March 19, 2024 • 42 mins
Deposition of Phillis Tatton, 3rd November 1837
In which Phillis Hinkley Saunders Tatton appeared before the County of Probate in the state of Connecticut in an attempt to secure a pension for her late husband’s service during the American Revolutionary War.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Kathryn Gehred (00:04):
Hello, and welcome to Your Most Obedient &
Humble Servant. This is awomen's history podcast where we
feature 18th and early 19thcentury women's letters that
don't get as much attention aswe think they should. I'm your
host, Kathryn Gehred. Thisepisode is part of our season on
wit. I had the pleasure ofmeeting today's guest at a
conference for the Associationof Documentary Editors. Riley
(00:27):
Sutherland is this year's winnerof the Sharon Ritenour Stevens
Prize in documentary editing,Riley gave a really great
presentation, making use ofrevolutionary war widows,
pension files. So we're going alittle bit different. It's not a
letter that we're working withtoday. It's a pension file, but
it's fascinating. Riley is a PhDstudent at Harvard University
(00:48):
with an interest in women'shistory, archives, memory, and
state building. Thank you somuch for coming on the podcast.
Riley,
Riley Sutherland (00:55):
Thank you so much for having me. I'm really
excited to be here.
Kathryn Gehred (01:00):
So first of all, let's talk a little bit about
the sources. So these arepension files, which you've been
using for your research. Whatare they tell me a little more
about them?
Riley Sutherland (01:07):
Absolutely. So pension files are surprisingly
rich for finding the voices ofwomen who couldn't write their
own stories down because theydidn't know how to write. There
are about 80,000 of them in theNational Archives. And each
pension file can be anythingfrom a few pages to a few 100
pages. So some of these arereally robust. And a pension
(01:31):
file was created when arevolutionary war veteran or a
veterans widow asked the WarDepartment for a pension for
their service. So veterans couldstart claiming pensions in 1818.
If they could prove that theywere indigent and they needed
support. In 1836, Congressstarted allowing widows, even if
(01:52):
they weren't what it was ofofficers to apply for pensions
as well, only if they had beenmarried before their husband's
term of service had ended. Sothere was a limitation on it.
And that kept getting more andmore expansive, as time went on,
with subsequent acts. So a widowwould appear before a local
court, a Court of Common Pleasor a court of probate and she
(02:15):
would give her story to ajustice, the justice would ask
her specific questions like Whatis your name? Where are you
from? When did your husband andlist and when did you get
married? And she would answerhim as a clerk wrote everything
down. So the pension filecontains that testimony. It's a
really neat, almost kind of oralautobiography that these women
(02:37):
would create for themselves.Sometimes they also contain
other forms of evidence. So theWar Department really liked to
see documentary proof to back upthese women's oral claims. They
would ask for marriagecertificates for written
discharges for women's veteranhusbands. But a lot of times
women didn't have those records.One woman I studied burned her
(02:59):
marriage license because herhusband left her after the war,
sometimes of marriage licensesor discharge records burned and
house fires. And as we'll learnabout Phillis here in a little
bit, she couldn't present thatevidence because her enslavers
grandsons, actually burned herhusband's discharge papers.
Sometimes we see that evidenceand pension files as well. But
(03:22):
when widows like Phillis didn'thave that written evidence, they
would go to their neighbors,family members, former officers,
and they would bring them tocourt and ask them to also give
oral stories explaining how theyknew the widow and backing the
widow up explaining that theirmemories also correspond to the
(03:42):
widows. So when Phillis haspension file, we can see lots of
neighbors testifying to supporther as well. So her entire file
is 127 pages long and compiledover several years if she just
kept gathering more evidence toback up her claim.
Kathryn Gehred (03:56):
That's incredible. It's so interesting
to me, how much of the historyof the American Revolution is
just them trying not to paypeople who fought in the
American Revolution. What yeardid you say it was that women
started qualifying for pensions?
Riley Sutherland (04:11):
Officers widows qualified little bit
earlier, but for rank and filemeans what it was it was 1836.
So it was quite a ways after thewar. Before that point, if a
veteran died, so say when acough, Phillis her husband died,
she would be able to claim thepension due to him at the time
(04:32):
of his death, but nothing afterthat until 1836.
Kathryn Gehred (04:35):
Oh my gosh, I know they did this for like
everyone, but it's like, we haveto make sure that a man who owns
the land can come in and speakfor them, because otherwise we
can't trust this person. We'vetalked a little bit. This is a
document from an enslaved woman.And so I'm sure that she had
even more pressure to sort ofbring people in who could back
(04:55):
up her story and be sort oftreated with suspicion and I
think that comes through even inthe document itself. I was
reading your bio as I wasgetting ready to work on this.
You mentioned that you focusedon Continental Army women as a
labor agitators, can you tell mea little bit about that?
Riley Sutherland (05:10):
Yes, this is something I didn't expect to
find. But I initially got intothis research as a high school
student. We did National HistoryDay in school, which is like a
science fair, but for history,and I read Carol Berkin
revolutionary mothers. And shetalks about women who worked for
the Continental Army, aslaundresses for soldiers as
(05:31):
nurses, and they traveled withthe Continental Army. And I
became really interested inthese women and I wanted to
learn more about them,especially how did the war
impact them because I wasimagining if these women were
living in camps, they weretraveling with the army,
certainly that had to havechanged the way they saw
themselves. And I was sittinglater on in an undergraduate
history course and her textbookssaid that the war did not change
(05:54):
these women at all because theywere still performing domestic
tasks. They were washingclothes, they were cooking, and
I became very frustrated withthis history textbook. So I
started diving into records likeorderly books, which are as
Ellen Clark at the Society ofCincinnati describes them.
They're like the diaries ofregiments, where an officer of a
regiment will write down dailyhappenings. And in these orderly
(06:17):
books, I started to seeinteresting relationships
between generals and women. Forinstance, Anthony Wayne, who's a
military officer wrote that hebecame very frustrated with
women who washed for hisregiment, because they refuse to
work any longer. They've beenwashing men's uniforms or
turning them to men, and thenthe men just didn't pay them
(06:39):
anything. So finally, theyrefuse to keep washing clothes
and Anthony Wayne wrote, thesewomen were not, quote, given
victuals to distress and renderthe men unfit for duty, but to
keep them clean and decent. Sohe's threatened to kick all of
them out of camp. But of course,he couldn't do that, because he
needed somebody to wash theiruniforms. If you didn't, then
(07:00):
they were going to be full oflice, which spread disease. So
he ended up withholding pay frommen who didn't compensate the
women for their work. So in thiscase, their strike was very
effective. We also see nursesstrike in a hospital in
Pennsylvania, and the doctor whoheaded up that hospital wrote
Congress frantically saying, theentire hospital is immobilized.
(07:23):
I don't know what to do, pleasesend me money to pay these
women. So I became reallyinterested in the way women who
didn't know each other beforethe war, right, they were
accompanying their husbands tothese regiments, were able to
forge relationships with eachother, and then successfully
leveraged that collective powerover military officers.
(07:44):
In some instances, even GeorgeWashington, there was a group of
army women in New York, and theyfound out Washington had been
given orders to reduce theamount of rations reserved for
women accompanying the troopsbecause he was already short on
food. And women, especiallypregnant women were consuming a
lot of rations they werefiguring, well, women,
(08:06):
particularly who are pregnantare going to eventually need
double rations, because theirchildren are going to need
rations as well. So at onepoint, Washington order has
officers remove all pregnantwomen from the ranks. But at
this point, when New York womenget word that they might be
reduced that wives of artillerymen, they warned a Washington
(08:26):
that he was going to faceconsequences if you reduced
their rations, and eventually,their husbands threatened to
desert if he did it. So he hadto defy Congress and say, I
cannot possibly reduce theirrations. This is sort of the
labor agitation or thecollective agitation that I was
looking at as evidence thatwomen's participation in the war
(08:48):
did give them an opportunity toforge networks with each other
that they wouldn't have beenable to otherwise. And it made
them more aware of the essentialnature of their work in ways
that made them willing toadvocate for themselves in this
military and political context.
Kathryn Gehred (09:03):
That is so fascinating. I'm actually not
familiar with that GeorgeWashington story, but I loved
the idea of him being like, No,we're not feeding the pregnant
women. What, what? But you don'treally think about, I mean, you
hear about camp followers orwhatever. But that is an
essential service, who's washingthese clothes? And who are the
people doing nursing? And Iimagine there was some sex work
(09:25):
and all sorts of things.
Riley Sutherland (09:26):
Absolutely.
Kathryn Gehred (09:27):
That is just such a fascinating story. And
it's something that when you'relooking with my work previously
was the Papers of MarthaWashington. It doesn't come up
quite so much when you'rereading about the fancy officers
wives who are like havingparties and dancing in the war
tents. So this is just such acool perspective that you don't
hear a lot of so I think it'sjust fabulous that you're
working with these documents.We've sort of hinted at who
(09:50):
we're talking about, but can youintroduce me to Phillis who
we're talking about today?Absolutely.
Riley Sutherland (09:53):
So Phillis is from Guinea. She's from West
Africa and is brought to canadvocate and enslave as a young
girl. She is enslaved by peoplenamed Charles and Elizabeth
Hinkley. So she herself isreferred to initially in records
as Phillis Hinkley. But shebegins courting this man who is
also enslaved by the Hinkleys.I'm trying to establish whether
(10:16):
he was leased or sold, but hebecame enslaved by a local
Deacon Israel Wells. And fromthere he was leased to an
apothecary, and he wasresponsible actually for
preparing medications for peopleso he gained a lot of knowledge
as he was working as anapothecary. Phillis this whole
time was trying to getpermission to marry Cuff, but
(10:38):
her enslaver Elizabeth Hinckleywas denying it, she would not
let these two get married.Eventually, you know, the
revolutionary war breaks out andcough decides to enlist in the
Continental Army in exchange forhis freedom. At this point, he
and Phillis make a pact thatthey are going to marry each
other as soon as possible duringor by the end of the war. And
(11:02):
Cuff continues to go to theHinkley's estate in New London,
Connecticut to visit Phillis. Onone of those visits, Piyllis
became pregnant and she decidedto use that as well as her
husband service sort of asleverage to finally convince
Elizabeth to let her marry Cuff,they get married, and this is
about the time Cuff in servicethey get married in May of 1783.
(11:26):
Cuff uses his payment topurchase three acres of land
nearby in Connecticut and he andPhillis lived there together and
farm that lands independentlytogether for about five years,
which is when cough dies ofinfluenza. So Phillis eventually
remarries to another man namedAnthony Tatton and he continues
(11:47):
to live in that house withPhyllis that coffin purchased
with her his revolutionary warearnings. They continue to farm
it until Anthony himself diesand in 1837 So shortly after
this pension Act is passed,Phillis decides she wants to
apply for Cuff's, RevolutionaryWar pension, she's pretty poor
at this point. She's living withthe help of her son, also named
Kathryn Gehred (12:09):
With that excellent introduction, let's
Anthony, but she wants a way tosupplement that assistance. She
wants a way to start bringing inadditional money and decides
she's going to apply for hispension. So in the document we
have today, Phillis is appearingin court on November 3 ,1837 and
one of her first depositionsasking for that pension.
(12:35):
dive into the document.
Riley Sutherland (12:36):
State of Connecticut} County of New
London} In Colchester 3rdNovember 1837 On this 3rd Day
of Nov. 1837 Personally Appeardbefore the County of Probate
Phillis Tatton, a resident ofLebanon in the County of New
London and State of Connecticut,Aged about eighty five years
(12:57):
(not knowing her exact age asshe was brot from Guinia when a
Child)—who being first dulysworn according to Law, doth on
her oath make the followingdeclaration. She was Married to
Cuff Saunders, Alias Cuff Wells,who was commonly called Doctr.
Cuff, who was a Slave of IsraelWells of South Colchester, and
(13:20):
that in Order to obtain hisfreedom enlisted into the Army
of the United States in theWinter of 1777 as a Private
Soldier, for the term of duringthe War—and was placed in a
Regiment commanded by Col. JohnDurkee & Benjamin Troop who was
a Brother to my old MistressMrs. Elizabeth Hinckley. Was
(13:43):
first a Capt. then a Majr insaid Regiment when he did duty
as a Private army waiter to theSurgeon of said regiment and it
having been discovered by theOfficers of said regiment that
the said Cuff possessedconsiderable Medical skill by
having some Years before been aSlave, of Doctr Langrel of
(14:06):
Hartford who was a Physician andkept an apothecary Store where
the said Cuff learnt the Act ofpreparing & mixing Medicine, he
was accordingly placed in theHospital as a waiter & assistant
to the Surgeon and part of thetime he acted as an Assistant to
the Apothecary Store belongingto the Continental Army at
(14:29):
Danbury in said State where hecontinued till late in the fall
of 1783. That we had agreed toMarry each other before he went
into the Army. That he returnedhome in the Month of May 1783 on
a Furlough, dressed in Uniformwith red facings and the letters
U.S.A. on his buttons, at whichtime she further declares that
(14:54):
she was Married to the said CuffSaunders Alias Cuff Wells who
was commonly called Doctor Cuff,in the Month of May 1783 at the
House of my Master CharlesHinkley in Goshen in said
Lebanon by the Rev. TimothyStone deceased, then Minister
over the Society of said Goshen,and that the said Cuff soon
(15:17):
after returned to the Army atsaid Danbury where he continued
until late in the fall 1783. That he returned home, purchased
about three Acres of Land, builta small House in said Lebanon,
near the line of Colchesterwhere we lived together until
Dec. 1788. And that her Husbandthe aforesaid Cuff Saunders,
(15:40):
Alias Cuff Wells died in theMonth of Dec. 1788 after a
severe sickness with theInfluenza. Doctor Coleman died a
number of Years since likewisebelonged to the Revolutionary
Army and lived a Neighbour,attended my said Husband as
Physician in his late sickness. And she further declares that
(16:02):
she has no documentary evidenceexcept the Certificate from the
State Comptroller as to hisservice as a Soldier and the
certificates of the Rev. Mr,Otis & Peleg Thomas Esq. of both
her Marriages—and that she atpresent knows of no person who
can testify as to the Sd. Cuffremaining in service except
(16:25):
Doct. John R. Wastrous & MissElenor Hewit Phillis Tatton
Her mark X
Kathryn Gehred (16:31):
Beautiful. Excellent, thank you. One of the
things that I noticed the firsttime I was reading this is that
it sort of switches to somebodysaying she, and then I, and I
think you sort of explained thatat the beginning that this is
somebody writing notes, right,as she's giving testimony. Do
you think it's the clerk is sortof sometimes reading exactly
what she says? And thensometimes trying to sort of
(16:51):
translate it is that yourunderstanding?
Riley Sutherland (16:53):
That is my understanding. And you make a
really important point, bynoticing that change between the
third and first person? We haveto face the question, which is
difficult. What extent isPhillis, his voice in this
document? And it's somethingI've had a lot of professors and
other researchers asked me, Howdo you know, the clerk is really
representing her voice in thisdocument. And it's something
(17:15):
tough that we have to grapplewith, especially because the
individuals who are writingthese are constantly trying to
assess the veracity of herclaims. So they're always making
judgments of her character. ButI think in those moments where
we can hear, can switch, welived in a house together, we
were married, the clerk was sortof getting interested and really
drawn into this testimony anddid start recording it as
(17:38):
closely as he could to her wordsin those spots, which is really
fascinating.
Yes. So they just keep repeatingall of these names over and over
the Cuff Wells is what he wouldhave been known as when he went
(18:19):
into the Army Wells coming fromthe name of his enslaver Israel
Wells, who was a deacon and Cuffis it comes from the Icann,
Kofi, meaning born on Friday. Sothis is pointing back to his
experiences his childhood inAfrica and West Africa, maybe
from near where Phillis was fromas well. And then we have the
(18:41):
wells as a marker of hisenslavement. Right before he
buries Phiillis in 1783. The menand his regiment report that he
starts going by Cuff Saundersinstead he decides to call
himself that now that he's free.I've tried to figure out where
the Saunders comes from, and Ihave not been able to piece that
(19:02):
together at this point. But hischild also ends up taking this
name Saunders as does Phillis.So her file is under Phillis
Hinkley Saunders Tatton TheTatton and coming from her other
marriage.
Kathryn Gehred (19:16):
That's so fascinating. For starters I
never put together that the namethat white people would write
down as Kofi was probably kofi.And that just blew my mind a
little bit. But it makes it hardto study people when people's
names change all the time, butit happens all the time,
particularly with enslavedpeople who are sort of being
given their enslavers names,people are often very eager to
change that a lot of times. Sothat follows that makes perfect
(19:39):
sense.
Riley Sutherland (19:40):
And it was difficult for Phillis because as
you mentioned to the names werechanging all the time, she had
to provide documentary evidenceof his pay off his service. And
along the whole way, she had toprove that cough wells really
was the same person as coughSaunders who was the same person
as Dr. Cuff. And that becomesreally difficult for her to the
(20:00):
point where she actually had tosummon former Army surgeons and
officers to appear in court andtestify that he really did go by
all of these different names,which is an added complication
she faced, that a white widowoften did not struggle with
unless she had married a soldierwho was a French, in which case,
she had to explain differentnaming practices or customs.
Kathryn Gehred (20:24):
That is very interesting. And this is like so
common, right? Women get marriedand change their names, then
somebody dies and they'reremarried to they get more
names. But it seems like thatjust blows bureaucrats minds.
Like it's impossible that peoplejust act like this is so insane
from a modern historianperspective, even just digitally
searching for people when youdon't know if she'd be
classified under Mrs. CliffSaunders, alias Cuff Wells, who
(20:46):
was called Dr. Cuff, like, howwould you find Phillis, this
time when you read it? It justsort of struck me where she
mentions every once awhile,she'll go into a little bit of
detail. And so knowing sort ofhow this scene was going, I
imagine one of the people thatshe's talking to magistrates
asked her to add some detailname and name or something. She
mentioned when he comes backfrom the war, he's wearing his
(21:08):
red uniform that has USA on thebuttons, right? So that is such
an interesting little fact thathe remembers a detail like that,
and that be that can help themtime. Like okay, when were
people wearing uniforms likethis to a certain timeframe?
Riley Sutherland (21:23):
Yes, and it also helps her establish her
claim with other people. She'shaving testify. So Eleanor Hewit
is somebody she mentions there.Eleanor live nearby Phillis and
actually attended Phillis hiswedding. Because Phillis is
enslavers or at this point.Almost her former and slavers
invited their neighbors toPhillis and Cuff's wedding,
(21:45):
which is something thatsurprised me as I was reading
these documents. But Eleanorlikewise says, I can prove that
I was at coughs wedding becausehe was in his military uniform.
And I can describe it at herdescription of his uniform is
almost identical to felicitouswhich made me wonder, did they
communicate about this beforethey both testified? Is this
(22:06):
something they were trying touse because widows and the
people they brought with them,we often have evidence would sit
and they would discuss it.There's even one son who was
trying to help his mother get apension. And he wrote after he
was rejected, asking for a listof every person who succeeded in
the state of Connecticut so hecould communicate with them to
learn what they did and try toreplicate it. So those little
(22:30):
details are really helpful pegs.An d they also make it difficult
because they need to bereplicated through so many
different testimonies to preventdiscrepancies that would
undermine the claim.
Kathryn Gehred (22:40):
For a war that ended 50 years ago, right? Just
you can miss remember whensomebody came home wearing the
cool outfit so easily. And alsofascinating that her and slavers
were like, No, you can't getmarried? No, you can't get
married. But when you do getmarried, we're gonna make it a
priority. Obviously, there's aton to dig into. There's so much
but I feel like everything aboutthis story sort of challenges a
(23:00):
lot of preconceived notionsabout what life in the
Continental Army was like. Didyou agree did it affect the way
that you saw military life inthe Continental Army?
Riley Sutherland (23:08):
It really did. And multiple ways I think the
first of which is just bychallenging me to see how porous
this distinction betweenmilitary life and life on the
homefront really was. I oftenmyself create this artificial
barrier between women who werewith quote, unquote, the army,
and women who are on thehomefront. But really even
widows who were not travelingwith the army were so connected
(23:32):
to it. For example, withPhillis, she asked a local
storekeeper a clerk to write tocuff, asking him to come home
and marry her. So she's like,let's work out your furlough.
Let's figure out when you can,you know, get on leave. They
were nearby, she was able to usehis military service to secure
her own marriage. And so thisdocument really illuminates the
(23:54):
ways that even women on thehomefront were drastically
impacted by their connections tothe military.
I was also talking with a friendabout this document the other
day, and he mentioned, you know,it's kind of surprising to me to
hear about cuff, liberatinghimself regaining his freedom by
serving for the ContinentalArmy, because we both have read
(24:15):
so much about individualsliberating themselves by taking
advantage of Dunmore'sProclamation and going to the
British army. So Dunmore was thegovernor who promised enslaved
people if they could make it tothe British Army and they were
enslaved by patriots. They couldbe free if they served the army.
We don't have this binary of,well, enslaved people could gain
(24:37):
their freedom by going to theBritish, and that was the way
they could gain their freedom.There's evidence of women who
liberated themselves fromslavery, and they ran to the
Continental Army to try to meetup with their husbands who were
black soldiers. In this case, wesee cough deciding to enlist
locally with the ContinentalArmy. And so I think it also
complicates the way we viewloyalties protect literally
(25:00):
enslaved people's loyaltiesduring the American Revolution,
to see that they were reallyassessing different options
available to them.
Kathryn Gehred (25:09):
That struck me as well. It seems like having an
enslaved person army, or a freeblack person in the army might
be like more of an exception.You like, don't see that when
you're watching movies about theAmerican Revolution very often,
and things like that. And thenalso the fact that he was able
to join and be the doctor,right? Like he's the person
bringing these medical skills isjust super cool and fascinating
(25:32):
to me that everybody was like,this is a time of war. He knows
how to mix drugs together. He'sDr. Cuff.
Riley Sutherland (25:38):
Yes. And we see that for women to some
extent, too. There's a whitewoman whose pension application
I've studied in depth, SarahBenjamin, and she describes
joining the army and she'swashing and making bread, and
she's doing it alongside a blackwoman named Loretta. So black
women, too, would be sometimesteaching white women how to do
certain tasks as well, that wereessential for the army. So I
(26:00):
think it's really important,what you just pointed out that
they're not in subservientroles, they might be portrayed
in and film if Black individualsare portrayed in the military at
all in the Continental Army. Butin many instances, there are
leaders bringing their ownknowledge to military lines.
Kathryn Gehred (26:17):
So I just wanted to like briefly go on a slight
tangent. There's been somediscussion about Florida
educational standards, talkingabout slavery. And they've
mentioned in Florida educationalstandards, that they're going to
bring up moments when a slavelearned a skill during slavery
that they were able to use totheir own advantage after
slavery. And I could see peoplevery quickly using this as an
(26:38):
example of that happening. But Ijust want to say quickly, the
whole point of that argument isjust a distraction from actually
trying to look into therealities of the history of
slavery. It's one of thosethings where it's like, like a
gotcha, it's like, look, I canfind this one guy who learned
how to use a skill while he wasenslaved and apothecary. But the
(27:00):
main question of slavery is sosimple, which is that people
should not be treated asproperty. And the fact that
people were able to be competenthuman beings and turn things to
their advantage, should not beused as an argument that say,
slavery isn't so bad. If Kofihad been able to, to be a free
(27:21):
person and get medical degree onhis own, and be able to make
money and live as a free person,much earlier, wouldn't his life
have been so much better insteadof having to beg for literally
every single thing? And that'sthe sort of central question
about this to me?
Riley Sutherland (27:34):
Absolutely. And we also don't know what
medical skills he had before hewas enslaved as well. So what if
he's bringing skills to thisapothecary, that the apothecary
wouldn't have had before.similarly to the way he's
bringing medical knowledge intothe Continental Army camp, and
the clerk frames it similarly tothe way the Florida education
system wants to frame it, askind of came to this apothecary,
(27:58):
and he was bestowed with thisknowledge. Interestingly,
Phillis and Cuff's son, PrinceSaunders goes on to become a
very important figure in his ownright, and an education minister
of Haiti. But he was educated atDartmouth, and in his obituary,
it very conspicuously mentionsit's because Phillis's
enslaver's son decided to be sohim with this start with
(28:21):
education. It's the similarframing that overlooks knowledge
that people like cough wouldhave had, and shared with
others.
Kathryn Gehred (28:30):
And in particular, you mentioned the
black woman who maybe had joinedas laundresses, and nurses and
things like that. It's not likewomen who own slaves don't know
how to do these things, becausehaving enslaved people do all
that for them. So of course, thework that they're doing is
incredibly valuable to the wareffort. And to just see hard
evidence of that, in thisdocument of her talking about
(28:52):
this particular situation. It'sjust very satisfying to me.
Phillis just seems like a verytalented person, and convincing
person and it's so cool that herson went to Dartmouth, and just
continued being exceptional.We've talked a little bit about
Phillis, outside of this letter,she mentions towards the end
that she has no documentaryevidence to back her story up.
(29:14):
I've talked in an earlierepisode about how hard it was
for enslaved people to getdocumentary evidence for
literally anything. In thesouth. Enslaved marriages
weren't seen as legal, youcouldn't testify in court,
you're basically removed frombeing able to be taken seriously
as like a legal identity. Andthen because of that, the paper
trail that historians and thepeople who are looking into
(29:36):
these pension files would usejust don't exist. So it makes it
a lot easier to erase somebody.Do you find that coming up a lot
in these pension files of women,poor women, women across
classes, black women, enslavedwomen? Is that something that
you notice quite a bit?
Riley Sutherland (29:51):
It is, yes. And I have to admit, I laughed
at this line and Phillis, histestimony. I have no documentary
evidence except this certificateof my marriage that I As
somebody to create, becausethat's more documentary evidence
than most widows have, I'mthinking Phillis, you have
evidence don't undermine yourevidence. Many widows yes, they
would have a difficult time. Solike Phillis, they would sort of
(30:13):
try to create their ownevidence, particularly women who
had been enslaved. Some wouldtake Phillis as approach. So she
knew she was getting ready tosubmit this claim. And a couple
of weeks earlier in October of1837, found a way to communicate
with local reference. Maybe shewent in person, she also had a
local clerk and one of herformer enslavers stores right
(30:37):
for her sometimes. And shecommunicated with Reverend and
even with the State Comptrollersaying, Can you please send me a
written paper that says you werehere when I married my husband,
or in one case, it was the sonof the minister, and she asked
the Comptroller, can you sendwhatever proof you have, that my
husband was paid for hisservice? Other Black widows in
(31:00):
particular, would ask forwritten evidence that there was
no evidence. So one inparticular, who I'm thinking of,
she received a piece of paperfrom the local church. And it
said, Well, we did not keeprecords of Black people's
marriages between this years,there is no evidence. So she had
(31:21):
created evidence from thissilence and use this piece of
paper as credible proof, which Ialso think says a lot about what
the War Department believed wascredible that if you made
silence into something tangible,signed by a leading man of the
community, it could fill asilence that a woman's oral
store you would not be able to.So it's interesting. Other women
(31:43):
would submit things likeneedlepoint samplers, so women
were very creative andovercoming the silences,
although it was difficult, andPhyllis had to confront that
challenge for over three yearsbefore she succeeded.
Kathryn Gehred (31:58):
That's crazy. You said three years of trying
to get this pension. Does sheget the money?
Riley Sutherland (32:04):
She does, but it was a very fraught process.
And she almost did not get allof the money, but she continued
to fight for what she believesshe deserves. So the situation
is this act of 1836. Rightrequires that you married before
your husband's term of servicehad expired. So Phyllis says
husband cuff enlisted in 1777.He was discharged in fall of
(32:29):
1783. They married in May of1783. So that is before he
stopped serving. But the WarDepartment says well, we don't
have written evidence that hewas paid after January of 1781.
So how do we know that he wasserving after 1781, and that you
really married him after he wasa soldier. So Phillis has all of
(32:52):
this oral testimony of men whoswear that they had served
alongside him, but because shedoesn't have a payroll from
1783. They rule she does notqualify under this pension act.
Another pension Act was passedin 1838. And that allowed widows
(33:13):
who married before I believe itwas 1794, to claim a pension for
five years as opposed to life.And the person in charge of the
War Department said, Well,Phillis clearly married before
1794. So why don't you applyunder this? And she asked a
local storekeeper, who washelping her to reply, no, I
qualify for a life pension and Iam going to receive my life
(33:36):
pension. She gets into a trickysituation because the only real
strong oral testimony she canprovide that her husband was
still serving at the end of thewar, comes from a man who comes
before the court and says, Iknow he was married to Phillis
before he stopped serving,because he came and he gave me
(33:58):
some camphor to smell a type ofmedication. And cough made the
comment to me, Well, my wifePhillis will be needing some of
that soon, too, because she'sgoing to be sick, she's going to
be having a child. And I amgoing to marry her before that
happens. And then he left tomarry her.
Well, Phillis, until this point,had not told the court that she
(34:19):
was pregnant before she wasmarried, which wasn't by any
means uncommon, but all of asudden, the court believes this
is a blemish on her character.Her lawyer even makes the
comment that she's a woman avery strong merit, except for
during the instance I justmentioned, but it's
understandable considering she'dbeen coding for seven years. So
(34:40):
she has to now overcome thisprejudice. And I have to wonder
if she knew she was going toface that but believed it was
the only way she could get paid.So she puts herself through
this. But then the wardepartment decides, Okay, maybe
this is proof you married beforeyour husband's term of service
was up but then you read Youmarried to somebody else after
(35:01):
he died. And your status asAnthony tattles widow supersedes
and invalidates your status ascough Saunders is widow. And at
this point, Phillis is verydistressed, she's indigent,
she's furious with theseexcuses, the War Department
seems to be making up to denyher a pension. So she petitions
(35:24):
Congress, she petitions thecommittee of claims in Congress
and says the War Department isnot accepting my claim, but I
deserve a pension for life. Bythis point, it's about 1840. And
she finally receives a favorablereport from the Committee of
claims and 1841 that she shouldreceive a pension for life. But
(35:47):
then Congress adjourns beforethey can go any further with it.
In 1842, Congress decides thatshe, you know, again, she should
receive a pension her petitioncomes back up, but now they've
added that it should only be forfive years, as the board
department had initially said.So Phillis, on her lawyer right
back again, refusing, sayingthat she deserves a pension for
(36:09):
life. And she finally receivedit in 1842. So about five years
after she first applied
Kathryn Gehred (36:19):
The fact that these were department, ghouls
are just sitting there judgingthis person, when their whole
job is deciding who deserves toget money is just so
infuriating. Oh, my God. No, Ithink you're right. That sounds
completely reasonable that shemight have avoided mentioning
the fact that she was pregnantbefore she got married. But also
(36:41):
the fact that enslaved peoplelegally that marriage didn't
mean anything. The fact that shehas to wait for her in slavers
is to give her permission to getmarried. All of that it's just
absolutely infuriating. Good onPhillis for fighting it out for
sticking to her guns and justcontinuously fighting it that is
so fabulous. So this is a seasonabout wit, which sometimes we
have been talking about in termsof, you know, somebody writing
(37:03):
something funny, or using sortof language play. In this case,
I think this is somebody who isusing their wits to achieve a
goal. The deck was stackedagainst her for this, to get
this pension for a number ofreasons that she is able to, as
a free Black woman, get all thistogether, get her team together,
(37:24):
sort of strategize what she'sgoing to say and when she's
going to say it. What anincredible person.
Riley Sutherland (37:29):
Absolutely and her ability to turn to all of
these different types ofevidence I didn't mention, she
even submitted her son'sobituary in a newspaper, which
briefly mentioned, oh, he wasthe son of Phyllis and cough,
say, Look, can you accept thenewspaper as proof of my
marriage. So she was constantlythinking of new ways to try to
produce evidence to findevidence, which is even more
(37:51):
exceptional to me when Iremember that she didn't know
how to read or write. So she wasreally using her wit, especially
socially, to draw upon hernetworks and connections that
made it possible for her tonavigate a complex political
system, one that would have beencomplex for somebody who knew
how to read and write.
Kathryn Gehred (38:08):
What do you want people to get from this story?
Riley Sutherland (38:11):
I think one of the biggest takeaways for me is
to look at somebody like Philliswoman who had been an enslaved a
free Black woman, and to seethat she was a political actor,
someone who was not only awareof the political system around
her and have her own politicalefficacy, her ability to
(38:34):
advocate for her own interestslocally and on a federal level,
but that she was prepared toparticipate in that for such a
prolonged period. So tenaciouslyis very important. And the fact
that Phillis isn't an anomaly, Ithink it's important to take
away, because it's easy to reada document like this and think,
wow, how exceptional the lawyerwho was writing this pension
(38:56):
file wrote that she was, quote,The most remarkable, intelligent
colored woman in quote. So he'strying to portray her somehow as
exceptional for a Black woman.And Phillis is exceptional in
the sense that she is incrediblyintelligent, but she's not
exceptional in the sense thatshe's an anomaly. There were
(39:17):
many other black women likePhillis who had become free
during the war, and who weredrawing upon their local
networks to try to advocate forpension files, even as they were
facing tremendous discriminationfrom the War Department. So to
see that I think is really,really important to see women as
their own political advocates,particularly in an era like the
(39:40):
1830s and 40s. When it's easy tofocus on white abolitionists or
white individuals who wereadvocating for black rights and
to see how even illiterate womenlike Phillis were able to be
some of their own strongestvoices.
Kathryn Gehred (39:56):
That's such a great point. This is one of the
stories that we know but thatdoesn't necessarily mean that
this was someone who wascompletely distinct and unique.
Riley Sutherland (40:06):
If anybody who's listening is really
interested in these pensionfiles and wants to read more,
the National Archives has imagesof them all online. But they are
not transcribed. So there are10s of 1000s of files, like
Phillis is out there justwaiting to be discovered. And
anyone can help transcribe themthrough the National Archives,
(40:27):
they have this Citizen Archivisttool where anyone can go on and
read these pictures andtranscribe them, which means
they're searchable. And you canfind more women like Phillis who
are kind of disappeared intothese difficult to navigate
archives. So if anyone feelsinclined to read some files like
this on your own, or to maybetry your hand at transcribing,
(40:47):
or doing some of your ownresearch, I would absolutely
recommend looking at that toolon the National Archives
website.
Kathryn Gehred (40:54):
Thats's awesome. That's so important. And as
somebody that transcribed a lotof letters as my job for a long
time, it's fun, it's worthwhile,it takes a little getting used
to. But if you are looking forsomething, if you are bored on
any big and you're like, maybe Iwant to read a completely
fascinating letter from 200years ago, there's much worse
(41:15):
ways to spend your time rally.This is such a fabulous
conversation. I cannot wait tosee the work that you do with
all of this and with your futurecareer, anywhere you want to
point people to.
Riley Sutherland (41:26):
I have a personal website that I post
updates on, and it is linked tomy Twitter, which is at RKG
Sutherland. So I'll be sure topost Phillis is full pension
file on there in case anybodywants to read more details about
her life, any of the otherdepositions, as well as some
updates about otherrevolutionary war widows.
Kathryn Gehred (41:47):
Fantastic. So I will link to your Twitter and
we'll link to some of theseresources in the show notes. For
my listeners, thank you so muchfor listening. I am as ever,
Your Most Obedient & HumbleServant. Thank you very much.
Your Most Obedient & HumbleServant is a production of R2
(42:07):
Studios at the Roy RosenzweigCenter for History and New Media
at George Mason University. I'mKathryn Gehred, the creator and
host of this podcast. JeanettePatrick and Jim Ambuske are the
executive producers. If youenjoyed this episode, be sure to
listen to past episodes andcheck out more great podcasts
(42:27):
from R2 Studios. We tellunexpected stories based on the
latest research to connectlisteners with the past. So head
to R2studios.org to startlistening
Hello, and welcome to Your Most Obedient &
Humble Servant. This is awomen's history podcast where we
feature 18th and early 19thcentury women's letters that
don't get as much attention aswe think they should. I'm your
host, Kathryn Gehred. Thisepisode is part of our season on
wit. I had the pleasure ofmeeting today's guest at a
conference for the Associationof Documentary Editors. Riley
(00:27):
Sutherland is this year's winnerof the Sharon Ritenour Stevens
Prize in documentary editing,Riley gave a really great
presentation, making use ofrevolutionary war widows,
pension files. So we're going alittle bit different. It's not a
letter that we're working withtoday. It's a pension file, but
it's fascinating. Riley is a PhDstudent at Harvard University
(00:48):
with an interest in women'shistory, archives, memory, and
state building. Thank you somuch for coming on the podcast.
Riley,
Riley Sutherland (00:55):
Thank you so much for having me. I'm really
excited to be here.
Kathryn Gehred (01:00):
So first of all, let's talk a little bit about
the sources. So these arepension files, which you've been
using for your research. Whatare they tell me a little more
about them?
Riley Sutherland (01:07):
Absolutely. So pension files are surprisingly
rich for finding the voices ofwomen who couldn't write their
own stories down because theydidn't know how to write. There
are about 80,000 of them in theNational Archives. And each
pension file can be anythingfrom a few pages to a few 100
pages. So some of these arereally robust. And a pension
(01:31):
file was created when arevolutionary war veteran or a
veterans widow asked the WarDepartment for a pension for
their service. So veterans couldstart claiming pensions in 1818.
If they could prove that theywere indigent and they needed
support. In 1836, Congressstarted allowing widows, even if
(01:52):
they weren't what it was ofofficers to apply for pensions
as well, only if they had beenmarried before their husband's
term of service had ended. Sothere was a limitation on it.
And that kept getting more andmore expansive, as time went on,
with subsequent acts. So a widowwould appear before a local
court, a Court of Common Pleasor a court of probate and she
(02:15):
would give her story to ajustice, the justice would ask
her specific questions like Whatis your name? Where are you
from? When did your husband andlist and when did you get
married? And she would answerhim as a clerk wrote everything
down. So the pension filecontains that testimony. It's a
really neat, almost kind of oralautobiography that these women
(02:37):
would create for themselves.Sometimes they also contain
other forms of evidence. So theWar Department really liked to
see documentary proof to back upthese women's oral claims. They
would ask for marriagecertificates for written
discharges for women's veteranhusbands. But a lot of times
women didn't have those records.One woman I studied burned her
(02:59):
marriage license because herhusband left her after the war,
sometimes of marriage licensesor discharge records burned and
house fires. And as we'll learnabout Phillis here in a little
bit, she couldn't present thatevidence because her enslavers
grandsons, actually burned herhusband's discharge papers.
Sometimes we see that evidenceand pension files as well. But
(03:22):
when widows like Phillis didn'thave that written evidence, they
would go to their neighbors,family members, former officers,
and they would bring them tocourt and ask them to also give
oral stories explaining how theyknew the widow and backing the
widow up explaining that theirmemories also correspond to the
(03:42):
widows. So when Phillis haspension file, we can see lots of
neighbors testifying to supporther as well. So her entire file
is 127 pages long and compiledover several years if she just
kept gathering more evidence toback up her claim.
Kathryn Gehred (03:56):
That's incredible. It's so interesting
to me, how much of the historyof the American Revolution is
just them trying not to paypeople who fought in the
American Revolution. What yeardid you say it was that women
started qualifying for pensions?
Riley Sutherland (04:11):
Officers widows qualified little bit
earlier, but for rank and filemeans what it was it was 1836.
So it was quite a ways after thewar. Before that point, if a
veteran died, so say when acough, Phillis her husband died,
she would be able to claim thepension due to him at the time
(04:32):
of his death, but nothing afterthat until 1836.
Kathryn Gehred (04:35):
Oh my gosh, I know they did this for like
everyone, but it's like, we haveto make sure that a man who owns
the land can come in and speakfor them, because otherwise we
can't trust this person. We'vetalked a little bit. This is a
document from an enslaved woman.And so I'm sure that she had
even more pressure to sort ofbring people in who could back
(04:55):
up her story and be sort oftreated with suspicion and I
think that comes through even inthe document itself. I was
reading your bio as I wasgetting ready to work on this.
You mentioned that you focusedon Continental Army women as a
labor agitators, can you tell mea little bit about that?
Riley Sutherland (05:10):
Yes, this is something I didn't expect to
find. But I initially got intothis research as a high school
student. We did National HistoryDay in school, which is like a
science fair, but for history,and I read Carol Berkin
revolutionary mothers. And shetalks about women who worked for
the Continental Army, aslaundresses for soldiers as
(05:31):
nurses, and they traveled withthe Continental Army. And I
became really interested inthese women and I wanted to
learn more about them,especially how did the war
impact them because I wasimagining if these women were
living in camps, they weretraveling with the army,
certainly that had to havechanged the way they saw
themselves. And I was sittinglater on in an undergraduate
history course and her textbookssaid that the war did not change
(05:54):
these women at all because theywere still performing domestic
tasks. They were washingclothes, they were cooking, and
I became very frustrated withthis history textbook. So I
started diving into records likeorderly books, which are as
Ellen Clark at the Society ofCincinnati describes them.
They're like the diaries ofregiments, where an officer of a
regiment will write down dailyhappenings. And in these orderly
(06:17):
books, I started to seeinteresting relationships
between generals and women. Forinstance, Anthony Wayne, who's a
military officer wrote that hebecame very frustrated with
women who washed for hisregiment, because they refuse to
work any longer. They've beenwashing men's uniforms or
turning them to men, and thenthe men just didn't pay them
(06:39):
anything. So finally, theyrefuse to keep washing clothes
and Anthony Wayne wrote, thesewomen were not, quote, given
victuals to distress and renderthe men unfit for duty, but to
keep them clean and decent. Sohe's threatened to kick all of
them out of camp. But of course,he couldn't do that, because he
needed somebody to wash theiruniforms. If you didn't, then
(07:00):
they were going to be full oflice, which spread disease. So
he ended up withholding pay frommen who didn't compensate the
women for their work. So in thiscase, their strike was very
effective. We also see nursesstrike in a hospital in
Pennsylvania, and the doctor whoheaded up that hospital wrote
Congress frantically saying, theentire hospital is immobilized.
(07:23):
I don't know what to do, pleasesend me money to pay these
women. So I became reallyinterested in the way women who
didn't know each other beforethe war, right, they were
accompanying their husbands tothese regiments, were able to
forge relationships with eachother, and then successfully
leveraged that collective powerover military officers.
(07:44):
In some instances, even GeorgeWashington, there was a group of
army women in New York, and theyfound out Washington had been
given orders to reduce theamount of rations reserved for
women accompanying the troopsbecause he was already short on
food. And women, especiallypregnant women were consuming a
lot of rations they werefiguring, well, women,
(08:06):
particularly who are pregnantare going to eventually need
double rations, because theirchildren are going to need
rations as well. So at onepoint, Washington order has
officers remove all pregnantwomen from the ranks. But at
this point, when New York womenget word that they might be
reduced that wives of artillerymen, they warned a Washington
(08:26):
that he was going to faceconsequences if you reduced
their rations, and eventually,their husbands threatened to
desert if he did it. So he hadto defy Congress and say, I
cannot possibly reduce theirrations. This is sort of the
labor agitation or thecollective agitation that I was
looking at as evidence thatwomen's participation in the war
(08:48):
did give them an opportunity toforge networks with each other
that they wouldn't have beenable to otherwise. And it made
them more aware of the essentialnature of their work in ways
that made them willing toadvocate for themselves in this
military and political context.
Kathryn Gehred (09:03):
That is so fascinating. I'm actually not
familiar with that GeorgeWashington story, but I loved
the idea of him being like, No,we're not feeding the pregnant
women. What, what? But you don'treally think about, I mean, you
hear about camp followers orwhatever. But that is an
essential service, who's washingthese clothes? And who are the
people doing nursing? And Iimagine there was some sex work
(09:25):
and all sorts of things.
Riley Sutherland (09:26):
Absolutely.
Kathryn Gehred (09:27):
That is just such a fascinating story. And
it's something that when you'relooking with my work previously
was the Papers of MarthaWashington. It doesn't come up
quite so much when you'rereading about the fancy officers
wives who are like havingparties and dancing in the war
tents. So this is just such acool perspective that you don't
hear a lot of so I think it'sjust fabulous that you're
working with these documents.We've sort of hinted at who
(09:50):
we're talking about, but can youintroduce me to Phillis who
we're talking about today?Absolutely.
Riley Sutherland (09:53):
So Phillis is from Guinea. She's from West
Africa and is brought to canadvocate and enslave as a young
girl. She is enslaved by peoplenamed Charles and Elizabeth
Hinkley. So she herself isreferred to initially in records
as Phillis Hinkley. But shebegins courting this man who is
also enslaved by the Hinkleys.I'm trying to establish whether
(10:16):
he was leased or sold, but hebecame enslaved by a local
Deacon Israel Wells. And fromthere he was leased to an
apothecary, and he wasresponsible actually for
preparing medications for peopleso he gained a lot of knowledge
as he was working as anapothecary. Phillis this whole
time was trying to getpermission to marry Cuff, but
(10:38):
her enslaver Elizabeth Hinckleywas denying it, she would not
let these two get married.Eventually, you know, the
revolutionary war breaks out andcough decides to enlist in the
Continental Army in exchange forhis freedom. At this point, he
and Phillis make a pact thatthey are going to marry each
other as soon as possible duringor by the end of the war. And
(11:02):
Cuff continues to go to theHinkley's estate in New London,
Connecticut to visit Phillis. Onone of those visits, Piyllis
became pregnant and she decidedto use that as well as her
husband service sort of asleverage to finally convince
Elizabeth to let her marry Cuff,they get married, and this is
about the time Cuff in servicethey get married in May of 1783.
(11:26):
Cuff uses his payment topurchase three acres of land
nearby in Connecticut and he andPhillis lived there together and
farm that lands independentlytogether for about five years,
which is when cough dies ofinfluenza. So Phillis eventually
remarries to another man namedAnthony Tatton and he continues
(11:47):
to live in that house withPhyllis that coffin purchased
with her his revolutionary warearnings. They continue to farm
it until Anthony himself diesand in 1837 So shortly after
this pension Act is passed,Phillis decides she wants to
apply for Cuff's, RevolutionaryWar pension, she's pretty poor
at this point. She's living withthe help of her son, also named
Kathryn Gehred (12:09):
With that excellent introduction, let's
Anthony, but she wants a way tosupplement that assistance. She
wants a way to start bringing inadditional money and decides
she's going to apply for hispension. So in the document we
have today, Phillis is appearingin court on November 3 ,1837 and
one of her first depositionsasking for that pension.
(12:35):
dive into the document.
Riley Sutherland (12:36):
State of Connecticut} County of New
London} In Colchester 3rdNovember 1837 On this 3rd Day
of Nov. 1837 Personally Appeardbefore the County of Probate
Phillis Tatton, a resident ofLebanon in the County of New
London and State of Connecticut,Aged about eighty five years
(12:57):
(not knowing her exact age asshe was brot from Guinia when a
Child)—who being first dulysworn according to Law, doth on
her oath make the followingdeclaration. She was Married to
Cuff Saunders, Alias Cuff Wells,who was commonly called Doctr.
Cuff, who was a Slave of IsraelWells of South Colchester, and
(13:20):
that in Order to obtain hisfreedom enlisted into the Army
of the United States in theWinter of 1777 as a Private
Soldier, for the term of duringthe War—and was placed in a
Regiment commanded by Col. JohnDurkee & Benjamin Troop who was
a Brother to my old MistressMrs. Elizabeth Hinckley. Was
(13:43):
first a Capt. then a Majr insaid Regiment when he did duty
as a Private army waiter to theSurgeon of said regiment and it
having been discovered by theOfficers of said regiment that
the said Cuff possessedconsiderable Medical skill by
having some Years before been aSlave, of Doctr Langrel of
(14:06):
Hartford who was a Physician andkept an apothecary Store where
the said Cuff learnt the Act ofpreparing & mixing Medicine, he
was accordingly placed in theHospital as a waiter & assistant
to the Surgeon and part of thetime he acted as an Assistant to
the Apothecary Store belongingto the Continental Army at
(14:29):
Danbury in said State where hecontinued till late in the fall
of 1783. That we had agreed toMarry each other before he went
into the Army. That he returnedhome in the Month of May 1783 on
a Furlough, dressed in Uniformwith red facings and the letters
U.S.A. on his buttons, at whichtime she further declares that
(14:54):
she was Married to the said CuffSaunders Alias Cuff Wells who
was commonly called Doctor Cuff,in the Month of May 1783 at the
House of my Master CharlesHinkley in Goshen in said
Lebanon by the Rev. TimothyStone deceased, then Minister
over the Society of said Goshen,and that the said Cuff soon
(15:17):
after returned to the Army atsaid Danbury where he continued
until late in the fall 1783. That he returned home, purchased
about three Acres of Land, builta small House in said Lebanon,
near the line of Colchesterwhere we lived together until
Dec. 1788. And that her Husbandthe aforesaid Cuff Saunders,
(15:40):
Alias Cuff Wells died in theMonth of Dec. 1788 after a
severe sickness with theInfluenza. Doctor Coleman died a
number of Years since likewisebelonged to the Revolutionary
Army and lived a Neighbour,attended my said Husband as
Physician in his late sickness. And she further declares that
(16:02):
she has no documentary evidenceexcept the Certificate from the
State Comptroller as to hisservice as a Soldier and the
certificates of the Rev. Mr,Otis & Peleg Thomas Esq. of both
her Marriages—and that she atpresent knows of no person who
can testify as to the Sd. Cuffremaining in service except
(16:25):
Doct. John R. Wastrous & MissElenor Hewit Phillis Tatton
Her mark X
Kathryn Gehred (16:31):
Beautiful. Excellent, thank you. One of the
things that I noticed the firsttime I was reading this is that
it sort of switches to somebodysaying she, and then I, and I
think you sort of explained thatat the beginning that this is
somebody writing notes, right,as she's giving testimony. Do
you think it's the clerk is sortof sometimes reading exactly
what she says? And thensometimes trying to sort of
(16:51):
translate it is that yourunderstanding?
Riley Sutherland (16:53):
That is my understanding. And you make a
really important point, bynoticing that change between the
third and first person? We haveto face the question, which is
difficult. What extent isPhillis, his voice in this
document? And it's somethingI've had a lot of professors and
other researchers asked me, Howdo you know, the clerk is really
representing her voice in thisdocument. And it's something
(17:15):
tough that we have to grapplewith, especially because the
individuals who are writingthese are constantly trying to
assess the veracity of herclaims. So they're always making
judgments of her character. ButI think in those moments where
we can hear, can switch, welived in a house together, we
were married, the clerk was sortof getting interested and really
drawn into this testimony anddid start recording it as
(17:38):
closely as he could to her wordsin those spots, which is really
fascinating.
Yes. So they just keep repeatingall of these names over and over
the Cuff Wells is what he wouldhave been known as when he went
(18:19):
into the Army Wells coming fromthe name of his enslaver Israel
Wells, who was a deacon and Cuffis it comes from the Icann,
Kofi, meaning born on Friday. Sothis is pointing back to his
experiences his childhood inAfrica and West Africa, maybe
from near where Phillis was fromas well. And then we have the
(18:41):
wells as a marker of hisenslavement. Right before he
buries Phiillis in 1783. The menand his regiment report that he
starts going by Cuff Saundersinstead he decides to call
himself that now that he's free.I've tried to figure out where
the Saunders comes from, and Ihave not been able to piece that
(19:02):
together at this point. But hischild also ends up taking this
name Saunders as does Phillis.So her file is under Phillis
Hinkley Saunders Tatton TheTatton and coming from her other
marriage.
Kathryn Gehred (19:16):
That's so fascinating. For starters I
never put together that the namethat white people would write
down as Kofi was probably kofi.And that just blew my mind a
little bit. But it makes it hardto study people when people's
names change all the time, butit happens all the time,
particularly with enslavedpeople who are sort of being
given their enslavers names,people are often very eager to
change that a lot of times. Sothat follows that makes perfect
(19:39):
sense.
Riley Sutherland (19:40):
And it was difficult for Phillis because as
you mentioned to the names werechanging all the time, she had
to provide documentary evidenceof his pay off his service. And
along the whole way, she had toprove that cough wells really
was the same person as coughSaunders who was the same person
as Dr. Cuff. And that becomesreally difficult for her to the
(20:00):
point where she actually had tosummon former Army surgeons and
officers to appear in court andtestify that he really did go by
all of these different names,which is an added complication
she faced, that a white widowoften did not struggle with
unless she had married a soldierwho was a French, in which case,
she had to explain differentnaming practices or customs.
Kathryn Gehred (20:24):
That is very interesting. And this is like so
common, right? Women get marriedand change their names, then
somebody dies and they'reremarried to they get more
names. But it seems like thatjust blows bureaucrats minds.
Like it's impossible that peoplejust act like this is so insane
from a modern historianperspective, even just digitally
searching for people when youdon't know if she'd be
classified under Mrs. CliffSaunders, alias Cuff Wells, who
(20:46):
was called Dr. Cuff, like, howwould you find Phillis, this
time when you read it? It justsort of struck me where she
mentions every once awhile,she'll go into a little bit of
detail. And so knowing sort ofhow this scene was going, I
imagine one of the people thatshe's talking to magistrates
asked her to add some detailname and name or something. She
mentioned when he comes backfrom the war, he's wearing his
(21:08):
red uniform that has USA on thebuttons, right? So that is such
an interesting little fact thathe remembers a detail like that,
and that be that can help themtime. Like okay, when were
people wearing uniforms likethis to a certain timeframe?
Riley Sutherland (21:23):
Yes, and it also helps her establish her
claim with other people. She'shaving testify. So Eleanor Hewit
is somebody she mentions there.Eleanor live nearby Phillis and
actually attended Phillis hiswedding. Because Phillis is
enslavers or at this point.Almost her former and slavers
invited their neighbors toPhillis and Cuff's wedding,
(21:45):
which is something thatsurprised me as I was reading
these documents. But Eleanorlikewise says, I can prove that
I was at coughs wedding becausehe was in his military uniform.
And I can describe it at herdescription of his uniform is
almost identical to felicitouswhich made me wonder, did they
communicate about this beforethey both testified? Is this
(22:06):
something they were trying touse because widows and the
people they brought with them,we often have evidence would sit
and they would discuss it.There's even one son who was
trying to help his mother get apension. And he wrote after he
was rejected, asking for a listof every person who succeeded in
the state of Connecticut so hecould communicate with them to
learn what they did and try toreplicate it. So those little
(22:30):
details are really helpful pegs.An d they also make it difficult
because they need to bereplicated through so many
different testimonies to preventdiscrepancies that would
undermine the claim.
Kathryn Gehred (22:40):
For a war that ended 50 years ago, right? Just
you can miss remember whensomebody came home wearing the
cool outfit so easily. And alsofascinating that her and slavers
were like, No, you can't getmarried? No, you can't get
married. But when you do getmarried, we're gonna make it a
priority. Obviously, there's aton to dig into. There's so much
but I feel like everything aboutthis story sort of challenges a
(23:00):
lot of preconceived notionsabout what life in the
Continental Army was like. Didyou agree did it affect the way
that you saw military life inthe Continental Army?
Riley Sutherland (23:08):
It really did. And multiple ways I think the
first of which is just bychallenging me to see how porous
this distinction betweenmilitary life and life on the
homefront really was. I oftenmyself create this artificial
barrier between women who werewith quote, unquote, the army,
and women who are on thehomefront. But really even
widows who were not travelingwith the army were so connected
(23:32):
to it. For example, withPhillis, she asked a local
storekeeper a clerk to write tocuff, asking him to come home
and marry her. So she's like,let's work out your furlough.
Let's figure out when you can,you know, get on leave. They
were nearby, she was able to usehis military service to secure
her own marriage. And so thisdocument really illuminates the
(23:54):
ways that even women on thehomefront were drastically
impacted by their connections tothe military.
I was also talking with a friendabout this document the other
day, and he mentioned, you know,it's kind of surprising to me to
hear about cuff, liberatinghimself regaining his freedom by
serving for the ContinentalArmy, because we both have read
(24:15):
so much about individualsliberating themselves by taking
advantage of Dunmore'sProclamation and going to the
British army. So Dunmore was thegovernor who promised enslaved
people if they could make it tothe British Army and they were
enslaved by patriots. They couldbe free if they served the army.
We don't have this binary of,well, enslaved people could gain
(24:37):
their freedom by going to theBritish, and that was the way
they could gain their freedom.There's evidence of women who
liberated themselves fromslavery, and they ran to the
Continental Army to try to meetup with their husbands who were
black soldiers. In this case, wesee cough deciding to enlist
locally with the ContinentalArmy. And so I think it also
complicates the way we viewloyalties protect literally
(25:00):
enslaved people's loyaltiesduring the American Revolution,
to see that they were reallyassessing different options
available to them.
Kathryn Gehred (25:09):
That struck me as well. It seems like having an
enslaved person army, or a freeblack person in the army might
be like more of an exception.You like, don't see that when
you're watching movies about theAmerican Revolution very often,
and things like that. And thenalso the fact that he was able
to join and be the doctor,right? Like he's the person
bringing these medical skills isjust super cool and fascinating
(25:32):
to me that everybody was like,this is a time of war. He knows
how to mix drugs together. He'sDr. Cuff.
Riley Sutherland (25:38):
Yes. And we see that for women to some
extent, too. There's a whitewoman whose pension application
I've studied in depth, SarahBenjamin, and she describes
joining the army and she'swashing and making bread, and
she's doing it alongside a blackwoman named Loretta. So black
women, too, would be sometimesteaching white women how to do
certain tasks as well, that wereessential for the army. So I
(26:00):
think it's really important,what you just pointed out that
they're not in subservientroles, they might be portrayed
in and film if Black individualsare portrayed in the military at
all in the Continental Army. Butin many instances, there are
leaders bringing their ownknowledge to military lines.
Kathryn Gehred (26:17):
So I just wanted to like briefly go on a slight
tangent. There's been somediscussion about Florida
educational standards, talkingabout slavery. And they've
mentioned in Florida educationalstandards, that they're going to
bring up moments when a slavelearned a skill during slavery
that they were able to use totheir own advantage after
slavery. And I could see peoplevery quickly using this as an
(26:38):
example of that happening. But Ijust want to say quickly, the
whole point of that argument isjust a distraction from actually
trying to look into therealities of the history of
slavery. It's one of thosethings where it's like, like a
gotcha, it's like, look, I canfind this one guy who learned
how to use a skill while he wasenslaved and apothecary. But the
(27:00):
main question of slavery is sosimple, which is that people
should not be treated asproperty. And the fact that
people were able to be competenthuman beings and turn things to
their advantage, should not beused as an argument that say,
slavery isn't so bad. If Kofihad been able to, to be a free
(27:21):
person and get medical degree onhis own, and be able to make
money and live as a free person,much earlier, wouldn't his life
have been so much better insteadof having to beg for literally
every single thing? And that'sthe sort of central question
about this to me?
Riley Sutherland (27:34):
Absolutely. And we also don't know what
medical skills he had before hewas enslaved as well. So what if
he's bringing skills to thisapothecary, that the apothecary
wouldn't have had before.similarly to the way he's
bringing medical knowledge intothe Continental Army camp, and
the clerk frames it similarly tothe way the Florida education
system wants to frame it, askind of came to this apothecary,
(27:58):
and he was bestowed with thisknowledge. Interestingly,
Phillis and Cuff's son, PrinceSaunders goes on to become a
very important figure in his ownright, and an education minister
of Haiti. But he was educated atDartmouth, and in his obituary,
it very conspicuously mentionsit's because Phillis's
enslaver's son decided to be sohim with this start with
(28:21):
education. It's the similarframing that overlooks knowledge
that people like cough wouldhave had, and shared with
others.
Kathryn Gehred (28:30):
And in particular, you mentioned the
black woman who maybe had joinedas laundresses, and nurses and
things like that. It's not likewomen who own slaves don't know
how to do these things, becausehaving enslaved people do all
that for them. So of course, thework that they're doing is
incredibly valuable to the wareffort. And to just see hard
evidence of that, in thisdocument of her talking about
(28:52):
this particular situation. It'sjust very satisfying to me.
Phillis just seems like a verytalented person, and convincing
person and it's so cool that herson went to Dartmouth, and just
continued being exceptional.We've talked a little bit about
Phillis, outside of this letter,she mentions towards the end
that she has no documentaryevidence to back her story up.
(29:14):
I've talked in an earlierepisode about how hard it was
for enslaved people to getdocumentary evidence for
literally anything. In thesouth. Enslaved marriages
weren't seen as legal, youcouldn't testify in court,
you're basically removed frombeing able to be taken seriously
as like a legal identity. Andthen because of that, the paper
trail that historians and thepeople who are looking into
(29:36):
these pension files would usejust don't exist. So it makes it
a lot easier to erase somebody.Do you find that coming up a lot
in these pension files of women,poor women, women across
classes, black women, enslavedwomen? Is that something that
you notice quite a bit?
Riley Sutherland (29:51):
It is, yes. And I have to admit, I laughed
at this line and Phillis, histestimony. I have no documentary
evidence except this certificateof my marriage that I As
somebody to create, becausethat's more documentary evidence
than most widows have, I'mthinking Phillis, you have
evidence don't undermine yourevidence. Many widows yes, they
would have a difficult time. Solike Phillis, they would sort of
(30:13):
try to create their ownevidence, particularly women who
had been enslaved. Some wouldtake Phillis as approach. So she
knew she was getting ready tosubmit this claim. And a couple
of weeks earlier in October of1837, found a way to communicate
with local reference. Maybe shewent in person, she also had a
local clerk and one of herformer enslavers stores right
(30:37):
for her sometimes. And shecommunicated with Reverend and
even with the State Comptrollersaying, Can you please send me a
written paper that says you werehere when I married my husband,
or in one case, it was the sonof the minister, and she asked
the Comptroller, can you sendwhatever proof you have, that my
husband was paid for hisservice? Other Black widows in
(31:00):
particular, would ask forwritten evidence that there was
no evidence. So one inparticular, who I'm thinking of,
she received a piece of paperfrom the local church. And it
said, Well, we did not keeprecords of Black people's
marriages between this years,there is no evidence. So she had
(31:21):
created evidence from thissilence and use this piece of
paper as credible proof, which Ialso think says a lot about what
the War Department believed wascredible that if you made
silence into something tangible,signed by a leading man of the
community, it could fill asilence that a woman's oral
store you would not be able to.So it's interesting. Other women
(31:43):
would submit things likeneedlepoint samplers, so women
were very creative andovercoming the silences,
although it was difficult, andPhyllis had to confront that
challenge for over three yearsbefore she succeeded.
Kathryn Gehred (31:58):
That's crazy. You said three years of trying
to get this pension. Does sheget the money?
Riley Sutherland (32:04):
She does, but it was a very fraught process.
And she almost did not get allof the money, but she continued
to fight for what she believesshe deserves. So the situation
is this act of 1836. Rightrequires that you married before
your husband's term of servicehad expired. So Phyllis says
husband cuff enlisted in 1777.He was discharged in fall of
(32:29):
1783. They married in May of1783. So that is before he
stopped serving. But the WarDepartment says well, we don't
have written evidence that hewas paid after January of 1781.
So how do we know that he wasserving after 1781, and that you
really married him after he wasa soldier. So Phillis has all of
(32:52):
this oral testimony of men whoswear that they had served
alongside him, but because shedoesn't have a payroll from
1783. They rule she does notqualify under this pension act.
Another pension Act was passedin 1838. And that allowed widows
(33:13):
who married before I believe itwas 1794, to claim a pension for
five years as opposed to life.And the person in charge of the
War Department said, Well,Phillis clearly married before
1794. So why don't you applyunder this? And she asked a
local storekeeper, who washelping her to reply, no, I
qualify for a life pension and Iam going to receive my life
(33:36):
pension. She gets into a trickysituation because the only real
strong oral testimony she canprovide that her husband was
still serving at the end of thewar, comes from a man who comes
before the court and says, Iknow he was married to Phillis
before he stopped serving,because he came and he gave me
(33:58):
some camphor to smell a type ofmedication. And cough made the
comment to me, Well, my wifePhillis will be needing some of
that soon, too, because she'sgoing to be sick, she's going to
be having a child. And I amgoing to marry her before that
happens. And then he left tomarry her.
Well, Phillis, until this point,had not told the court that she
(34:19):
was pregnant before she wasmarried, which wasn't by any
means uncommon, but all of asudden, the court believes this
is a blemish on her character.Her lawyer even makes the
comment that she's a woman avery strong merit, except for
during the instance I justmentioned, but it's
understandable considering she'dbeen coding for seven years. So
(34:40):
she has to now overcome thisprejudice. And I have to wonder
if she knew she was going toface that but believed it was
the only way she could get paid.So she puts herself through
this. But then the wardepartment decides, Okay, maybe
this is proof you married beforeyour husband's term of service
was up but then you read Youmarried to somebody else after
(35:01):
he died. And your status asAnthony tattles widow supersedes
and invalidates your status ascough Saunders is widow. And at
this point, Phillis is verydistressed, she's indigent,
she's furious with theseexcuses, the War Department
seems to be making up to denyher a pension. So she petitions
(35:24):
Congress, she petitions thecommittee of claims in Congress
and says the War Department isnot accepting my claim, but I
deserve a pension for life. Bythis point, it's about 1840. And
she finally receives a favorablereport from the Committee of
claims and 1841 that she shouldreceive a pension for life. But
(35:47):
then Congress adjourns beforethey can go any further with it.
In 1842, Congress decides thatshe, you know, again, she should
receive a pension her petitioncomes back up, but now they've
added that it should only be forfive years, as the board
department had initially said.So Phillis, on her lawyer right
back again, refusing, sayingthat she deserves a pension for
(36:09):
life. And she finally receivedit in 1842. So about five years
after she first applied
Kathryn Gehred (36:19):
The fact that these were department, ghouls
are just sitting there judgingthis person, when their whole
job is deciding who deserves toget money is just so
infuriating. Oh, my God. No, Ithink you're right. That sounds
completely reasonable that shemight have avoided mentioning
the fact that she was pregnantbefore she got married. But also
(36:41):
the fact that enslaved peoplelegally that marriage didn't
mean anything. The fact that shehas to wait for her in slavers
is to give her permission to getmarried. All of that it's just
absolutely infuriating. Good onPhillis for fighting it out for
sticking to her guns and justcontinuously fighting it that is
so fabulous. So this is a seasonabout wit, which sometimes we
have been talking about in termsof, you know, somebody writing
(37:03):
something funny, or using sortof language play. In this case,
I think this is somebody who isusing their wits to achieve a
goal. The deck was stackedagainst her for this, to get
this pension for a number ofreasons that she is able to, as
a free Black woman, get all thistogether, get her team together,
(37:24):
sort of strategize what she'sgoing to say and when she's
going to say it. What anincredible person.
Riley Sutherland (37:29):
Absolutely and her ability to turn to all of
these different types ofevidence I didn't mention, she
even submitted her son'sobituary in a newspaper, which
briefly mentioned, oh, he wasthe son of Phyllis and cough,
say, Look, can you accept thenewspaper as proof of my
marriage. So she was constantlythinking of new ways to try to
produce evidence to findevidence, which is even more
(37:51):
exceptional to me when Iremember that she didn't know
how to read or write. So she wasreally using her wit, especially
socially, to draw upon hernetworks and connections that
made it possible for her tonavigate a complex political
system, one that would have beencomplex for somebody who knew
how to read and write.
Kathryn Gehred (38:08):
What do you want people to get from this story?
Riley Sutherland (38:11):
I think one of the biggest takeaways for me is
to look at somebody like Philliswoman who had been an enslaved a
free Black woman, and to seethat she was a political actor,
someone who was not only awareof the political system around
her and have her own politicalefficacy, her ability to
(38:34):
advocate for her own interestslocally and on a federal level,
but that she was prepared toparticipate in that for such a
prolonged period. So tenaciouslyis very important. And the fact
that Phillis isn't an anomaly, Ithink it's important to take
away, because it's easy to reada document like this and think,
wow, how exceptional the lawyerwho was writing this pension
(38:56):
file wrote that she was, quote,The most remarkable, intelligent
colored woman in quote. So he'strying to portray her somehow as
exceptional for a Black woman.And Phillis is exceptional in
the sense that she is incrediblyintelligent, but she's not
exceptional in the sense thatshe's an anomaly. There were
(39:17):
many other black women likePhillis who had become free
during the war, and who weredrawing upon their local
networks to try to advocate forpension files, even as they were
facing tremendous discriminationfrom the War Department. So to
see that I think is really,really important to see women as
their own political advocates,particularly in an era like the
(39:40):
1830s and 40s. When it's easy tofocus on white abolitionists or
white individuals who wereadvocating for black rights and
to see how even illiterate womenlike Phillis were able to be
some of their own strongestvoices.
Kathryn Gehred (39:56):
That's such a great point. This is one of the
stories that we know but thatdoesn't necessarily mean that
this was someone who wascompletely distinct and unique.
Riley Sutherland (40:06):
If anybody who's listening is really
interested in these pensionfiles and wants to read more,
the National Archives has imagesof them all online. But they are
not transcribed. So there are10s of 1000s of files, like
Phillis is out there justwaiting to be discovered. And
anyone can help transcribe themthrough the National Archives,
(40:27):
they have this Citizen Archivisttool where anyone can go on and
read these pictures andtranscribe them, which means
they're searchable. And you canfind more women like Phillis who
are kind of disappeared intothese difficult to navigate
archives. So if anyone feelsinclined to read some files like
this on your own, or to maybetry your hand at transcribing,
(40:47):
or doing some of your ownresearch, I would absolutely
recommend looking at that toolon the National Archives
website.
Kathryn Gehred (40:54):
Thats's awesome. That's so important. And as
somebody that transcribed a lotof letters as my job for a long
time, it's fun, it's worthwhile,it takes a little getting used
to. But if you are looking forsomething, if you are bored on
any big and you're like, maybe Iwant to read a completely
fascinating letter from 200years ago, there's much worse
(41:15):
ways to spend your time rally.This is such a fabulous
conversation. I cannot wait tosee the work that you do with
all of this and with your futurecareer, anywhere you want to
point people to.
Riley Sutherland (41:26):
I have a personal website that I post
updates on, and it is linked tomy Twitter, which is at RKG
Sutherland. So I'll be sure topost Phillis is full pension
file on there in case anybodywants to read more details about
her life, any of the otherdepositions, as well as some
updates about otherrevolutionary war widows.
Kathryn Gehred (41:47):
Fantastic. So I will link to your Twitter and
we'll link to some of theseresources in the show notes. For
my listeners, thank you so muchfor listening. I am as ever,
Your Most Obedient & HumbleServant. Thank you very much.
Your Most Obedient & HumbleServant is a production of R2
(42:07):
Studios at the Roy RosenzweigCenter for History and New Media
at George Mason University. I'mKathryn Gehred, the creator and
host of this podcast. JeanettePatrick and Jim Ambuske are the
executive producers. If youenjoyed this episode, be sure to
listen to past episodes andcheck out more great podcasts
(42:27):
from R2 Studios. We tellunexpected stories based on the
latest research to connectlisteners with the past. So head
to R2studios.org to startlistening
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.