PHILIP J. SCHUYLER.

September 3d, 1792.

From the date at the bottom of the ad, it is evident that Philip Jeremiah had originally run this advertisement about four months earlier, in September of 1792. While it is possible he’d already begun to enslave people before this advertisement was placed but after the 1790 census, this is the earliest record we have of Philip Jeremiah in connection to slave-holding.

1800 Rhinebeck census. Philip Jeremiah indicated by red mark.

By 1800, there’s no question that Philip Jeremiah was an enslaver. In the 1800 census, he was listed as having six enslaved people on his Rhinebeck property. There were only seven free white people living on the property at the time, meaning there was nearly an enslaved person for each free person. 

We do not know the genders of these enslaved people. If Philip Jeremiah was anything like his father, he would have enslaved men and women in nearly equal numbers, meaning an estimation of three men and three women being enslaved on the property at the time, but there is currently no way of confirming if this was the case. Using the 1793 advertisement, it is clear that Philip Jeremiah was looking for at least one young enslaved man to do farm work for him, and specifically someone who was skilled with horses. Philip Jeremiah owned a lot of land in Rhinebeck—he purchased tracts of the Beekman Patent which he divided into farms and rented to tenant farmers—he ran the mills inherited from his wife’s family, and by 1812 he entered into a partnership to build mills on the Clay Kill Estate after purchasing the falls at Clay Kill. It would make sense that he would actively look for someone who could help with the labor these properties required. It is likely there was at least one enslaved woman to do the cooking for the family, but, without genders listed on the census, it is impossible to come to an absolute conclusion.

1810 Rhinebeck census that shows three enslaved people as part of Philip Jeremiah's household.

By 1810, there were only three enslaved people on his property. There are a few possibilities as to why three of the enslaved people who were part of the 1800 census were no longer listed. They may not have been present when the census was taken—possibly on an errand or traveling with a different family member. Philip Jeremiah may have sold them over the previous decade. They may have escaped to freedom, though so far no runaway ads placed by Philip Jeremiah have been found. They also may have died while still enslaved.

Philip Jeremiah could have manumitted them, but that seems unlikely as there is currently only one known instance of Philip Jeremiah manumitting a person he enslaved, and that manumission takes place after the 1810 census. On April 19, 1811, Philip Jeremiah manumitted a man by the name of Charles. The manumission reads as follows:

To Henry Shop Town Clerk

To all to whom here presents shall come know ye that I Philip J. Schuyler of the Town of Rhinebeck in the County of Dutchess and State of New York. Do hereby Manumit and set free fvr [forever] Charles a Black Man. As witness my hand this 19^th day of April 1811.

                                                                                                Philip J. Schuyler              

Witness Present

Henry Shop 

                            

                                                                                  Entered of Record the 19 day of April 1811

                                                                                                                Henry Shop Town Clerk

What became of Charles after he was manumitted is unknown, especially because his age and what particular skills he may have possessed are a mystery. It is possible that he stayed in the Rhinebeck area, or he may have moved to a larger city, such a Poughkeepsie. If he stayed in Rhinebeck, he may have made his home on Oak Street where many free black families, usually headed by skilled artisans, lived during the 19^th century. If he had a family at the time of his manumission or afterward is currently unknown. 

Philip Jeremiah's house, The Grove, as it now stands.

By 1820, there was only one enslaved person on Philip Jeremiah’s property. The 1820 census states that Philip Jeremiah enslaved one man between the ages of 14 and 26. There are two possibilities as to why this man was still enslaved: either he was born after July 4, 1799, and was legally bound to Philip Jeremiah until he turned 28, or he was born before July 4, 1799, meaning Philip Jeremiah did not have to emancipate him until 1827, according to a law passed in 1817. 

Interestingly, there were also free black people working on Philip Jeremiah’s property at this same time, two of whom were still within the legal ages of enslavement, but were not enslaved. It is possible that two of them had once been enslaved by Philip Jeremiah—perhaps they were the other two enslaved people recorded on the 1810 census— and had been manumitted, but whether they were formerly enslaved by him or someone else is unknown. All that is known are their ages and gender.

They were all women. One was either 13 or younger, one was between the ages of 14 and 26, and the other was 45 or older. It seems likely that they may have been a family unit, possibly grandmother, mother, and daughter, but no definitive conclusion can be found within such vague information. If they were formerly enslaved by Philip Jeremiah, it is possible that the grandmother and mother were once enslaved by him, and the daughter was possibly born free or manumitted as a young child. The women and young girl likely helped with domestic tasks, such as cooking, cleaning, and child-rearing. At the time, there would have been one young Schuyler child in the house, George Lee, who was nine.

While these are all of the currently known references to the people enslaved by Philip Jeremiah, and there are still many unanswered questions, we now know of the enslaved people’s existence. With this knowledge, we can continue to search for more information about who each individual was beyond an advertisement, number on a census, or manumission. Hopefully, we can eventually discover more about what their lives were like and what became of them.

Special thanks to the Rhinebeck Historical Society for their help in finding the manumission of Charles.

The Cost of Comfort: Philip Schuyler's 1761 Expenses

By Jessie Serfilippi and Ian Mumpton

An 18th century mirror in the
Yellow Parlor.

In 1761, Philip Schuyler made his only trip across the Atlantic to England, where he intended to purchase furnishings and other items for the mansion he was constructing in Albany. This year not only represents a unique time in Schuyler’s life, but it’s also a year we have a wealth of documentation for in the form of a recreated inventory compiled from surviving receipts. Yet, even with all the documents we do have, there are likely many receipts we’re missing. It is important to note that this recreated inventory does not include food or most pieces of clothing. Neither Carpeting costs nor the amount spent on the actual construction of the Albany mansion are included, either. It also does not include major pieces of furniture, such as chairs, tables, sofas, or beds.

Area above the fireplace in the
Yellow Parlor where Schuyler may
have hung a mirror he purchased.

The only pieces of furniture that Schuyler brought back from England were “3 look’g glass” and “1 fine middle glass.” These pieces were mirrors, which were either used as looking glasses or were hung above fireplaces to make rooms brighter and larger looking. He may have decided to purchase furniture upon his return to New York to avoid the risk of water damage on the journey home and to save the cost of shipping. 

What we are about to dive into is certainly not everything Philip Schuyler purchased in 1761, but it will give us a glimpse into his lifestyle and wealth.  

Schuyler managed to ring up a big total in 1761-- £872. Today, this amount of money would translate to $1,594,249.75 when compared to the median income of an Albany citizen. But what did it mean in Schuyler’s time? To get a better idea, let’s compare this amount of money to average wages of the period (1750-1775) using statistics put out by US Bureau of Labor Statistics.  

Job	£ Made Per Year
Laborer	31.2
Weaver	40
Carpenter	62.4
Bricklayer	93.6

It would take the average laborer over twenty-seven years to purchase everything Schuyler did in one—and that’s only if the laborer put all the money they made toward this effort, which would be impossible, as it does not include necessities for survival such as food or clothing. It would take the average bricklayer over nine years to do the same. Using the same sum of money, Schuyler could have bought 498 bushels of wheat, which would have made about 27,786.75 loaves of bread. This could feed one person for 37 years at the average rate of consumption, or a family of eight for 4.63 years. The amount Schuyler spent was extravagant, and so was what he purchased.

Some of what Schuyler bought was practical. For example, he purchased “2 doz brass drawer locks,” “1 doz strait cupboard locks,” and “13 gross inch screws.” He bought “1 bag buttons” and “12 doz best coat buttons.” He also purchased some clothing, including six pairs of grey breeches, six pairs of “shoes bound,” and one pair of “strong boots.” While the clothing he purchased may have sustained him for that year, he likely purchased more clothing for Catharine and their children, who at that time included Angelica, Elizabeth, Peggy, and, briefly, a baby girl named Cornelia who died at about a month old. 

An original silver spoon and
tea cup, and a replica teapot
atop a silver platter. 

Reproduction syllabub atop
a silver waiter.

Schuyler spent money on many important household goods that would be used by the family for decades to come, but he also didn’t spare expense on them. In addition to some practical pieces, he purchased many items the average 18^th century family would likely go without. These pieces showed his status. Some of what be bought included: “blades forks with 3 prongs,” “6 large water glasses & saucers,” “12 polished spoons,” “birch handle carving knives,” “a tea pot,” “a sugar dish,” “24 strong wine glasses,” “4 jelly glasses,” “2 sillabub glasses,” “8 baskets with flower handles,” and “1 plain silver waiter.” A major sign of his status in these purchases included getting different glasses for various types of drinks. The amount of wine glasses he purchased also suggests that he would be hosting large groups of people, which also implied his wealth and status. 

An 18th century magic lantern. 

There were also more obvious ways he showed off his wealth. Among his many purchases in 1761, four stand out as the most extravagant. He purchased both a “reflecting telescope” and a “triple barometer.” He purchased a magic lantern and pictures to go in it, as well. He also bought a “crane necked chariot.” That purchase alone cost him £95. That is over 300% of the average laborer’s salary. If an average family in Albany were to make a purchase of a similar scale today, it would cost them $173, 687.19. 

An 18th century Benjamin Martin
telescope.

While the chariot was a status symbol—one he could ride around in—the first two items seem to have been tailored to his personal interests. He purchased them from a man named Benjamin Martin, an Englishman known for making clocks, as well as reflecting telescopes and triple barometers. The magic lantern was also an item of pleasure, though likely one that was shared by the entire family and guests, unlike the reflecting telescope and triple barometer. 

Schuyler also spent a large sum of money on wallpaper for his home during 1761. He purchased “56 pieces flock paper” to cover the walls of seven out of eight rooms in the home. He also bought “10 paintings of ruins of Rome” for the up and downstairs hallways. These purchases alone cost him £31.65—slightly more than what the average laborer made each year.

Original marble around the
fireplace in the Yellow Parlor.

His extravagance did not stop there. Schuyler purchased “2 new Italian marble slabs-case & packing,” and “4 marble chimney pieces with hearths.” Marble was extremely expensive—even Schuyler could not afford too much of it, but he was still able to purchase some—a feat that would have been impossible for the average 18^th century person. On marble alone, Schuyler spent £48.55, or roughly $93,548. 

Reproduction flocked wallpaper
in Schuyler's study.

We have restored some of the most important pieces Schuyler purchased during his shopping spree in England, such as the Ruins of Rome wallpaper and much of the flocked wallpaper, and are constantly working on making the home as accurate to Schuyler’s lifetime as possible. Come visit us to get a feel for the 18^th century opulence Schuyler so highly valued and take in for yourself the extravagance his 1761 trip brought to the Schuyler Mansion.