December 20, 2024 • 47 mins
Ramin Ganeshram joins Kathryn Gehred to discuss excerpts from Janet Shaw’s Journal of a lady of quality; being the narrative of a journey from Scotland to the West Indies, North Carolina, and Portugal, in the years 1774 to 1776. Ganeshram and Gehred explore life under martial law in North Carolina and the fear and paranoia among white colonists because of a supposed insurrection by enslaved people.
Ramin Ganeshram is the executive director of the Westport Museum for History and Culture in Westport, Connecticut. She is an award winning journalist and historian, and she specializes in addressing how public history can truthfully and faithfully address American history around race and identity. She also has a background in writing about food history and foodways.
Find the official transcript here.
Your Most Obedient & Humble Servant is a production of R2 Studios part of the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media at George Mason University.
Journal of a lady of quality; being the narrative of a journey from Scotland to the West Indies, North Carolina, and Portugal, in the years 1774 to 1776, Janet Shaw, Edited by Evangeline Walker Andrews, in collaboration with Charles McLean Andrews, Yale Universtiy Press, 1921, https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc2.ark:/13960/t02z15h83?urlappend=%3Bseq=222.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Kathryn Gehred (00:00):
This episode of Your Most Obedient & Humble
Servant is supported by the Dr.Scholl Foundation.
Hello and welcome to Your MostObedient & Humble Servant, this
is a women's history podcastwhere we feature 18th and early
19th century women's lettersthat don't get as much attention
(00:21):
as we think they should. I'myour host. Kathryn Gehred. I'm
thrilled to introduce today'sguest, Ramin Ganeshram. Ramin is
the executive director of theWestport Museum for History and
Culture in Westport,Connecticut. She's an award
winning journalist andhistorian, and she specializes
in addressing how public historycan truthfully and faithfully
(00:41):
address American history aroundrace and identity. She also has
a background in writing aboutfood history and food ways.
Welcome to the show. Ramin,thank you so much.
Ramin Ganeshram (00:51):
I'm so happy to be here.
Kathryn Gehred (00:53):
Can you tell me a little bit about 18th century
recipes and bring in your ownexperience as a chef?
Ramin Ganeshram (01:00):
Oh sure. So I am a trained chef, and one of
the things I really have learnedbeing a chef and a journalist
and a historian is that everyoneloves to talk about food when
the topic is difficult or sortof fraught. Food is a great
access point to get people totalk about it, because, again,
(01:23):
everyone loves to talk aboutfood. For example, at Westport
museum last year, we did a wholeexhibit on chocolate in the
American colonies, about howchocolate was grown, processed
and imported to the Americancolonies in the 17th and 18th
century, people loved it. We dida lot of programming, but it was
(01:44):
really an exhibit about theAtlantic trade, about
enslavement in the Americancolonies, particularly in New
England, where the story ofslavery is often under told, if
told at all, but that sweettastes of chocolate allowed us
to talk about a very bitterhistory, in a way, I hate to say
this, but stealthily gettingpeople into the topic while
(02:07):
they're enjoying a little tasteof something.
Kathryn Gehred (02:09):
That's fascinating, you bring up ways
to talk about slavery in apublic history setting. We're
going to be talking about adocument that deals with slavery
quite a bit. Can you tell me alittle bit about what we're
going to be looking at today andhow you how you found it?
Ramin Ganeshram (02:24):
Yeah, absolutely, in fact, the way I
found this document was doingfood history research, or a book
that I'm completing about howCaribbean food waste and
heritage really impacted foodhistory and history at large in
what later became the UnitedStates. And so looking for
(02:44):
primary resources to talk about18th century cuisine and
ingredients in the Caribbean andhow it ties back into the
American colonies, I found thisjournal that was actually a
compilation of letters writtento some unknown person back in
Scotland by a woman named JanetShaw. And Janet Shaw was
(03:08):
Scottish. She traveled to theBritish colonies in the
Caribbean and, of course, NorthAmerica. Between these two
years, 1774 and 1776 in thecompany of three young people
who were the children of a locallandowner from where she was
from, in Scotland. And I foundher material because she wrote a
(03:31):
lot about the food of theCaribbean in great detail. It
was an incredibly usefulresource. So in writing these
letters in this journal form tothis unknown person. She
describes everything around herfor my purposes at the time,
including food. But what wassuper interesting to me was she
(03:51):
wrote firsthand accounts to thelead up to the American
Revolution when she arrived inNorth Carolina.
Kathryn Gehred (03:58):
That's an interesting time to come visit.
So do you know much about JanetShwa? It's interesting that she
was keeping a diary and writingletters in that format.
Ramin Ganeshram (04:07):
It is and not much is really known about her.
She was from a middle to uppermiddle class family in Scotland.
She was either 36 or 46 there'slike the 10 year gap in trying
to understand how old she waswhen she made this trip. She
wasn't married at the time, sothere's some speculation because
(04:29):
of the language she uses abouthow happy she and the other
person the recipient are goingto be when they get to see each
other again. Then it might havebeen love interest, rather than
simply a friend, and more isknown about her brother, who was
doing business in the WestIndies had come to do business
in the North American colonies,and they really were associated
(04:53):
with other loyalists when theyfinally arrived, that split had
just happened. So. So prior, shewas visiting other British
colonies or areas of the realm,and now suddenly she finds
herself kind of lumped in with agroup of people, this separation
the loyalist versus the patriot,but that and the fact that after
(05:15):
her travel, she returned toScotland, kind of took up her
place to get her most prominentfamily. At one point, met George
III and Queen Charlotte. Theywere reviewing the battery in
the town where she was from.That's not much known about her.
She's a very precise and carefulcorrespondent, and that's so
(05:38):
useful, of course, to us ashistorians.
Kathryn Gehred (05:42):
Her letters were published as The Journal of a
lady of quality, being anarrative of a journey from
Scotland to the west. Indiesfrom 1774 to 1776 the version
that I found online waspublished in 1921 so there's a
little bit of just like, Oh,it's a woman. That's all the
work we need to do to find outwho it is. She's a lady of
(06:04):
quality, but she seems reallyinteresting, and it is, you're
right, when you start lookinginto these letters, it's such a
valuable document, like I cansee why it was published so
early, but in that kind ofinteresting way that women's
documents sometimes are treatedas, what a curiosity.
Ramin Ganeshram (06:21):
Yes, what I understand the documents
themselves were just, there wasa, I think, three extant copies,
two of which were kept withinthe family and just passed down.
Was a curiosity, as you say, thewhole idea of the lady of
quality is really interesting tome because that language was a
signifier that she could betrusted, that she had some level
(06:45):
of education, that she wasn'tjust gallivanting around the
world on her own. She wastraveling in the company of her
brother and these three youngpeople who she was shepherding,
which might have been presumablywhy she was there. There's not a
discussion about why sheundertook this journey, but it
seems very likely that that waswhy, that there had to be sort
(07:06):
of a female chaperone. One ofthe children was a young woman
at the age of 18. She was theperson referred to as Fanny
throughout the narrative.
Kathryn Gehred (07:14):
Yeah. That is really interesting.
Ramin Ganeshram (07:15):
It is. It is almost signifiers, yeah.
Kathryn Gehred (07:18):
Yeah, so she did write several copies. We don't
really know who she's writingto. There's some discussion of
whether it was possibly apotential partner or something
like that. Do you think when shewas writing it, from your work
with this, that she meant tokeep it as sort of a private
journal, or did you think shemight even have thought about
potentially publishing it,because sometimes these early
(07:40):
women's journals were published,and particularly epistole letter
format was one of the ways thatwomen at this time period could
write and could get somerecognition for writing.
Ramin Ganeshram (07:51):
I think when you read the detail of this
narrative, that's very possible.There is a lot of self
aggrandizement, which is verycommon, and these sort of to be
published journals. You know,it's difficult to say only in as
much as it doesn't deviatewildly from the accepted
(08:13):
language of the day, but, butshorthand is not often used.
There is, in my reading of it,less assumption of knowledge of
the people involved than onewould have writing to someone
who knew you personally. So Ithink it is very, very possible.
(08:35):
Plus travelogs In this period oftime were wildly popular, you
know, not just from men, butfrom women as well. Was an
incredibly flourishing format. Imean, the amount of travel logs
you could find for this periodof time are really quite
astounding and published. Ithink, yes, I think it is very
possible that somewhere in theback of her mind she was
(08:57):
potentially harboring thosehopes.
Kathryn Gehred (08:59):
This just occurred to me this second. But
you talk about how she writesabout the food in great detail,
it's kind of like going on atrip and making Instagram
accounts about what you'reeating in places. But this was
the sort of version of that ofmy friends back home. This is
what's different about where I'mtraveling to.
Ramin Ganeshram (09:15):
Yes, I agree with you 100% and I think you
know now that we're talkingabout this, thinking about the
format where she kind of musthave kept a letter book or a
journal book, writing theseletters out, versus writing them
and sending because there's noother copies. Right? Obviously,
people use letter books tofashion their thoughts and then
(09:36):
copy out a letter, and thatletter would be sent. You know,
there isn't one, and her familyand the people she associated
with and refers to aresignificant enough to have
archival material out in theworld. These letters are not
extant. That doesn't meananything, but it does not seem
to have come out of a letterbook. And I bring that up to
(09:56):
say, therefore, she had plentyof time. To go back and amend
and edit and add more detail forthe public gaze in this kind of
manner of, you know, being anInstagram or wanting to be sure
that everybody gets every singledetail. It's not really an as an
easily editable format, but it'sthat public gaze. I think you're
(10:19):
right. The more we talk aboutthis, I think it was probably
intended for publication.
Kathryn Gehred (10:25):
I think that's pretty good setup of what we're
talking about. So to dig intothe specific we're going to talk
about an excerpt from a specificletter, and just to set up the
context, where is she at thetime of this? What's going on in
her life?
Ramin Ganeshram (10:38):
In the period of this particular letter, she
has been traveling for about ayear. She has left Antigua in
the West Indies, and now she'sin Wilmington, North Carolina.
She is still with the threechildren she's traveling with,
and is staying a variety offriends. Her brother is with her
for Alexander for a period oftime, and then seems to be
(11:01):
traveling to Boston, which iskind of the hotbed of the
revolutionary activity. This is1775 in addition to writing
about food and about thelandscape and about all the
friends who just are, all shesays are like jostling and
angling for her to stay withthem, which is kind of
(11:22):
interesting. She is observingthis sort of proto revolutionary
activity that is happening inWilmington.
Kathryn Gehred (11:32):
I think the way you said it earlier of she's
gone from British colonies tosuddenly somewhere where being a
loyalist is kind of a dirty wordto certain people, is super
fascinating, particularly sincethere's a lot of debate over how
many people really were patriotsor loyalists in different parts
of the country. And it seemslike she's been sort of thrown
into that, and she'sencountering patriots and
(11:54):
loyalists and all of thistension.
Ramin Ganeshram (11:56):
Yes and she writes about this where she
says, and we'll get into this inthe letters, but she basically,
in this particular context,says, and, you know, everyone's
gonna figure out that we're allon the same side in the end,
kind of like this is just apassing madness, if you will.
It's kind of the way she talksabout it. The people who are in
(12:19):
this moment funking of revoltare being hoodwinked, and they
don't really quite get it. Thispoint in the revolution, Boston
has been blockaded. There'salmost like a price on the head
of Sam Adams, you know, and JohnHancock. It is a serious thing.
It's something that has beendiscussed continually, both in
the United Kingdom and itscolonies. And it's not as if
(12:45):
this is shocking or newinformation to her, but the pace
in which it is progressing thisfar south, if Boston was already
militarized, it was already acity under siege. In a sense,
there was martial law declaredalready in Boston during this
time. In fact, while she'sthere, she discusses a
(13:08):
proclamation from the governorof Massachusetts declaring
martial law, but the idea thatit is trickling down this far is
where I think her kind ofsurprise is that led her to
write about it in such greatdetail.
Kathryn Gehred (13:22):
Yeah, that's interesting. Having read this
before, I noticed she uses thewords wig and Tori a lot when
she says wig. Is she basicallytalking about patriots, or is it
the other way? Right?
Ramin Ganeshram (13:34):
So that's actually confusing. She's
talking about so called. I'msaying so called, right? Because
here's the difficulty in herworld. A patriot is someone
who's loyal, right? Yes, ofcourse, yes, she's referring to
people who rebels were Yes,rebels.
Kathryn Gehred (13:50):
I work for encyclopedia Virginia, and we're
having to pick our words for theRevolutionary War entries, and
there's a lot of confusionsometimes.
Ramin Ganeshram (13:58):
yes, especially because the language around it
didn't solidify until well intothe conflict, if not later,
right?
Kathryn Gehred (14:06):
So is there any other information you think
would be helpful for somebody tohear before we dig into it?
Ramin Ganeshram (14:11):
There's a subtext here that I don't think
the reader may know if you arenot a student of sort of what I
was talking about before, likethe links between all the
British Western Hemispherecolonies in the Caribbean and in
North America, and how much itwas a commercial entity, how
(14:32):
much it was the ground forwealth, for earning money.
That's what her brother iscoming over here to do. He's
coming over here to work. It waskind of this new place where
great amounts of wealth could behad in journals like this. In
her journal entries about theWest Indies or her letters and
(14:54):
of other people, a lot of spaceis given to the wealth of West
India planters. There. Lot oflanguage at the time about being
as rich as a West India planter,and also regarding the southern
plantations in North America, inthe colonies that became the
Southern American states. Ithink that's really important,
(15:17):
because she's coming to thiswith, if not only, an
understanding a deep admirationof the value of this commercial
prospect, which is run on theengine of the labor of enslaved
people. So it's not onlyaccepted as par for the course,
(15:40):
it is considered, in a sense, anadmirable methodology by smart
men to reap profit. I think wehave to remember that in the
context when we read her letter.
Kathryn Gehred (15:52):
That's really well put so the diary of Janet
Shaw in 1775,
Janet Shaw (15:59):
At present martial law stands thus
committeeman enters a plantationwith his posse. The Alternative
is proposed, Agree to join us,and your persons and properties
are safe; you have a shillingsterling a day; your duty is no
more than once a month appearingunder Arms at Wilmingtown, which
(16:20):
will prove only a merry-making,where you will have as much grog
as you can drink. But if yourefuse, we are directly to cut
up your corn, shoot your pigs,burn your houses, seize your
Negroes and perhaps tar andfeather yourself. Not to chuse
the first requires more couragethan they are possessed of, and
(16:42):
I believe this method has seldomfailed with the lower sort. No
sooner to they appear under armson the stated day, then they are
harangued by their officers withthe implacable cruelty of the
king of Great Britain, who hasresolved to murder and destroy
man, wife and child, and that hehas sworn before God and his
(17:04):
parliament that he will notspare one of them; and this
those deluded people believemore firmly than their creed,
and who is it that is boldenough to venture to undeceive
them. The King’s proclamationthey never saw; but are told it
was ordering the tories tomurder the whigs, and promising
(17:25):
every Negro that would murderhis Master and family that he
should have his Master’splantation. This last Artifice
they may pay for, as the Negroeshave got it amongst them and
believe it to be true. Tis tento one they may try the
experiment, and in that casefriends and foes will be all one.
Kathryn Gehred (17:45):
All right, let's talk about that paragraph.
First, I don't think we have thespecific date of this letter,
but it's definitely from 1775and it's after she's arrived in
North Carolina, and she'sdescribing how martial law works
(18:05):
in North Carolina, and she'sbasically making it sound like
the anti British colonists arethreatening you. They're coming
to people's doors and sayingwe're gonna cut your cord, shoot
your pigs, burn your houses ifyou don't join our side, and
that this works. So I don't knowif this is accurate from what
(18:26):
she's seeing, or if this is sortof from her perspective as a
Scottish woman who is very, veryloyalist, she wants this to be a
call me that she can make moneyout of. Now that you set that
context up, she's sort of hopingthat, well, these are people
being bullied into something,but eventually this madness will
end.
Ramin Ganeshram (18:42):
Right. That's the interesting thing, right?
Because she doesn't say that shewitnessed this. She says this is
what she understands fromhappening, and with the context,
based on who she's associatingwith, and what she's doing is
that the people telling her whatis happening are plantation
owners. She's visiting societypeople in the town that are
(19:04):
saying to one another, this iswhat's going on. And I read it
as hyperbole. Perhaps she didn'tknow it was hyperbole. And the
reason why is that theproclamation she's talking about
that no one has ever seen, thatthey're banding about this
King's proclamation is really aproclamation by General Gage,
(19:27):
governor of Massachusetts at thetime, that says, This is your
chance to basically be givenamnesty for your uprising. And
it's really funny, he's sayingeveryone but Sam Adams and John
Hancock, but everybody else whotook up arms against the crowd,
who have harassed Britishsoldiers, who have just promoted
this madness, we're willing togive amnesty. This is one of
(19:49):
those forays into we're willingto take you back into the fold
or put this behind us. Stop.Just stop. He doesn't mention
the enslaved people. He doesn'tmention that this idea, which
later does become an actualproclamation from the king at
the end of this year, where theking says, This is the famous
(20:12):
leave your enslaver and joinloyalists, and you'll get
freedom, and you will get landand so on. That's not what this
refers to at all. And it refersto a document where the
enslaved, in fact, are notmentioned whatsoever. So what I
think happened, which all gotwrapped up into this kind of
hyperbole, and this to me, whatI'm about to say to my mind,
(20:36):
garters, more proof around theidea that this was a lot of
gossip whipped up into astatement like this, and it is
several months before thisproclamation by Gage, on behalf
of the crown, as an ActingGovernor, colonial governor,
received a petition by enslavedpeople in Massachusetts,
(20:58):
petitioning for their Liberty,stating that enslavement is
against the laws of man,specifically outlining physical
abuse, including sexual abuseand assault of enslaved women.
He does not answer the petition.It is ignored by the
Massachusetts coloniallegislature. Interestingly,
(21:18):
these petitions became fairlyregular during the course of the
revolution, wanting here inConnecticut, there was one later
in both in 1739 in NewHampshire, this idea of, okay,
you're all proclaiming therights to liberty. Well, that's
what we're talking about now.Let's really talk about it. Gage
(21:41):
ignores it. The legislatureignores it. But clearly it was
talked about. And to me, all ofthis sort of gossip and passing
of information conflatestogether with this proclamation
into this hyperbolic idea ofwhat you're being told is this
is what's going to happen.
Kathryn Gehred (22:00):
That's so fascinating, yeah, because I
looked at that proclamation aswell. And first off, for people
who've been listening to thepodcast, it is signed by his
excellencies command, ThomasFlucker, secretary, who was the
father of Lucy Flucker, who wetalked about in a previous
episode. So a very well hatedguy on the revolutionary side
when I first read it, assomebody who's from Virginia and
(22:22):
does a lot of Virginia history,I immediately thought of
Dunmore's Proclamation. And Iwas like, Oh, she's talking
about Lord Dunmore'sProclamation, but that's not
yet. That's later. And so itdoes seem to me, Dunmore is also
hearing all of these rumors andgossip and what people are
afraid of happening, and theenslaved people are petitioning
on their own behalf. They arefighting for this. They're
(22:44):
making a very clear point that,hey, you're fighting for
liberty. What about us? And itseems like people like Thomas
Gage and the Crown aren't reallyseriously considering it right,
because they want to sort ofpacify people. But Dunmore hits
a point where he's like, No,let's do it. Let's promise
enslaved people that if theyfight for Britain, that they
will earn their freedom.
Ramin Ganeshram (23:05):
I think that's really good point on your part.
I mean, I think that Dunmore wasbasically saying, let's call
their bluff. Yeah, really gothere and then they're finally
going to back down. And kind ofhad to make good on a promise
that he probably didn't want tokeep? No, I likely did not want
to keep.
Kathryn Gehred (23:23):
It doesn't seem like Dunmore was a great
abolitionist. I think he wasthinking in more of like a
reactionary knee jerk way,because once he actually had all
of these people who were veryinvested in fighting for their
own liberty, he didn't know whatto do with them. That's great.
This is why I like these littlesnapshots into a moment in time,
because this is all happeningbefore dunmores proclamation,
but it really helps sort of talkabout what's going on.
Ramin Ganeshram (23:45):
And I think it also implies what we know from
letters like this and otherletters clearly, and newspaper
accounts and so on, how muchthis was discussed by people of
the time. Because there's onlyone way that the gage
proclamation and this idea ofthe enslaved petition, the
(24:08):
Massachusetts legislature, thegovernor, there's only one way
that information got around, andthat's people writing to each
other and saying, this happened.And you know, this is what's
going on. So that informationspread almost like gossip, like
wildfire, and that, to me, isvery, very interesting, as well
as a portent of what couldhappen, or as essentially the
(24:32):
catalyst to things that happen,like you said, Dunmore's
Proclamation.
Kathryn Gehred (24:36):
And people talk about gossip like it's not
important, but sometimes gossipswhere the action's happening
absolutely All right, so let'sgo into the next paragraph.
Janet Shaw (24:45):
I came to town yesterday with an intention of
being at church this day, whereI was informed there was to be
service performed by a very goodclergyman. In this however I was
disappointed, for I found thewhole town in an uproar, and the
moment I landed Mr. Rutherfurd’snegroes were seized and taken
into custody till I was ready toreturn with them. This apparent
(25:08):
insult I resented extremely,till going up to Doctor Cobham’s
I found my short prophecy inregard to the Negroes was
already fulfilled and that aninsurrection was hourly
expected. There had been a greatnumber of them discovered in the
adjoining woods the nightbefore, most of them with arms,
and a fellow belonging to DoctorCobham was actually killed. All
(25:30):
parties are now united againstthe common enemies. Every man is
in arms and the patroles goingthro’ all the town, and
searching every Negro’s house,to see they are all at home by
nine at night. But what is mostprovoking, every mouth male and
female is opened againstBritain, her King and her
abettors- here called thetories- tho’ the poor tories are
(25:52):
likely to suffer, at least asmuch as any of them, and who
were as ready to give theirassistance to quell them as any
independents amongst them. Butwhatever way this end, it will
confirm the report I formerlymentioned to you past all contradiction.
Kathryn Gehred (26:10):
All right, so it seems like people have heard
enough about these promises offreedom. There might actually be
a insurrection, as she says, ofwho she calls the negroes, but
enslaved people are alreadyorganizing to take advantage of
this.
Ramin Ganeshram (26:27):
So I have a thought about that, though,
Kathryn Gehred (26:29):
yes?
Ramin Ganeshram (26:30):
And my thought about that is this, were they, I
mean, enslaved people had totake whatever opportunities they
could, to have community, tomeet with one another, to
practice traditional religiouspractices, to simply see a
spouse or a child who wasenslaved on another plantation.
And we don't know for a factthat this was truly an
(26:53):
insurrection. It could have beenany number of things. You could
make an assumption that if itwas mostly men, and it seems
like it was yes. It could havebeen very likely. We can't prove
that without a shadow of adoubt. Well, one thing is
certainly true is that thisterror and this fear, which I
want to be clear, was a terrorand a fear of European
(27:15):
colonizers, both in theCaribbean and in the North
American colonies, that couldreach such extreme levels that
the level of barbarism andcruelty over and above, you
know, enslavement wasastonishing, because they were
outnumbered.
Kathryn Gehred (27:32):
Yeah, there's this paranoia of the white
planter class that they'resurrounded by. And Virginia at
this point was like 40% enslavedpopulation that people who are
on these large plantations arewell, well, well, outnumbered by
people that they know they aremisusing. They know that
enslaving somebody is going tolead them to resent you. And
(27:54):
there is this absolute paranoiathat you read in some of these
letters, something like thisproclamation seems to be
bringing out, right, right?She's seems like she's writing
this letter sort of from day today, and there are updates that
sort of take place as she'swriting it.
Ramin Ganeshram (28:10):
And I want to point out that she's quite self
congratulatory. Excerpt thiswhole letter basically says I
told you I was right. Yes, notonly that, this would happen,
oh, but once the real enemyshows up, you're all going to
band together, aren't you, so Iread that, like many people at
the time, more or less felt likethis isn't really going to go
(28:32):
anywhere, because ultimately ourreal interests are the same, and
when threatened, we're going tostick together. So that was
interesting. So she goes on, andshe's referring to this
directive for her to take theenslaved people back to the
plantation, which she says thatshe doesn't like. She resents
that. And so she says, as
Janet Shaw (28:54):
As I was afraid to venture up with only Negroes, I
dispatched the boat with them,and a letter to Fanny, begging
her to secure all their arms andcome herself down to down. She
is far from well (29:06):
her father is as yet at Hunthill. Mr Neilson
came down with me and presentlywent off to the Governor, so she
has no white person with her,but our two Abigails. I expect
her every moment. I go to supwith my friends on the hill, and
return to sleep at the Doctor’s.I change my quarters every
(29:34):
they are very hospitable. Goodevening to you. I will write
again to morrow. I have anexcellent apartment, and every
body is too much engaged aboutthemselves to mind what I am
doing.
Kathryn Gehred (29:47):
This, I think, is a really interesting section.
So this is very much like thewriting of a racist white woman
at this time period. So she saysshe's afraid to travel with only
enslaved people. Both. And she'swriting to who's Fanny again?
Ramin Ganeshram (30:04):
The daughter, you know, the three children of
Mr. Rutherford, who she ishelping to bring back from the
United Kingdom to him, where henow lives in North Carolina, at
an estate called Hunthill.
Kathryn Gehred (30:16):
Okay, okay.
Ramin Ganeshram (30:17):
And Fanny is the oldest daughter. So she's
basically saying, you know,wherever they're staying is
different from where her fatheris. He's still at the
plantation, and she was byherself with her two abigails.
The two female servants. Theirname is on Abigail. Abigail was
just a general term for a ladyservant.
Kathryn Gehred (30:36):
A lady had actually not heard that before,
and that is so interesting.
Ramin Ganeshram (30:39):
This, I find so interesting. So Abigail's was a
common slang for a lady's maid,you know, an attendant, a maid
of all work, not dissimilar tothe very racist way Irish female
servants were generally referredto as Bridget's in the mid 19th
(31:00):
century and early 20th century.
Kathryn Gehred (31:02):
Wow! And then just her little bit where she's
like, I have an excellentapartment she's talking about.
She's by herself. Everybody'stoo engaged about themselves to
worry about me. I'll just sithere and write my little diary.
She's all alone in her nicelittle apartment, visiting
people.
Ramin Ganeshram (31:18):
Also, this thing that I spoke about before,
where she was like, I have tochange my quarters every time in
town to please all my friends.Everybody wants me to stay with
them. And then she says, no oneis really engaged in what I'm
doing, which I think is sofunny, like, which is it, lady?
Kathryn Gehred (31:33):
Everybody wants me to stay, but once I'm there,
they just leave me All right, sohere's the last paragraph,
Janet Shaw (31:42):
After a sleepless night, to which the mosquitoes
contributed more than my fearsof the Negroes, I am sat down by
the first peep of day to informyou of what further happened
yesterday. I told you I wasgoing to sup at the hill, which
is at the other extremity of thetown. Here I found the affair of
the Negroes justly attributed tothe cause I formerly mentioned.
(32:03):
Vizt that of falsifying theKing’s proclamation, for tho’
neither they nor I had seen it,we were convinced it was in a
style the reverse of what wasgiven out. Our time passed so
agreeably that it was now toolate to venture so far without
some male protector, and as allthe Negroes were locked up, I
therefore waited till theMidnight patrol arrived, the
(32:26):
commander of which was a tory,and my particular acquaintance.
Under his protection therefore Imarched off at the head of the
party stopping at the differenthouses in our way to examine if
the Negroes were at home. ForGod’s sake! Draw a picture of
your friend in this situationand see if ‘tis possible to know
me. Oh! I shall make a gloriousknapsack-bearer. You have formed
(32:49):
a very wrong idea of mydelicacy; I find I can put it on
and off like any piece of dress.But to proceed with my Mid-night
march. While the men went intothe houses, I stayed without
with the commander of the party,who took that opportunity to
assure me, he believed the wholewas a trick intended in the
first place to get those who hadnot before taken up arms to do
(33:16):
it now and form an associationfor the safety of the town. What
further design they had, hecould not tell, but made not the
least doubt it was for somesinister purpose this farce was
carried on. That poor Cobham hadlost a valuable slave, and the
poor fellow his life without theleast reason, he was certain;
(33:38):
for that it was a fact wellknown to almost everybody that
he met a Mistress every night inthe opposite wood, and that the
wench being kept by her Master,was forced to carry on the
intrigue with her black loverwith great secrecy, which was
the reason the fellow was soanxious to conceal himself; that
the very man who shot him knewthis, and had watched him. My
(34:01):
hypothesis is however that theNegroes will revolt. I bade my
friend good night and found MrsCobham in a terrible huff, from
the idea I was not to come backthat night. She is so much
affected by the fate of herNegro, that she is almost as
great a tory as her husband,which was not lately the case.
(34:23):
But here comes the Coffee,farewell. If Fanny come down, I
will write again from this.
Kathryn Gehred (34:31):
This is just like an incredible paragraph to
me. There's so much that's goingon here. So she goes from
talking about that there was aninsurrection that they had found
a group of men all armed, thatthey were forced to shoot
somebody to there was oneenslaved man who everybody knew
would go visit his mistress atnight, and that somebody took
(34:53):
advantage of this sort of fearabout an uprising to shoot and
kill him. That's how it comesacross to me. And so there
actually wasn't an insurrection.Everybody's getting worked up.
And even the leader of thisgroup of these sort of the
enforcers of this martial law,weren't really afraid of of
anything like that, and theyknew enough about the situation
(35:13):
and the people involved that hecalls it a farce to her.
Ramin Ganeshram (35:18):
Which also adds another level to this idea of
this enslaved man, enslaved bythis guy, Cobham, who is known
to have had a wife, a partner,very likely elsewhere, and he
would go to visit her at night,being effectively lynched,
hunted down and killed under theskies of Well, we thought he was
(35:40):
potentially one of theinstructionists who you've just
said is a farce and isn't a realthing, yes. So essentially, if
you believe it's a farce and nota real thing, you are stating
fully that this is a lynching,essentially.
Kathryn Gehred (35:54):
Yeah. And that really struck me, and it sort of
occurred to me about how thisparanoia that the white people
have about the people that theyenslave, how there's all this
language during the AmericanRevolution, of how the British
are repressing and destroyingall the rights of white American
(36:14):
colonists, whereas meanwhile,this is an incredibly enforced
martial Law, with curfews, withpatrols going around at
midnight, armed patrols goingaround to people's houses. I
mean, this is basically like areign of terror against the
enslaved people in NorthCarolina, and that's just seen
as sort of par for the course.But it's so obvious. The double
(36:36):
standard is so obvious that Iwas just losing my mind reading
this paragraph and then thecomplicity of this white woman
traveling around with theenforcers, I think, adds another
her sentence where she says, ForGod's sake, draw a picture of
your friend in this situationand see if tis possible to know
(36:57):
me. Oh, I shall make a gloriousknapsack bearer. So she's making
this little joke. Like, haha,little me, this delicate woman
is traveling around with thesemilitary enforcers, these proto
Klansmen, this local likemilitia terrorizing people, and
she's just writing about itliterally as a little joke.
(37:17):
Like, this is just a littlefunny scene for her.
Ramin Ganeshram (37:20):
And also the disingenuity that gives to
everything she's written before.I was terrified. I didn't want
to travel with enslaved people.I can't do that. Oh, but you can
gallivant around at the head ofa patrol, because, let's be
clear, what would have happenedif something quote, unquote
untoward in the eyes of thesemilitia, these patrols went
(37:43):
down, there would have beenshooting, there would have been
violence, there would have beenbloodshed, it would have been
chaos. And certainly she knewthat. So which is it that you're
afraid to travel with enslavedpeople, but you are not afraid
to be marching along at the headof a group of armed men, where
(38:03):
things could go very wrong veryquickly. Disingenuous, right?
Disingenuous.
Kathryn Gehred (38:08):
She says the mosquitoes contributed more than
my fears of the Negroes. Whatare you talking about?
Ramin Ganeshram (38:14):
Yeah, you just you work great to travel with
them. It's a very Gone with theWind moment that's seen in Gone
with the Wind, where they're allsewing or whatever they're doing
knitting while the men in thefamily go out to enforce to
basically raid a camp of freedpeople because of an implication
(38:34):
that a white woman had beenattacked as she wrote through
the camp. Yeah, they're allsitting at home waiting while
this attack is going on. Thisscene reminds me of in a lot of
ways.
Kathryn Gehred (38:47):
This is just such a telling paragraph about
what's going on in NorthCarolina at this time, the power
dynamics between patriots,Tories, enslaved people, white
women are involved in this weirdshe gets to be the delicate
little princess being escortedat night, but also inflicting
terror on the enslaved people inthese houses. She's part of it.
Ramin Ganeshram (39:11):
A couple of things about this passage that I
find so interesting, in terms ofboth her cognitive dissonance
and also, again, thedisingenuity, first of all is
that she says, poor column haslost a valuable slave, and then
as an afterthought, and the poorfellow his life without the
least reason. Like that's theafterthought, because it's
(39:32):
almost and this goes back to ouroriginal discussion. Was she
writing this down for posterity,for possible publication? You
know, these little passages,these little lines are what
further cement my idea as we'retalking about it. They're
probably yes, because that'skind of the qualifier you use
when you don't want to seemcompletely abhorrent and
horrible. Oh yes, and the guywas lost his life for no reason.
(39:56):
That's like that. Oh yeah. It'snot just about this album. Lost
his human property. Poor, poorguy. So that's that's really
interesting to me. The other isthat when she's talking about,
you know, the commander of thismilitia group, he's basically
letting her know, yeah, we allpretty much figure the
(40:17):
proclamation was twisted to kindof scare these would be rebels
into leaving off theirrebellion, to calming down and
to giving up. Well, that'sinteresting, if you know that's
the case, why are you huntingpeople down in the woods who you
probably know are meeting forwhatever purposes, right? Why
(40:39):
are you doing these patrols. Whyare you carrying through this
premise that there'sinsurrections about to happen
among the enslaved community,and you have to put it down
where you have just said, Yeah,we know it was a trick. It was
put about to scare the wood.
Kathryn Gehred (40:56):
Yes, I'm also super curious about what was
actually going on with the manwho was enslaved by Cobham was
going to visit maybe his wife atnight, or something like that,
but the fact that they had to doit so secretly, and then she
mentions later Mrs. Cobham in aterrible huff and being so much
(41:16):
affected by the fate of herNegro I feel like there's more
to the story that's going on asto why this man was lynched,
that she, as like an outsider,is able to pick up on, but just
the little hints that she drops,it sounds like there's more in
this relationship that is goingon.
Ramin Ganeshram (41:31):
The thing that occurred to me, and again, this
is just a supposition, but as towhy she, Mrs. Cobham, would be
so affected, you could see thatthe destruction of the human
property this poor enslaved manof carbons is a message to
Cobham on some level that maynot be related to potential
(41:52):
revolution. It could be somesort of business squabble. It
could be a land squabble. It'dbe, who knows, but clearly,
because in this society, it isCobham to whom this injurious
act was committed, not the poorman who lost his life. It's a
message to him in some way,which makes me think this is why
(42:14):
she was so affected. It's athreat. It is a continuation of
an effort to destroy hisbusiness. Whatever it is, it's
certainly not because thisenslaved man had been killed, in
my opinion.
Kathryn Gehred (42:27):
Oh yeah, no, I agree. There's something else
going on. There just a littleinsight into how these societies
actually worked. If there wassort of one thing that you want
my listeners to take away fromthis document, what is it?
Ramin Ganeshram (42:39):
It's really in line with what we've been
talking about, which is that youhave to really read this
carefully to understand thatthere's a subtext, I think that
there is a desire, and we knowthis of modern people, to say
the things that are stated inthese Letters, in these
(42:59):
journals, in these documents aresimply people of their time
stating things of their time.But this is a great document
because the fact that she kindof is very clearly disingenuous,
that she is self aggrandizing,that there is conflicting
(43:21):
stories, and what she'sreporting as what she believes,
lets us know that it's notsimply a person of their time.
There is a sense of right doingand wrong doing embedded in
this. And so she's making achoice to be on a certain side,
and that's what I would likepeople to really take away. And
you might have to read this afew times over to really get
(43:45):
that and understand thepersonality of this individual.
I think that's incrediblyimportant. The other thing with
a letter like this, and I saythis from my work with this
document and these letters withrespect to understandings for
food ways and the commercialaspect of food products in the
(44:08):
West, Indies is that thesedocuments are tricky because
they do provide valuableinformation with an extreme
bias. And so, for example, withthe food work that I do, it
seems like how much bias can youembed into stating what was on
the table, but you can. Soinstead of separating out facts
(44:35):
and using these documents forwhat you can get out of them, I
think that they're usefuldocuments as abhorrent as they
are, in many cases, they'restill very useful documents,
given that in the people thatshe's talking about at large,
the enslaved community had noopportunity to speak for
themselves. Her bias speakingfor them is is not great, but it
(44:57):
does give us some. Some pointsto work from. I guess that's the
thing I would say, is read thesedocuments, not so much for their
accuracy and the assessment ofthe situation, but for the bread
crumbs they give you. Try tofind the truth elsewhere.
Kathryn Gehred (45:13):
Absolutely, I've been having a lot of
conversations about the thingsthat are hidden from the
archives and things that live inthe archives, and I think that
reading documents like this, butwith the knowledge and
understanding that she's tryingto prevent her readers she's not
thinking about enslaved peopleas like full human beings, and
she's actively trying to preventher readers from thinking about
them in the same way. But if youread about it from the
(45:36):
perspective of the people thatshe's trying to dehumanize, then
you can still get somethingreally valuable out of it. Thank
you so much for bringing thisdiary to my attention. I think
this is so fascinating, and nowI want to go back and read more
of it, and read about the foodsshe's eating and things like
that. But I just thought thiswas such a rich text, and I had
never heard of this before. Sothank you so much for sharing it
(45:57):
with me.
Ramin Ganeshram (45:57):
You're so welcome.
Kathryn Gehred (45:59):
For my listeners, feel free to check
out the original document, thelink to it in the show notes,
and I am as ever your mostobedient and humble servant.
Thank you very much.
Your Most Obedient & HumbleServant is a production of R2
(46:19):
Studios part of the RoyRosenzweig Center for History
and New Media at George MasonUniversity. I'm Kathryn Gehred
the creator and host of thispodcast, Jeanette Patrick and
Jim Ambuske are the executiveproducers. Special thanks to
Gillian MacDonald for readingtoday's document. Thanks to
Virginia Humanities for allowingme to use the recording studio.
(46:41):
If you enjoyed this episode,please tell a friend and be sure
to rate and review the series inyour podcast app. For more great
history podcasts, head tor1studios.org. Thanks for
listening.
This episode of Your Most Obedient & Humble
Servant is supported by the Dr.Scholl Foundation.
Hello and welcome to Your MostObedient & Humble Servant, this
is a women's history podcastwhere we feature 18th and early
19th century women's lettersthat don't get as much attention
(00:21):
as we think they should. I'myour host. Kathryn Gehred. I'm
thrilled to introduce today'sguest, Ramin Ganeshram. Ramin is
the executive director of theWestport Museum for History and
Culture in Westport,Connecticut. She's an award
winning journalist andhistorian, and she specializes
in addressing how public historycan truthfully and faithfully
(00:41):
address American history aroundrace and identity. She also has
a background in writing aboutfood history and food ways.
Welcome to the show. Ramin,thank you so much.
Ramin Ganeshram (00:51):
I'm so happy to be here.
Kathryn Gehred (00:53):
Can you tell me a little bit about 18th century
recipes and bring in your ownexperience as a chef?
Ramin Ganeshram (01:00):
Oh sure. So I am a trained chef, and one of
the things I really have learnedbeing a chef and a journalist
and a historian is that everyoneloves to talk about food when
the topic is difficult or sortof fraught. Food is a great
access point to get people totalk about it, because, again,
(01:23):
everyone loves to talk aboutfood. For example, at Westport
museum last year, we did a wholeexhibit on chocolate in the
American colonies, about howchocolate was grown, processed
and imported to the Americancolonies in the 17th and 18th
century, people loved it. We dida lot of programming, but it was
(01:44):
really an exhibit about theAtlantic trade, about
enslavement in the Americancolonies, particularly in New
England, where the story ofslavery is often under told, if
told at all, but that sweettastes of chocolate allowed us
to talk about a very bitterhistory, in a way, I hate to say
this, but stealthily gettingpeople into the topic while
(02:07):
they're enjoying a little tasteof something.
Kathryn Gehred (02:09):
That's fascinating, you bring up ways
to talk about slavery in apublic history setting. We're
going to be talking about adocument that deals with slavery
quite a bit. Can you tell me alittle bit about what we're
going to be looking at today andhow you how you found it?
Ramin Ganeshram (02:24):
Yeah, absolutely, in fact, the way I
found this document was doingfood history research, or a book
that I'm completing about howCaribbean food waste and
heritage really impacted foodhistory and history at large in
what later became the UnitedStates. And so looking for
(02:44):
primary resources to talk about18th century cuisine and
ingredients in the Caribbean andhow it ties back into the
American colonies, I found thisjournal that was actually a
compilation of letters writtento some unknown person back in
Scotland by a woman named JanetShaw. And Janet Shaw was
(03:08):
Scottish. She traveled to theBritish colonies in the
Caribbean and, of course, NorthAmerica. Between these two
years, 1774 and 1776 in thecompany of three young people
who were the children of a locallandowner from where she was
from, in Scotland. And I foundher material because she wrote a
(03:31):
lot about the food of theCaribbean in great detail. It
was an incredibly usefulresource. So in writing these
letters in this journal form tothis unknown person. She
describes everything around herfor my purposes at the time,
including food. But what wassuper interesting to me was she
(03:51):
wrote firsthand accounts to thelead up to the American
Revolution when she arrived inNorth Carolina.
Kathryn Gehred (03:58):
That's an interesting time to come visit.
So do you know much about JanetShwa? It's interesting that she
was keeping a diary and writingletters in that format.
Ramin Ganeshram (04:07):
It is and not much is really known about her.
She was from a middle to uppermiddle class family in Scotland.
She was either 36 or 46 there'slike the 10 year gap in trying
to understand how old she waswhen she made this trip. She
wasn't married at the time, sothere's some speculation because
(04:29):
of the language she uses abouthow happy she and the other
person the recipient are goingto be when they get to see each
other again. Then it might havebeen love interest, rather than
simply a friend, and more isknown about her brother, who was
doing business in the WestIndies had come to do business
in the North American colonies,and they really were associated
(04:53):
with other loyalists when theyfinally arrived, that split had
just happened. So. So prior, shewas visiting other British
colonies or areas of the realm,and now suddenly she finds
herself kind of lumped in with agroup of people, this separation
the loyalist versus the patriot,but that and the fact that after
(05:15):
her travel, she returned toScotland, kind of took up her
place to get her most prominentfamily. At one point, met George
III and Queen Charlotte. Theywere reviewing the battery in
the town where she was from.That's not much known about her.
She's a very precise and carefulcorrespondent, and that's so
(05:38):
useful, of course, to us ashistorians.
Kathryn Gehred (05:42):
Her letters were published as The Journal of a
lady of quality, being anarrative of a journey from
Scotland to the west. Indiesfrom 1774 to 1776 the version
that I found online waspublished in 1921 so there's a
little bit of just like, Oh,it's a woman. That's all the
work we need to do to find outwho it is. She's a lady of
(06:04):
quality, but she seems reallyinteresting, and it is, you're
right, when you start lookinginto these letters, it's such a
valuable document, like I cansee why it was published so
early, but in that kind ofinteresting way that women's
documents sometimes are treatedas, what a curiosity.
Ramin Ganeshram (06:21):
Yes, what I understand the documents
themselves were just, there wasa, I think, three extant copies,
two of which were kept withinthe family and just passed down.
Was a curiosity, as you say, thewhole idea of the lady of
quality is really interesting tome because that language was a
signifier that she could betrusted, that she had some level
(06:45):
of education, that she wasn'tjust gallivanting around the
world on her own. She wastraveling in the company of her
brother and these three youngpeople who she was shepherding,
which might have been presumablywhy she was there. There's not a
discussion about why sheundertook this journey, but it
seems very likely that that waswhy, that there had to be sort
(07:06):
of a female chaperone. One ofthe children was a young woman
at the age of 18. She was theperson referred to as Fanny
throughout the narrative.
Kathryn Gehred (07:14):
Yeah. That is really interesting.
Ramin Ganeshram (07:15):
It is. It is almost signifiers, yeah.
Kathryn Gehred (07:18):
Yeah, so she did write several copies. We don't
really know who she's writingto. There's some discussion of
whether it was possibly apotential partner or something
like that. Do you think when shewas writing it, from your work
with this, that she meant tokeep it as sort of a private
journal, or did you think shemight even have thought about
potentially publishing it,because sometimes these early
(07:40):
women's journals were published,and particularly epistole letter
format was one of the ways thatwomen at this time period could
write and could get somerecognition for writing.
Ramin Ganeshram (07:51):
I think when you read the detail of this
narrative, that's very possible.There is a lot of self
aggrandizement, which is verycommon, and these sort of to be
published journals. You know,it's difficult to say only in as
much as it doesn't deviatewildly from the accepted
(08:13):
language of the day, but, butshorthand is not often used.
There is, in my reading of it,less assumption of knowledge of
the people involved than onewould have writing to someone
who knew you personally. So Ithink it is very, very possible.
(08:35):
Plus travelogs In this period oftime were wildly popular, you
know, not just from men, butfrom women as well. Was an
incredibly flourishing format. Imean, the amount of travel logs
you could find for this periodof time are really quite
astounding and published. Ithink, yes, I think it is very
possible that somewhere in theback of her mind she was
(08:57):
potentially harboring thosehopes.
Kathryn Gehred (08:59):
This just occurred to me this second. But
you talk about how she writesabout the food in great detail,
it's kind of like going on atrip and making Instagram
accounts about what you'reeating in places. But this was
the sort of version of that ofmy friends back home. This is
what's different about where I'mtraveling to.
Ramin Ganeshram (09:15):
Yes, I agree with you 100% and I think you
know now that we're talkingabout this, thinking about the
format where she kind of musthave kept a letter book or a
journal book, writing theseletters out, versus writing them
and sending because there's noother copies. Right? Obviously,
people use letter books tofashion their thoughts and then
(09:36):
copy out a letter, and thatletter would be sent. You know,
there isn't one, and her familyand the people she associated
with and refers to aresignificant enough to have
archival material out in theworld. These letters are not
extant. That doesn't meananything, but it does not seem
to have come out of a letterbook. And I bring that up to
(09:56):
say, therefore, she had plentyof time. To go back and amend
and edit and add more detail forthe public gaze in this kind of
manner of, you know, being anInstagram or wanting to be sure
that everybody gets every singledetail. It's not really an as an
easily editable format, but it'sthat public gaze. I think you're
(10:19):
right. The more we talk aboutthis, I think it was probably
intended for publication.
Kathryn Gehred (10:25):
I think that's pretty good setup of what we're
talking about. So to dig intothe specific we're going to talk
about an excerpt from a specificletter, and just to set up the
context, where is she at thetime of this? What's going on in
her life?
Ramin Ganeshram (10:38):
In the period of this particular letter, she
has been traveling for about ayear. She has left Antigua in
the West Indies, and now she'sin Wilmington, North Carolina.
She is still with the threechildren she's traveling with,
and is staying a variety offriends. Her brother is with her
for Alexander for a period oftime, and then seems to be
(11:01):
traveling to Boston, which iskind of the hotbed of the
revolutionary activity. This is1775 in addition to writing
about food and about thelandscape and about all the
friends who just are, all shesays are like jostling and
angling for her to stay withthem, which is kind of
(11:22):
interesting. She is observingthis sort of proto revolutionary
activity that is happening inWilmington.
Kathryn Gehred (11:32):
I think the way you said it earlier of she's
gone from British colonies tosuddenly somewhere where being a
loyalist is kind of a dirty wordto certain people, is super
fascinating, particularly sincethere's a lot of debate over how
many people really were patriotsor loyalists in different parts
of the country. And it seemslike she's been sort of thrown
into that, and she'sencountering patriots and
(11:54):
loyalists and all of thistension.
Ramin Ganeshram (11:56):
Yes and she writes about this where she
says, and we'll get into this inthe letters, but she basically,
in this particular context,says, and, you know, everyone's
gonna figure out that we're allon the same side in the end,
kind of like this is just apassing madness, if you will.
It's kind of the way she talksabout it. The people who are in
(12:19):
this moment funking of revoltare being hoodwinked, and they
don't really quite get it. Thispoint in the revolution, Boston
has been blockaded. There'salmost like a price on the head
of Sam Adams, you know, and JohnHancock. It is a serious thing.
It's something that has beendiscussed continually, both in
the United Kingdom and itscolonies. And it's not as if
(12:45):
this is shocking or newinformation to her, but the pace
in which it is progressing thisfar south, if Boston was already
militarized, it was already acity under siege. In a sense,
there was martial law declaredalready in Boston during this
time. In fact, while she'sthere, she discusses a
(13:08):
proclamation from the governorof Massachusetts declaring
martial law, but the idea thatit is trickling down this far is
where I think her kind ofsurprise is that led her to
write about it in such greatdetail.
Kathryn Gehred (13:22):
Yeah, that's interesting. Having read this
before, I noticed she uses thewords wig and Tori a lot when
she says wig. Is she basicallytalking about patriots, or is it
the other way? Right?
Ramin Ganeshram (13:34):
So that's actually confusing. She's
talking about so called. I'msaying so called, right? Because
here's the difficulty in herworld. A patriot is someone
who's loyal, right? Yes, ofcourse, yes, she's referring to
people who rebels were Yes,rebels.
Kathryn Gehred (13:50):
I work for encyclopedia Virginia, and we're
having to pick our words for theRevolutionary War entries, and
there's a lot of confusionsometimes.
Ramin Ganeshram (13:58):
yes, especially because the language around it
didn't solidify until well intothe conflict, if not later,
right?
Kathryn Gehred (14:06):
So is there any other information you think
would be helpful for somebody tohear before we dig into it?
Ramin Ganeshram (14:11):
There's a subtext here that I don't think
the reader may know if you arenot a student of sort of what I
was talking about before, likethe links between all the
British Western Hemispherecolonies in the Caribbean and in
North America, and how much itwas a commercial entity, how
(14:32):
much it was the ground forwealth, for earning money.
That's what her brother iscoming over here to do. He's
coming over here to work. It waskind of this new place where
great amounts of wealth could behad in journals like this. In
her journal entries about theWest Indies or her letters and
(14:54):
of other people, a lot of spaceis given to the wealth of West
India planters. There. Lot oflanguage at the time about being
as rich as a West India planter,and also regarding the southern
plantations in North America, inthe colonies that became the
Southern American states. Ithink that's really important,
(15:17):
because she's coming to thiswith, if not only, an
understanding a deep admirationof the value of this commercial
prospect, which is run on theengine of the labor of enslaved
people. So it's not onlyaccepted as par for the course,
(15:40):
it is considered, in a sense, anadmirable methodology by smart
men to reap profit. I think wehave to remember that in the
context when we read her letter.
Kathryn Gehred (15:52):
That's really well put so the diary of Janet
Shaw in 1775,
Janet Shaw (15:59):
At present martial law stands thus
committeeman enters a plantationwith his posse. The Alternative
is proposed, Agree to join us,and your persons and properties
are safe; you have a shillingsterling a day; your duty is no
more than once a month appearingunder Arms at Wilmingtown, which
(16:20):
will prove only a merry-making,where you will have as much grog
as you can drink. But if yourefuse, we are directly to cut
up your corn, shoot your pigs,burn your houses, seize your
Negroes and perhaps tar andfeather yourself. Not to chuse
the first requires more couragethan they are possessed of, and
(16:42):
I believe this method has seldomfailed with the lower sort. No
sooner to they appear under armson the stated day, then they are
harangued by their officers withthe implacable cruelty of the
king of Great Britain, who hasresolved to murder and destroy
man, wife and child, and that hehas sworn before God and his
(17:04):
parliament that he will notspare one of them; and this
those deluded people believemore firmly than their creed,
and who is it that is boldenough to venture to undeceive
them. The King’s proclamationthey never saw; but are told it
was ordering the tories tomurder the whigs, and promising
(17:25):
every Negro that would murderhis Master and family that he
should have his Master’splantation. This last Artifice
they may pay for, as the Negroeshave got it amongst them and
believe it to be true. Tis tento one they may try the
experiment, and in that casefriends and foes will be all one.
Kathryn Gehred (17:45):
All right, let's talk about that paragraph.
First, I don't think we have thespecific date of this letter,
but it's definitely from 1775and it's after she's arrived in
North Carolina, and she'sdescribing how martial law works
(18:05):
in North Carolina, and she'sbasically making it sound like
the anti British colonists arethreatening you. They're coming
to people's doors and sayingwe're gonna cut your cord, shoot
your pigs, burn your houses ifyou don't join our side, and
that this works. So I don't knowif this is accurate from what
(18:26):
she's seeing, or if this is sortof from her perspective as a
Scottish woman who is very, veryloyalist, she wants this to be a
call me that she can make moneyout of. Now that you set that
context up, she's sort of hopingthat, well, these are people
being bullied into something,but eventually this madness will
end.
Ramin Ganeshram (18:42):
Right. That's the interesting thing, right?
Because she doesn't say that shewitnessed this. She says this is
what she understands fromhappening, and with the context,
based on who she's associatingwith, and what she's doing is
that the people telling her whatis happening are plantation
owners. She's visiting societypeople in the town that are
(19:04):
saying to one another, this iswhat's going on. And I read it
as hyperbole. Perhaps she didn'tknow it was hyperbole. And the
reason why is that theproclamation she's talking about
that no one has ever seen, thatthey're banding about this
King's proclamation is really aproclamation by General Gage,
(19:27):
governor of Massachusetts at thetime, that says, This is your
chance to basically be givenamnesty for your uprising. And
it's really funny, he's sayingeveryone but Sam Adams and John
Hancock, but everybody else whotook up arms against the crowd,
who have harassed Britishsoldiers, who have just promoted
this madness, we're willing togive amnesty. This is one of
(19:49):
those forays into we're willingto take you back into the fold
or put this behind us. Stop.Just stop. He doesn't mention
the enslaved people. He doesn'tmention that this idea, which
later does become an actualproclamation from the king at
the end of this year, where theking says, This is the famous
(20:12):
leave your enslaver and joinloyalists, and you'll get
freedom, and you will get landand so on. That's not what this
refers to at all. And it refersto a document where the
enslaved, in fact, are notmentioned whatsoever. So what I
think happened, which all gotwrapped up into this kind of
hyperbole, and this to me, whatI'm about to say to my mind,
(20:36):
garters, more proof around theidea that this was a lot of
gossip whipped up into astatement like this, and it is
several months before thisproclamation by Gage, on behalf
of the crown, as an ActingGovernor, colonial governor,
received a petition by enslavedpeople in Massachusetts,
(20:58):
petitioning for their Liberty,stating that enslavement is
against the laws of man,specifically outlining physical
abuse, including sexual abuseand assault of enslaved women.
He does not answer the petition.It is ignored by the
Massachusetts coloniallegislature. Interestingly,
(21:18):
these petitions became fairlyregular during the course of the
revolution, wanting here inConnecticut, there was one later
in both in 1739 in NewHampshire, this idea of, okay,
you're all proclaiming therights to liberty. Well, that's
what we're talking about now.Let's really talk about it. Gage
(21:41):
ignores it. The legislatureignores it. But clearly it was
talked about. And to me, all ofthis sort of gossip and passing
of information conflatestogether with this proclamation
into this hyperbolic idea ofwhat you're being told is this
is what's going to happen.
Kathryn Gehred (22:00):
That's so fascinating, yeah, because I
looked at that proclamation aswell. And first off, for people
who've been listening to thepodcast, it is signed by his
excellencies command, ThomasFlucker, secretary, who was the
father of Lucy Flucker, who wetalked about in a previous
episode. So a very well hatedguy on the revolutionary side
when I first read it, assomebody who's from Virginia and
(22:22):
does a lot of Virginia history,I immediately thought of
Dunmore's Proclamation. And Iwas like, Oh, she's talking
about Lord Dunmore'sProclamation, but that's not
yet. That's later. And so itdoes seem to me, Dunmore is also
hearing all of these rumors andgossip and what people are
afraid of happening, and theenslaved people are petitioning
on their own behalf. They arefighting for this. They're
(22:44):
making a very clear point that,hey, you're fighting for
liberty. What about us? And itseems like people like Thomas
Gage and the Crown aren't reallyseriously considering it right,
because they want to sort ofpacify people. But Dunmore hits
a point where he's like, No,let's do it. Let's promise
enslaved people that if theyfight for Britain, that they
will earn their freedom.
Ramin Ganeshram (23:05):
I think that's really good point on your part.
I mean, I think that Dunmore wasbasically saying, let's call
their bluff. Yeah, really gothere and then they're finally
going to back down. And kind ofhad to make good on a promise
that he probably didn't want tokeep? No, I likely did not want
to keep.
Kathryn Gehred (23:23):
It doesn't seem like Dunmore was a great
abolitionist. I think he wasthinking in more of like a
reactionary knee jerk way,because once he actually had all
of these people who were veryinvested in fighting for their
own liberty, he didn't know whatto do with them. That's great.
This is why I like these littlesnapshots into a moment in time,
because this is all happeningbefore dunmores proclamation,
but it really helps sort of talkabout what's going on.
Ramin Ganeshram (23:45):
And I think it also implies what we know from
letters like this and otherletters clearly, and newspaper
accounts and so on, how muchthis was discussed by people of
the time. Because there's onlyone way that the gage
proclamation and this idea ofthe enslaved petition, the
(24:08):
Massachusetts legislature, thegovernor, there's only one way
that information got around, andthat's people writing to each
other and saying, this happened.And you know, this is what's
going on. So that informationspread almost like gossip, like
wildfire, and that, to me, isvery, very interesting, as well
as a portent of what couldhappen, or as essentially the
(24:32):
catalyst to things that happen,like you said, Dunmore's
Proclamation.
Kathryn Gehred (24:36):
And people talk about gossip like it's not
important, but sometimes gossipswhere the action's happening
absolutely All right, so let'sgo into the next paragraph.
Janet Shaw (24:45):
I came to town yesterday with an intention of
being at church this day, whereI was informed there was to be
service performed by a very goodclergyman. In this however I was
disappointed, for I found thewhole town in an uproar, and the
moment I landed Mr. Rutherfurd’snegroes were seized and taken
into custody till I was ready toreturn with them. This apparent
(25:08):
insult I resented extremely,till going up to Doctor Cobham’s
I found my short prophecy inregard to the Negroes was
already fulfilled and that aninsurrection was hourly
expected. There had been a greatnumber of them discovered in the
adjoining woods the nightbefore, most of them with arms,
and a fellow belonging to DoctorCobham was actually killed. All
(25:30):
parties are now united againstthe common enemies. Every man is
in arms and the patroles goingthro’ all the town, and
searching every Negro’s house,to see they are all at home by
nine at night. But what is mostprovoking, every mouth male and
female is opened againstBritain, her King and her
abettors- here called thetories- tho’ the poor tories are
(25:52):
likely to suffer, at least asmuch as any of them, and who
were as ready to give theirassistance to quell them as any
independents amongst them. Butwhatever way this end, it will
confirm the report I formerlymentioned to you past all contradiction.
Kathryn Gehred (26:10):
All right, so it seems like people have heard
enough about these promises offreedom. There might actually be
a insurrection, as she says, ofwho she calls the negroes, but
enslaved people are alreadyorganizing to take advantage of
this.
Ramin Ganeshram (26:27):
So I have a thought about that, though,
Kathryn Gehred (26:29):
yes?
Ramin Ganeshram (26:30):
And my thought about that is this, were they, I
mean, enslaved people had totake whatever opportunities they
could, to have community, tomeet with one another, to
practice traditional religiouspractices, to simply see a
spouse or a child who wasenslaved on another plantation.
And we don't know for a factthat this was truly an
(26:53):
insurrection. It could have beenany number of things. You could
make an assumption that if itwas mostly men, and it seems
like it was yes. It could havebeen very likely. We can't prove
that without a shadow of adoubt. Well, one thing is
certainly true is that thisterror and this fear, which I
want to be clear, was a terrorand a fear of European
(27:15):
colonizers, both in theCaribbean and in the North
American colonies, that couldreach such extreme levels that
the level of barbarism andcruelty over and above, you
know, enslavement wasastonishing, because they were
outnumbered.
Kathryn Gehred (27:32):
Yeah, there's this paranoia of the white
planter class that they'resurrounded by. And Virginia at
this point was like 40% enslavedpopulation that people who are
on these large plantations arewell, well, well, outnumbered by
people that they know they aremisusing. They know that
enslaving somebody is going tolead them to resent you. And
(27:54):
there is this absolute paranoiathat you read in some of these
letters, something like thisproclamation seems to be
bringing out, right, right?She's seems like she's writing
this letter sort of from day today, and there are updates that
sort of take place as she'swriting it.
Ramin Ganeshram (28:10):
And I want to point out that she's quite self
congratulatory. Excerpt thiswhole letter basically says I
told you I was right. Yes, notonly that, this would happen,
oh, but once the real enemyshows up, you're all going to
band together, aren't you, so Iread that, like many people at
the time, more or less felt likethis isn't really going to go
(28:32):
anywhere, because ultimately ourreal interests are the same, and
when threatened, we're going tostick together. So that was
interesting. So she goes on, andshe's referring to this
directive for her to take theenslaved people back to the
plantation, which she says thatshe doesn't like. She resents
that. And so she says, as
Janet Shaw (28:54):
As I was afraid to venture up with only Negroes, I
dispatched the boat with them,and a letter to Fanny, begging
her to secure all their arms andcome herself down to down. She
is far from well (29:06):
her father is as yet at Hunthill. Mr Neilson
came down with me and presentlywent off to the Governor, so she
has no white person with her,but our two Abigails. I expect
her every moment. I go to supwith my friends on the hill, and
return to sleep at the Doctor’s.I change my quarters every
(29:34):
they are very hospitable. Goodevening to you. I will write
again to morrow. I have anexcellent apartment, and every
body is too much engaged aboutthemselves to mind what I am
doing.
Kathryn Gehred (29:47):
This, I think, is a really interesting section.
So this is very much like thewriting of a racist white woman
at this time period. So she saysshe's afraid to travel with only
enslaved people. Both. And she'swriting to who's Fanny again?
Ramin Ganeshram (30:04):
The daughter, you know, the three children of
Mr. Rutherford, who she ishelping to bring back from the
United Kingdom to him, where henow lives in North Carolina, at
an estate called Hunthill.
Kathryn Gehred (30:16):
Okay, okay.
Ramin Ganeshram (30:17):
And Fanny is the oldest daughter. So she's
basically saying, you know,wherever they're staying is
different from where her fatheris. He's still at the
plantation, and she was byherself with her two abigails.
The two female servants. Theirname is on Abigail. Abigail was
just a general term for a ladyservant.
Kathryn Gehred (30:36):
A lady had actually not heard that before,
and that is so interesting.
Ramin Ganeshram (30:39):
This, I find so interesting. So Abigail's was a
common slang for a lady's maid,you know, an attendant, a maid
of all work, not dissimilar tothe very racist way Irish female
servants were generally referredto as Bridget's in the mid 19th
(31:00):
century and early 20th century.
Kathryn Gehred (31:02):
Wow! And then just her little bit where she's
like, I have an excellentapartment she's talking about.
She's by herself. Everybody'stoo engaged about themselves to
worry about me. I'll just sithere and write my little diary.
She's all alone in her nicelittle apartment, visiting
people.
Ramin Ganeshram (31:18):
Also, this thing that I spoke about before,
where she was like, I have tochange my quarters every time in
town to please all my friends.Everybody wants me to stay with
them. And then she says, no oneis really engaged in what I'm
doing, which I think is sofunny, like, which is it, lady?
Kathryn Gehred (31:33):
Everybody wants me to stay, but once I'm there,
they just leave me All right, sohere's the last paragraph,
Janet Shaw (31:42):
After a sleepless night, to which the mosquitoes
contributed more than my fearsof the Negroes, I am sat down by
the first peep of day to informyou of what further happened
yesterday. I told you I wasgoing to sup at the hill, which
is at the other extremity of thetown. Here I found the affair of
the Negroes justly attributed tothe cause I formerly mentioned.
(32:03):
Vizt that of falsifying theKing’s proclamation, for tho’
neither they nor I had seen it,we were convinced it was in a
style the reverse of what wasgiven out. Our time passed so
agreeably that it was now toolate to venture so far without
some male protector, and as allthe Negroes were locked up, I
therefore waited till theMidnight patrol arrived, the
(32:26):
commander of which was a tory,and my particular acquaintance.
Under his protection therefore Imarched off at the head of the
party stopping at the differenthouses in our way to examine if
the Negroes were at home. ForGod’s sake! Draw a picture of
your friend in this situationand see if ‘tis possible to know
me. Oh! I shall make a gloriousknapsack-bearer. You have formed
(32:49):
a very wrong idea of mydelicacy; I find I can put it on
and off like any piece of dress.But to proceed with my Mid-night
march. While the men went intothe houses, I stayed without
with the commander of the party,who took that opportunity to
assure me, he believed the wholewas a trick intended in the
first place to get those who hadnot before taken up arms to do
(33:16):
it now and form an associationfor the safety of the town. What
further design they had, hecould not tell, but made not the
least doubt it was for somesinister purpose this farce was
carried on. That poor Cobham hadlost a valuable slave, and the
poor fellow his life without theleast reason, he was certain;
(33:38):
for that it was a fact wellknown to almost everybody that
he met a Mistress every night inthe opposite wood, and that the
wench being kept by her Master,was forced to carry on the
intrigue with her black loverwith great secrecy, which was
the reason the fellow was soanxious to conceal himself; that
the very man who shot him knewthis, and had watched him. My
(34:01):
hypothesis is however that theNegroes will revolt. I bade my
friend good night and found MrsCobham in a terrible huff, from
the idea I was not to come backthat night. She is so much
affected by the fate of herNegro, that she is almost as
great a tory as her husband,which was not lately the case.
(34:23):
But here comes the Coffee,farewell. If Fanny come down, I
will write again from this.
Kathryn Gehred (34:31):
This is just like an incredible paragraph to
me. There's so much that's goingon here. So she goes from
talking about that there was aninsurrection that they had found
a group of men all armed, thatthey were forced to shoot
somebody to there was oneenslaved man who everybody knew
would go visit his mistress atnight, and that somebody took
(34:53):
advantage of this sort of fearabout an uprising to shoot and
kill him. That's how it comesacross to me. And so there
actually wasn't an insurrection.Everybody's getting worked up.
And even the leader of thisgroup of these sort of the
enforcers of this martial law,weren't really afraid of of
anything like that, and theyknew enough about the situation
(35:13):
and the people involved that hecalls it a farce to her.
Ramin Ganeshram (35:18):
Which also adds another level to this idea of
this enslaved man, enslaved bythis guy, Cobham, who is known
to have had a wife, a partner,very likely elsewhere, and he
would go to visit her at night,being effectively lynched,
hunted down and killed under theskies of Well, we thought he was
(35:40):
potentially one of theinstructionists who you've just
said is a farce and isn't a realthing, yes. So essentially, if
you believe it's a farce and nota real thing, you are stating
fully that this is a lynching,essentially.
Kathryn Gehred (35:54):
Yeah. And that really struck me, and it sort of
occurred to me about how thisparanoia that the white people
have about the people that theyenslave, how there's all this
language during the AmericanRevolution, of how the British
are repressing and destroyingall the rights of white American
(36:14):
colonists, whereas meanwhile,this is an incredibly enforced
martial Law, with curfews, withpatrols going around at
midnight, armed patrols goingaround to people's houses. I
mean, this is basically like areign of terror against the
enslaved people in NorthCarolina, and that's just seen
as sort of par for the course.But it's so obvious. The double
(36:36):
standard is so obvious that Iwas just losing my mind reading
this paragraph and then thecomplicity of this white woman
traveling around with theenforcers, I think, adds another
her sentence where she says, ForGod's sake, draw a picture of
your friend in this situationand see if tis possible to know
(36:57):
me. Oh, I shall make a gloriousknapsack bearer. So she's making
this little joke. Like, haha,little me, this delicate woman
is traveling around with thesemilitary enforcers, these proto
Klansmen, this local likemilitia terrorizing people, and
she's just writing about itliterally as a little joke.
(37:17):
Like, this is just a littlefunny scene for her.
Ramin Ganeshram (37:20):
And also the disingenuity that gives to
everything she's written before.I was terrified. I didn't want
to travel with enslaved people.I can't do that. Oh, but you can
gallivant around at the head ofa patrol, because, let's be
clear, what would have happenedif something quote, unquote
untoward in the eyes of thesemilitia, these patrols went
(37:43):
down, there would have beenshooting, there would have been
violence, there would have beenbloodshed, it would have been
chaos. And certainly she knewthat. So which is it that you're
afraid to travel with enslavedpeople, but you are not afraid
to be marching along at the headof a group of armed men, where
(38:03):
things could go very wrong veryquickly. Disingenuous, right?
Disingenuous.
Kathryn Gehred (38:08):
She says the mosquitoes contributed more than
my fears of the Negroes. Whatare you talking about?
Ramin Ganeshram (38:14):
Yeah, you just you work great to travel with
them. It's a very Gone with theWind moment that's seen in Gone
with the Wind, where they're allsewing or whatever they're doing
knitting while the men in thefamily go out to enforce to
basically raid a camp of freedpeople because of an implication
(38:34):
that a white woman had beenattacked as she wrote through
the camp. Yeah, they're allsitting at home waiting while
this attack is going on. Thisscene reminds me of in a lot of
ways.
Kathryn Gehred (38:47):
This is just such a telling paragraph about
what's going on in NorthCarolina at this time, the power
dynamics between patriots,Tories, enslaved people, white
women are involved in this weirdshe gets to be the delicate
little princess being escortedat night, but also inflicting
terror on the enslaved people inthese houses. She's part of it.
Ramin Ganeshram (39:11):
A couple of things about this passage that I
find so interesting, in terms ofboth her cognitive dissonance
and also, again, thedisingenuity, first of all is
that she says, poor column haslost a valuable slave, and then
as an afterthought, and the poorfellow his life without the
least reason. Like that's theafterthought, because it's
(39:32):
almost and this goes back to ouroriginal discussion. Was she
writing this down for posterity,for possible publication? You
know, these little passages,these little lines are what
further cement my idea as we'retalking about it. They're
probably yes, because that'skind of the qualifier you use
when you don't want to seemcompletely abhorrent and
horrible. Oh yes, and the guywas lost his life for no reason.
(39:56):
That's like that. Oh yeah. It'snot just about this album. Lost
his human property. Poor, poorguy. So that's that's really
interesting to me. The other isthat when she's talking about,
you know, the commander of thismilitia group, he's basically
letting her know, yeah, we allpretty much figure the
(40:17):
proclamation was twisted to kindof scare these would be rebels
into leaving off theirrebellion, to calming down and
to giving up. Well, that'sinteresting, if you know that's
the case, why are you huntingpeople down in the woods who you
probably know are meeting forwhatever purposes, right? Why
(40:39):
are you doing these patrols. Whyare you carrying through this
premise that there'sinsurrections about to happen
among the enslaved community,and you have to put it down
where you have just said, Yeah,we know it was a trick. It was
put about to scare the wood.
Kathryn Gehred (40:56):
Yes, I'm also super curious about what was
actually going on with the manwho was enslaved by Cobham was
going to visit maybe his wife atnight, or something like that,
but the fact that they had to doit so secretly, and then she
mentions later Mrs. Cobham in aterrible huff and being so much
(41:16):
affected by the fate of herNegro I feel like there's more
to the story that's going on asto why this man was lynched,
that she, as like an outsider,is able to pick up on, but just
the little hints that she drops,it sounds like there's more in
this relationship that is goingon.
Ramin Ganeshram (41:31):
The thing that occurred to me, and again, this
is just a supposition, but as towhy she, Mrs. Cobham, would be
so affected, you could see thatthe destruction of the human
property this poor enslaved manof carbons is a message to
Cobham on some level that maynot be related to potential
(41:52):
revolution. It could be somesort of business squabble. It
could be a land squabble. It'dbe, who knows, but clearly,
because in this society, it isCobham to whom this injurious
act was committed, not the poorman who lost his life. It's a
message to him in some way,which makes me think this is why
(42:14):
she was so affected. It's athreat. It is a continuation of
an effort to destroy hisbusiness. Whatever it is, it's
certainly not because thisenslaved man had been killed, in
my opinion.
Kathryn Gehred (42:27):
Oh yeah, no, I agree. There's something else
going on. There just a littleinsight into how these societies
actually worked. If there wassort of one thing that you want
my listeners to take away fromthis document, what is it?
Ramin Ganeshram (42:39):
It's really in line with what we've been
talking about, which is that youhave to really read this
carefully to understand thatthere's a subtext, I think that
there is a desire, and we knowthis of modern people, to say
the things that are stated inthese Letters, in these
(42:59):
journals, in these documents aresimply people of their time
stating things of their time.But this is a great document
because the fact that she kindof is very clearly disingenuous,
that she is self aggrandizing,that there is conflicting
(43:21):
stories, and what she'sreporting as what she believes,
lets us know that it's notsimply a person of their time.
There is a sense of right doingand wrong doing embedded in
this. And so she's making achoice to be on a certain side,
and that's what I would likepeople to really take away. And
you might have to read this afew times over to really get
(43:45):
that and understand thepersonality of this individual.
I think that's incrediblyimportant. The other thing with
a letter like this, and I saythis from my work with this
document and these letters withrespect to understandings for
food ways and the commercialaspect of food products in the
(44:08):
West, Indies is that thesedocuments are tricky because
they do provide valuableinformation with an extreme
bias. And so, for example, withthe food work that I do, it
seems like how much bias can youembed into stating what was on
the table, but you can. Soinstead of separating out facts
(44:35):
and using these documents forwhat you can get out of them, I
think that they're usefuldocuments as abhorrent as they
are, in many cases, they'restill very useful documents,
given that in the people thatshe's talking about at large,
the enslaved community had noopportunity to speak for
themselves. Her bias speakingfor them is is not great, but it
(44:57):
does give us some. Some pointsto work from. I guess that's the
thing I would say, is read thesedocuments, not so much for their
accuracy and the assessment ofthe situation, but for the bread
crumbs they give you. Try tofind the truth elsewhere.
Kathryn Gehred (45:13):
Absolutely, I've been having a lot of
conversations about the thingsthat are hidden from the
archives and things that live inthe archives, and I think that
reading documents like this, butwith the knowledge and
understanding that she's tryingto prevent her readers she's not
thinking about enslaved peopleas like full human beings, and
she's actively trying to preventher readers from thinking about
them in the same way. But if youread about it from the
(45:36):
perspective of the people thatshe's trying to dehumanize, then
you can still get somethingreally valuable out of it. Thank
you so much for bringing thisdiary to my attention. I think
this is so fascinating, and nowI want to go back and read more
of it, and read about the foodsshe's eating and things like
that. But I just thought thiswas such a rich text, and I had
never heard of this before. Sothank you so much for sharing it
(45:57):
with me.
Ramin Ganeshram (45:57):
You're so welcome.
Kathryn Gehred (45:59):
For my listeners, feel free to check
out the original document, thelink to it in the show notes,
and I am as ever your mostobedient and humble servant.
Thank you very much.
Your Most Obedient & HumbleServant is a production of R2
(46:19):
Studios part of the RoyRosenzweig Center for History
and New Media at George MasonUniversity. I'm Kathryn Gehred
the creator and host of thispodcast, Jeanette Patrick and
Jim Ambuske are the executiveproducers. Special thanks to
Gillian MacDonald for readingtoday's document. Thanks to
Virginia Humanities for allowingme to use the recording studio.
(46:41):
If you enjoyed this episode,please tell a friend and be sure
to rate and review the series inyour podcast app. For more great
history podcasts, head tor1studios.org. Thanks for
listening.
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.