February 25, 2025 • 42 mins
Dr. Cynthia Kierner joins host Kathryn Gehred to discuss a 1778 letter from Richard Henry Lee to his sister Hannah Lee Corbin. In a lost letter, Hannah previously expressed her frustrations that widows are being taxed without representation. In this response, Richard explains the cultural and legal barriers that prevent Hannah and other widows from voting.
Dr. Cynthia Kierner is a professor of history at George Mason University. She is a a specialist in the fields of early America, women and gender, and early southern history. She is the author of many books and articles including The Tory's Wife: A Woman and Her Family in Revolutionary America, Inventing Disaster: The Culture of Calamity from the Jamestown Colony to the Johnstown Flood, and Martha Jefferson Randolph, Daughter of Monticello: Her Life and Times.
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.
The Archives of the Robert E. Lee Memorial Foundation, Papers of the Lee Family, Box 2, M2009.057, Jessie Ball duPont Library, Stratford Hall, https://leefamilyarchive.org/richard-henry-lee-to-hannah-lee-corbin-1778-march-18/.
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 and I'mthrilled to welcome Dr. Cynthia
Kierner to the show. I firstbecame familiar with Dr.
Kierner's work when I was aguide at Monticello. And I read
(00:25):
her book, Scandal At the BizarreRumor and Reputation in
Jefferson's America, which is anabsolutely incredible book, and
you should read it. She also haspublished many other books,
including Beyond the Household: Women's Place in the Early (00:34):
undefined
South, 1700 to 1835 andInventing Disaster: The Culture
of Calamity from the JamestownColony to the Johnstown Flood
and Martha Jefferson Randolph,Daughter of Monticello: Her Life
and Times. Most recently, Dr.Kierner published the Tories
Wife (00:51):
A Woman and her Family in Revolutionary America, which is
about Jane Welborn Spurgin, anabsolutely fascinating North
Carolinian woman in the AmericanRevolution. Welcome, Dr. Kierner
thank you so much for coming onthe show.
Cindy Kierner (01:03):
Thanks for inviting me.
Kathryn Gehred (01:06):
I've noticed from looking up all of your
books, a lot of your work has todo with women in the early
south. Is there something thatdraws you to that subject?
Cindy Kierner (01:12):
Well, I really see myself as an early
Americanist, but I guess Igravitated toward women in what
became the South with a capitalS, because they were relatively
understudied, at least when Iwas beginning my career. And I
think that's because getting atthe sources, particularly for
the early period, is harder thanit would be say for New England,
places like that. Also, my firstjob was in North Carolina, where
(01:36):
students were interested inlocal history, so I felt like I
needed to know the sources inorder to teach them research
methods and so forth. And sothat's when I started doing
quote, unquote, Southern things.My first book in my dissertation
had actually been on New York.And then after that, one project
led to another. You mentionedScandal at the Bizarre, well in
(01:56):
some ways, that led reallyorganically to my biography of
Martha Jefferson Randolph, whohad married into the family the
Randolphs who became embroiledin that scandal. And I was
attracted to her less becauseshe was Jefferson's daughter
than because she seemed to belike the only non crazy person
in the family. She was prettywell grounded, unlike most of
them.
Kathryn Gehred (02:17):
I think of Peter Randolph of Roanoke all the time
from that book. I am when I
Cindy Kierner (02:23):
John?
Kathryn Gehred (02:23):
Yeah, sorry. John Randolph of Roanoke, I see
his portrait. I'm just like, Iget angry.
Cindy Kierner (02:29):
Yeah, a bit of a wacko.
Kathryn Gehred (02:32):
So obviously, this is women's history podcast.
We believe in women's history.Here. Is there something that
you wish more people understoodabout women's history?
Cindy Kierner (02:40):
Well, I mean, I guess that it's like real
history, and I guess even moreimportantly, that what happened
in the past often looked reallydifferent from a woman's
perspective than from a man'sthat difference needs to be
actually incorporated into whatwe consider to be the big
picture of history, in the sameway that, you know, we need to
(03:01):
work harder to do the same thingfor the histories of Black
Americans, the histories ofIndigenous people and so forth.
It's not okay just to sort ofhave them kind of on the side
and read books and say, Oh, thisis really interesting, but it
needs to be part of the largerwhole that people consider to be
real history with a capital H.
Kathryn Gehred (03:20):
It's been striking me recently of this
focus on objective history, andit seems like people think that
if there's a perspective that'sdifferent from a white male's
then it's necessarily notobjective. But I don't
understand why a woman'sexperience of something isn't a
fact, yeah, no, somebody else'sexperience is a fact.
Cindy Kierner (03:35):
Yeah, that's absolutely right.
Kathryn Gehred (03:36):
Today, we're continuing our series on the
American Revolution, and we'regoing to be talking about a
letter from 1778 1778 and thisis written by a man, but he's
writing it to his sister. Thisis Richard Henry Lee to his
sister, Hannah Lee Corbin, doyou mind sort of introducing
Richard Henry Lee to ourlisteners?
Cindy Kierner (03:54):
So he was one of 11 children of Thomas and Hannah
Ludwell Lee. He grew up atStratford Hall. He and several
of his brothers were importantleaders of the revolutionary
movement in Virginia. But Iguess he is most famous as the
member of the ContinentalCongress who made the motion to
declare independence in 1776 andof course, he was also a signer
(04:18):
of the Declaration ofIndependence.
Kathryn Gehred (04:20):
I do think of him in the musical 1776 there's
a whole song about all believe.Yeah, right, so that's Richard
Henry Lee, who you may haveheard of in your textbooks, but
tell me about Hannah Lee Corbin.
Cindy Kierner (04:32):
Okay so she was Richard's older sister. She was
well educated for a woman of hertime, especially a Virginia
woman of her time, the familyhired all these tutors to teach
her brothers, and she got taughtby them as well. Unlike her
brothers, though she didn't getto go to Europe for the grand
tour after her schooling wasover, and she got married when
(04:54):
she was 19 in 1747, which justsounds just horribly young, but
really wasn't that unusual. Herhusband was a wealthy planter by
the name of Gowen Corbin, and hewas also her cousin, which,
again, not terribly unusual. Andhe died in 1760 and when he
died, Hannah assumed control ofhis property. And what that
(05:15):
property was was thousands ofacres and hundreds of enslaved
people, besides other stuff,like furniture and what have
you. But Gowin's Will said thatHannah would retain control of
the property only if she didn'tremarry. And again, that was a
fairly typical condition of thetime. But it seems to me that
the really interesting thingabout Hannah Lee Corbin, is what
(05:38):
came next in widowhood. First ofall, she became a Baptist, which
might not seem like that big adeal, but it was actually a
really, really radical choicefor an upper class woman in a
place like Virginia, the Churchof England was the established
church. That meant that it wassupported by the state. The
Church of England was also veryclosely associated with the
power of the gentry, which,remember, were Hannah's people.
(06:02):
The second thing that she didthat was really unusual is that
she started cohabiting with afellow Baptist, a man, a
physician whose name was RichardLingon Hall, and they had two
children together. So thisclearly was not just a platonic
relationship, and for one of tworeasons, Hannah and Richard
(06:22):
never got married, and we're notreally sure the exact reason,
but there are two possibilities.The first is that if she did
remarriage, she would have lostcontrol of her husband's
property. But there was also akind of like a moral or
religious issue at stake, andthat was that in colonial
Virginia, because the Church ofEngland was the established
(06:44):
church, the only marriages thatwere legally valid were those
performed according to therights and rules of the Church
of England. And as a Baptist,she likely did not consider
those rights and rules to belegitimate. But yet, also as a
Baptist. She couldn't marry as aBaptist because that would have
been invalid or maybe evenillegal. But she was, she was
(07:07):
really interesting. I mean, shewas doing things that you
wouldn't expect, quote, unquoterespectable ladies to be doing
in Virginia at this time, andapparently, without severe she
wasn't ostracized or anythinglike that. As a result.
Kathryn Gehred (07:24):
I was surprised when I looked into this is
showing my ignorance, but I sortof have a certain idea of like,
what Baptists are like andBaptists in the south, but then
looking at the history of theBaptist Church, particularly at
this time period, it's sointerestingly, radical,
Cindy Kierner (07:39):
super radical. I mean, they let Black people
preach, even enslaved peoplepreach. They talked a lot about
equality. I mean, even if theydidn't always walk the walk,
they just talked the talk. And,you know, and that's one of the
reasons why, not only was beinga Baptist, on Hannah's part, a
kind of, you know, weird oreccentric choice. I mean, in
(08:01):
some ways, it was a dangerouschoice. I mean, basically the
Baptist, the sort of socialideals of the Baptist were the
antithesis of the sort of thingsthat she had grown up learning
at Stratford Hall, and theantithesis of things that the
rest of her family likelybelieved even during the
revolution.
Kathryn Gehred (08:21):
Does it seem like a lot of the Lees were sort
of radical politically? Do weknow much about what Richard and
Hannah's relationship was like?
Cindy Kierner (08:28):
Well, like I said, several of the Lee
brothers were important Patriotleaders during the revolution,
so like on the issue of Americanindependence, they were
certainly radical, and they werein the group with like Jefferson
and some others who were nudgingsome of the more conservative
planters in the direction ofindependence. You know, in other
ways, they're fundamentallyconservative. I mean, they don't
(08:50):
free their slaves. After therevolution in Virginia, there's
still property qualificationsfor even men to vote. So in some
ways they were radical, but inother ways, not so much. In
terms of the relationshipbetween Richard and Hannah. I
don't think there are a lot ofsurviving letters between them,
so I guess we don't really knowa lot, but I do think that the
(09:12):
letter we're discussing todayshows a certain level of respect
between the two of them. I mean,this is not just a goofy letter
about non serious topics. It'sabout very serious topics, which
suggests to me that she feltlike she could talk to him about
serious things, and that hewould take her seriously.
Kathryn Gehred (09:33):
And to sort of set the moment, set the place in
time before we read the letter.Do you have any idea of what's
going on for each of them at thetime they wrote this letter.
Cindy Kierner (09:41):
Well, for Hannah, she's living on her plantation
with her children. Richard Hallactually died in 1774 so she's
not technically a widow, becausethey weren't married, but she's
without a significant other. Thewar hadn't really come to
Virginia yet, so there's notlike battles going, going on
around her, but civilians weresubject to high taxes to pay for
(10:04):
the war. It was hard to selltobacco and other produce
because of British navalblockades. There were all sorts
of shortages for kind of thesame reasons. So she's at home
coping with that. Meanwhile,Richard was in Philadelphia
serving as one of Virginia'scongressional delegates.
Kathryn Gehred (10:23):
All right, so let's jump in
Okay, there's sort of a lot of18th century legalese going on
Richard Henry Lee to Hannah LeeCorbin, Chantilly March 17, 1778
My dear Sister, Distressed as mymind is, and has been, by a vast
variety of attentions, I am illyable by letter to give you the
satisfaction I could wish on theseveral subjects of your letter.
(10:44):
Reasonable as you are, andfriendly to the freedom and
happiness of your Country, Ishould have no doubt about
giving you perfect comfort in afew hours conversation. You
complain that Widows are notrepresented, and that being
temporary Possessors of theirestates, ought not to be liable
to the Tax. The doctrine ofrepresentation is a large
subject, and it is certain thatit ought to be extended far as
(11:06):
wisdom and policy can allow. Nordo I see that either of these
forbid Widows having propertyfrom voting, notwithstanding it
has never been the practiceeither here or in England.
Perhaps ’twas thought rather outof character for Women to press
into those tumultuous Assembliesof Men where the business of
choosing Representatives isconducted. And it might also
(11:28):
have been considered as not sonecessary, seeing, that the
representatives themselves aswell as their immediate
Constituents, must suffer theTax imposed in exact proportion
as does all other property Taxedand that therefore it could not
be supposed the Taxes would belaid where the public good di[d
not] absolutely demand it. Thisthen is the Widows security as
well as the never married Womenwho have lands in their own
(11:50):
right, for both of whom I havethe greatest respect, and would
at any time give my consent toestablish their right of Voting,
altho I am persuaded that itwould not give them greater
security, nor alter the mode ofTaxation you complain of.
Because the Tax idea does not goto the consideration of
perpetual property, but isaccommodated to the high prices
(12:11):
given for the Annual profits.Thus, no more than ½ percent is
laid on the Assessed value,altho produce sells now three
and four hundred percent abovewhat it formerly did. Tobo. sold
5 & 6 years ago for 15 pounds &2 pence, now ’tis at 50, & 55. A
very considerable part of theproperty I hold is like yours
(12:32):
temporary, for my life only, yetI see the propriety of paying my
proportion of the Tax laid forthe protection of property so
in this letter. Do you think youcould sort of summarize what's
long as that property remains inmy possession and I derive use
and profit from it. When wecomplained of British Taxation
we did so with much reason, andthere is a great difference
between our case and that of theunrepresented in this Country.
(12:53):
The English Parliament nor theirRepresentatives would pay a
farthing of the Tax they imposedon us, but quite otherwise,
their property would have beenexonerated in exact proportion
to the burthens they laid onours. Oppression therefore
without end, and Taxes withoutreason or public necessity would
have been our fate had wesubmitted to British
ursurpation. For my part, I hadmuch rather leave my Children
(13:16):
free, than in possession[illegible] at nominal wealth,
which would infallibly [have]been the case with all American
possessions had our propertybeen subject to the Arbitrary
Taxation of a BritishParliament. With respect to Mr.
Fauntleroy, if he spoke as yousay, it is a very good reason
why he ought not to be anAssessor. But if he should be,
(13:36):
the law has wisely provided aremedy against the mistakes or
the injustice of Assessors bygiving the injured Party an
Appeal to the Commissioners ofthe Tax, which Commissioners are
annually chosen by theFreeholders and Householders,
and in the choice of whom then,you have as legal a right to
vote as any other person. Ibelieve there is no instance in
our new Government ofunnecessary Placemen, and I know
(13:59):
the rule is to make theirSalaries moderate as possible,
and even these moderate Salariesare to pay Tax. But should G.
Britain gain her point, where wehave one Placemen we should have
a thousand, and pay pounds wherewe pay pence; nor should we dare
to [illegible] of Militaryexecution. This, with the other
horrid concomitants of Slavery,may well persuade the Americans
(14:22):
to loose blood and pay taxesalso, rather than submit to
them. My extensive engagementshave prevented me from adverting
to yours and Dr. Hallssubscriptions for L.[ord]
Camdens picture not having beenrefunded, as the [illegible]
have long since been, but themoney is ready for your call. I
am, my dear Sister mostsincerely and affectionately
(14:43):
yours Richard Henry Lee P.S. Dr.Steptoe & myself returned last
night from a ten daysconfinement at Belleview where
our brother Thos. has been invery great danger of losing his
going on?
life by obstinate fever. I havethe pleasure to inform you we
left him out of danger. R. H. L.
Cindy Kierner (15:11):
So the main issue here is why widows are being
taxed without representation,without being able to elect,
help elect the people who arelevying the taxes. All right, so
in Virginia, as in other states,only people who owned a certain
amount of property could vote,and therefore only those people
(15:33):
the voters had representation inthe state legislature. And the
state legislature was, ofcourse, the body that was
passing and implementing thesetax laws in practice, though
only male property owners voted,despite the fact that widows and
single women could also ownproperty, and in fact, did own
(15:54):
property. As Richard pointed outin his letter, there was nothing
explicit in the law that barredwidows from voting. But, I mean,
I think you can bet that if theytried, there would it would have
been controversial, it mighthave even have been scandalous.
And in fact, there's anotherVirginia widow, Mary willing
bird, also an incredibly wealthywoman who expressed the same
(16:15):
grievance in a letter to thegovernor of Virginia. She didn't
get a whole lot of satisfactioneither. I should add that wives
were not at all a part of thisdiscussion, because when a woman
married, control of her propertywas vested in her husband, no
one's asking this question aboutwives. It's widows and single
women who control property.
Kathryn Gehred (16:35):
In some of the books I read about Virginia at
this time period, they talkabout widows being sort of like
a way of transferring moneybetween different men in some
ways. But it's interesting methat there's these widows
dealing with legal issues, andit strikes them as sort of
obvious. I should haverepresentation, right? If the
issue is whether or not you ownproperty, whether you're a
citizen, I am in control ofquite a bit of property.
Cindy Kierner (16:56):
Well, I mean, I kind of wonder though, I mean,
so we've got Mary Willing Byrd,we've got Hannah Lee Corbin. I
wonder how many other women aresort of articulating the same
questions and the samecriticisms, you know? And in
fact, we'll never know, right?Because a lot of them are
probably sitting at a kitchentable or in a tavern. If they're
saying it, it's like, why can'tI vote? And we'll never
(17:18):
recapture that. Conceivably,there could also be other
letters out there that did notsurvive, or, you know, on the
other hand, maybe most womenwere just kind of like, okay,
you know, it is what it is. And,you know, maybe voting would be
great, but there are, like,other things I need more, you
know? I mean, you know, I don'tknow. We'll never know. But I
(17:40):
mean, I guess the thing that isworth noting is that it is the
revolution that causes at leastsome people to start asking
these questions that theypresumably would not have asked
before.
Kathryn Gehred (17:55):
Yeah, if the whole system of governments
being changed, then maybe thisis another change we can throw
in. I know the famous AbigailAdams letter.
Cindy Kierner (18:03):
Yeah, which is very different from this, yeah.
One way to read this letter isRichard being kind of
exasperated with his sister,like, you know, honey, I'm busy.
I'm like, in the Congress. Andreally, you want me to take this
on. I think in a lot of ways,this is a pretty impressive
letter. Richard took a fairamount of time writing by hand,
(18:25):
right? We should remindlisteners this longish letter
and assessing the issue fromboth the legal and cultural
angles. We might disagree withthat assessment, but, I mean, I
think it's significant that hedidn't blow her off. He didn't
dismiss her as being silly. Youknow, really girls voting? I,
you know, I don't think so. And,I mean, I think that the really
(18:47):
interesting comparison isactually to Abigail Adams, like
super famous letter, you know,where she's telling John, also a
member of Congress, to rememberthe ladies. You know, if you
look at John's response, hepretty much laughed at her, and
he really didn't address herconcerns directly, whereas
Richard Henry Lee is addressingHannah's concerns directly, even
(19:10):
if he's not necessarily givingher exactly the answer that she
wants.
Kathryn Gehred (19:16):
Yeah, I think that's fair. Reading it again,
he's definitely addressing herpoints and responding to them. I
noticed this time reading itthat he talks about, I could
clear this up with several hoursconversation. So I like that
idea of them sitting together,you know, by the fire and
talking about politics really.
Cindy Kierner (19:31):
Yep, absolutely, absolutely. I mean, it also
might be a difference between,you know, the relationship
between siblings and therelationship between husband and
wife. On the other hand, thereare a lot of letters between
John and Abigail Adams that showthat they respected each other
enormously. But yet John Adamswas either too busy or too
(19:52):
amused to say, well, you know,Abigail, what exactly do you
want us to do? And I really wishthat he. Had said that because
historians to this day debatethe meaning of that letter. What
did Abigail Adams want? I mean,we don't know for sure, because
John laughed her off, right?
Kathryn Gehred (20:10):
But the other section where he says, nor do I
see that either of these forbidwidows having property from
voting. Notwithstanding, it hasnever been the practice, either
here or in England, this sort ofreminds me of constitution
daily. Used to do a blog, andthey had something about, like,
when women got the right tovote. And the whole article was
about, like, Well, womenactually always had the
constitutional right to vote, islike, they just chose not to.
(20:31):
And I'm like, Yeah, okay, no.
Cindy Kierner (20:34):
I don't think that's true. I mean, for one
thing, the Constitution doesn'tdeal with voting rights at all
until after the Civil War, andthe state constitutions do, and
in every case except one NewJersey, shout out to the Garden
State. They specify that it'sgot to be men. And what happens
(20:54):
in New Jersey is reallyinstructive, because the 1776
constitution says, I meanexactly what Hannah Lee Corbin
is saying people, includingwomen, including free African
Americans, who own a certainamount of property can vote, but
in 18, 1807, they change it, andit's just like no white guys
with a certain amount ofproperty can vote. Oops. That
(21:15):
was a mistake. So I would takeissue with the idea that women
always had the right to vote.
Kathryn Gehred (21:20):
Yeah. It just struck me as odd. And then the
way that Richard Henry Leementions the story talks about,
I don't see that it forbidsthem, like it doesn't explicitly
forbid them, he's really takingher point seriously.
Cindy Kierner (21:31):
Absolutely. And it's like he's trying to explain
where the prohibition on widowsvoting came from, and he's
saying that it's not the resultof law or policy. I mean, he
actually says it's not theresult of wisdom or policy. It
just is, you know, it's likethat expression, that annoying
expression, it is what it is,
Kathryn Gehred (21:52):
yeah. And the fact that at this time period
when everything's changing, thatall of a sudden it's like, oh,
yeah, that is just this way,because of custom. Why is that
that they're bringing up thesequestions is interesting, and
then brings up perhaps it wasthought rather out of character
for women to press into thosetumultuous assemblies of men
where the business of choosingrepresentatives is conducted.
He's describing, sort of it'snot women's place to be in this
(22:15):
tumultuous assembly. And it kindof was depressing to me that
seems like society'sexpectations for women haven't
changed a whole lot well.
Cindy Kierner (22:21):
I mean, I guess I agree, sort of, but I mean,
without mentioning any names, Ithink it's worth noting that
some of our most quote unquotetumultuous politicians today are
women, and that, I guess, seemsto be okay to even the most anti
female segments of our society,if those women aren't trying to
(22:43):
advance a feminist agenda, orbetter yet, if they're advancing
an anti feminist one. In termsof Richard and Hannah, I think
what he's trying to say is thatthe prohibitions or the taboos
against women voting were morecultural than legal. And this
sort of really important pointthere that he's not making, but
(23:04):
I mean, I think we can sort ofconclude is that culture is
obviously harder to change thanlaws. You want to change a law,
you lobby the legislature, youget support, you got it enacted.
Changing culture is a whole lotharder, and it's certainly not
something that Richard Henry Leecould do right, even if he
wanted to, even if he wanted,not saying that he did want to,
(23:25):
but even if he wanted to.
Kathryn Gehred (23:27):
It does give me the nice mental image of Hannah,
sort of elbowing her way intothose tumultuous assemblies.
Cindy Kierner (23:34):
Listen to me guys
Kathryn Gehred (23:35):
Exactly. He says this, then is the widow security
as well as the never married,women who have lands in their
own right, for both of whom Ihave the greatest respect and
would at any time give myconsent to establish their right
of voting, although I ampersuaded it would not give them
greater security, nor alter themode of taxation you complain
of. So this part, I was like,Oh, wow. He's really saying he
(23:55):
supports women's rights to vote,and then he's saying, but it's
not actually good for you. Thatpart actually made me laugh.
It's like I love women.
Cindy Kierner (24:03):
I think he is saying that. I think he is,
among other things, you know,trying to agree with Hannah,
either sincerely or maybeinsincerely, while knowing that
even if he agreed with her like1000% no one could expect him to
change things. And I think thelast bit about basically, yeah,
(24:24):
you know, I'd be happy with youguys voting, but it's not really
going to help you. I mean, Ithink what he's saying is, I
love women. Women are great, butthey don't really need this,
right? Because we men will takecare of them. I mean, it's not
exactly chauvinistic, but it'svery paternalistic, right? It's
like you don't have to worry,because we'll take care of you.
And in fact, you know the entirecommon law of marriage,
(24:47):
coverture and all of that isbased on the same premise that
women are weak and they needtaken care of. Now I don't think
that Richard Henry Lee would saythat women were weak. I mean,
his sister surely wasn't. But Ithink he would say that, you
know, men are up to the task oftaking care of women, which, of
course, is highly debatable,both in their time and in ours.
Kathryn Gehred (25:10):
And that sort of makes me think of your most
recent book, The Tory's Wife. Orthe assumption is that if a
woman is married, then herhusband is representing her
politically, like that's hersort of protection and legal
protection. But that's notalways the case. We know that
married couples don't alwaysagree politically, and then in
the case of Jane Spurgin, weknow that she had different
political beliefs than her husband.
Cindy Kierner (25:30):
Yeah, yeah. For me, the big question is, did the
political beliefs cause thebreakup of their marriage, or
did their estrangement cause thedifference in political beliefs.
I don't think it necessarilymatters, but I think the larger
point is that, just like youknow, the sort of cliche is, you
(25:52):
know, brother against brother,well, can also be brother
against sister. It can also behusband against wife. When
you're talking about therevolution, which scholars now
pretty much agree was, amongother things, a brutal civil
war. Hannah and Richard were onthe same side.
Kathryn Gehred (26:09):
It seems like the Lees agreed, yeah. Now the
whole paragraph where he goesinto percentage of profits on
tobacco, I will admit that's ahard part for me to follow that
entire paragraph. Do you have anidea of what's going on there?
Cindy Kierner (26:23):
I mean, tobacco and the land and the enslaved
people that produced it was sucha fundamental part of these
people's lives that it pops upin all sorts of discussions. And
at this time, Hannah wasoverseeing several tobacco
producing plantations, and wedon't have her letter to
Richard, but I imagine that herletter to Richard included a
(26:48):
paragraph discussing tobaccoprices or what have you, and
that he's responding to thatdiscussion here. It's also
possible that she was somehowinvolved in watching over
Richard's tobacco or plantationinterest. While he was away in
Philadelphia, he was a widowerRichard, so he had no wife to
look over his business interest,which is often what happened in
(27:10):
families when the husband wentoff to serve in Congress or in
the state legislature or in war.The other thing that's going on
in that paragraph is he'stalking about inflation, and you
know how the prices of thingshave risen, and he's talking
about that, I guess, in relationto the amount of taxes people
are paying and why they're goingup. Yet it underlines the extent
(27:33):
to which tobacco is such a basicpart of these people's lived
experience, in terms of wherethey live, the environment in
which they lived, in the economyin which they operated.
Kathryn Gehred (27:46):
I have a pet theory, just from my work on the
Martha Washington papers, thatthe specific details of how
tobacco consignment was done inEngland is a much bigger reason
for the American War ofIndependence than it's sometimes
given credit for I know peoplehave so many millions of
arguments about why the AmericanRevolution was fought, but I
feel like the specifics of thetobacco trade were pretty
(28:08):
significant.
Cindy Kierner (28:09):
Well there's a book by T.H. Breen called
Tobacco Culture. He argues thatfor Virginia planters who are
still doing tobacco and stilldoing the consignment method,
that's like a really importantissue. But the fact of the
matter is that a lot of Virginiaplanters are no longer doing
tobacco, hardly for that reason,right? And that if it was just
(28:33):
Virginia planters who were angryabout tobacco, it wouldn't have
been a very big revolution,right? So like George Washington
is all in on wheat by the timewe get to this period. And
clearly, people in places likePennsylvania and Massachusetts
and even the Carolinas or SouthCarolina, they're not growing
tobacco. They're doing otherthings. But yeah, you're right.
(28:53):
I mean, all of this sort offigures into it in one way or
another.
Kathryn Gehred (28:57):
Now let's see. So when he talks about
revolutionary language aroundhow taxation is like slavery,
that makes me wonder about,obviously, we don't have her
letter. We don't know exactlywhat she was asking. But do you
think she brought up she sort oftied in her ideas about taxation
without representation to theactual revolution.
Cindy Kierner (29:16):
You know, that was like a standard slogan,
right? Going back to the days ofthe Stamp Act, the issue was
taxation without representation.It seems to me that Hannah is
obviously raising that issue.She's also raising the issue of
the high cost of taxes, so it'skind of like doubly offensive to
her that she doesn't getrepresentation, and if she did,
(29:38):
she surely would not have taxesbe that high. And she likely did
use that trope of slavery thatRichard also is using, which was
really common and here, ofcourse, slavery doesn't really
refer to the real thing, likewith black people. Rather, it
was a trope that they used. Usedto describe what they saw as the
(30:02):
violation of white people'srights by the king in Parliament
during the Imperial crisis. Ithink Richard, in response, was
saying that whatever taxationHannah or other Virginians were
being subject to, as you know,unpleasant as it might be, was
still a huge improvement overwhat had been the situation
(30:24):
during the colonial period,especially in the 1760s and 70s,
for several reasons. First ofall, because the Virginia
legislators who enactedRevolutionary era taxes were
local men who would also have topay them. And so that's an
argument that Americansexpressed during the Imperial
crisis. One of the reasons whythey object to Parliament taxing
(30:47):
them is that Parliament couldlevy enormous taxes on people
living in the American colonies,and they wouldn't have to pay
any of them, but people inVirginia, New York, or whatever
would have to. And then thesecond thing that he brings up
is Richard Henry Lee says, look,there are far fewer officials,
what he calls placement, drawinggovernment salaries, collecting
(31:11):
taxes here than there had beenduring the colonial period. So
not only are the taxes morelegitimate, but they're also
kind of more cost effective inthat way. And also, under the
new Virginia regime, thoseofficials were also subject to
the people's approval. You knowwho were the people will not
(31:32):
Hannah Lee Corbin, because shedoesn't have the right to vote,
but at least some people'sapproval. And that's the whole
discussion of Mr. Fauntleroy,which kind of seems like, you
know, who is this and why do wecare? Well, apparently, he
wasn't a very good tax assessor,and Richard was suggesting that.
Well, you know, if Hannah'scomplaining about him, maybe a
lot of other people arecomplaining about him. He's not
(31:54):
doing a very good job, and he'llbe history, so to speak.
Kathryn Gehred (31:58):
I like the idea that he did such a bad job tax
assessing that she she's like,Hey, give me the right to vote.
Cindy Kierner (32:04):
We're gonna get that Fauntleroy. Well, then the
other thing about Fauntleroy is,I mean, I Googled him just
because, I mean, I don't knowwho he was. And, I mean, I did
find little bits of informationabout who I think this person
was. And I guess the reallysalient point is that Fauntleroy
and arguably the other taxassessors as well, were
(32:26):
significantly below the lease inthe social hierarchy. So
basically, this guy is likecoming to the homes of the
gentry and saying, Hey, you owethis much pay up. And a lot of
people are angry about the costof taxes in the colonial period,
Hannah Lee Corbin has this extralayer of unhappiness because she
(32:46):
has no representation.
Kathryn Gehred (32:48):
Always the tax assessors are the most beloved
people. I had a comment aboutthe PS at the end, but reading
it again, I feel like it'sprobably just because he's
writing it a week later. So headds a PS, but like the little
family news that he adds at theend that her brother is so sick.
To me, it seemed like he wasbeing a little snippy the first
time I read it. But looking atit again, I'm not sure
Cindy Kierner (33:08):
One of the reasons why people wrote letters
during this period is basicallyto say, look, I'm still alive.
Or, look, you know, your brotheris still alive. One of my
favorite Jefferson letters ofall time is like, literally one
sentence that he writes to hisdaughter Martha, while he's
president. And I'm obviouslyparaphrasing, but it's basically
(33:31):
like, yeah, not dead yet. Thewhole idea that illness and
disease is everywhere medicalscience, I mean, I always
enclose in air quotes, because,you know, sometimes you're
better off without it. And whenyou read a lot of these letters,
there is always a line, usuallyat the beginning or at the end,
saying, everyone in the familyis healthy, or everyone in the
(33:54):
family is healthy, except forMary, who has a fever. And so
the way I read that PS is thatthat is one of the really common
functions of letters during thisperiod, to let people know that
you're not dead yet, or thatyour brother's not dead yet, or
that they've recovered, orwhatever. You know, I also think
(34:14):
Richard was probably gettingtired that's with a quill pen
while he's presumably got otherthings to do, it would be great
if we had her letter. But yes,alas.
Kathryn Gehred (34:27):
Maybe that's why he's sort of wistful at the
beginning, like we could clearthis up in a conversation.
Cindy Kierner (34:32):
Yeah, right, exactly, exactly. But we're
really glad that they didn't,because then we wouldn't even
have his letter.
Kathryn Gehred (34:38):
Yes, exactly. And that's why I like reading
the whole letter, is you do getthose little bits of family
information, which I enjoy.
Cindy Kierner (34:45):
And one of the things that I found out about
this letter, which I did notknow before, which is like,
super interesting, is so the waymost people get this letter is
it's published in a collectionof the letters of Richard Henry
Lee that I think is two volumes.And I. Think was published in
the 1880s maybe 1890s there is alittle footnote in that book
(35:07):
that says that the editors ofthat collection got the letter
from a newspaper in Alexandria.It was published in 1875 so
basically, it was undiscoveredfor like, almost a century, and
the other people who publishedit were Elizabeth Cady Stanton
and Susan B. Anthony in theirhistory of the women's suffrage
(35:30):
movement. And so I don't know,oh, wow, if Stanton and Anthony
published it first and then itgot exerted in this Alexandria
newspaper, or it was the otherway around. And this is like
Richard Henry Lee's letter, evenhis letter on this issue was
sort of buried, or kind of, Imean, obviously not destroyed,
(35:52):
but not paid attention to in anyway, until the 19th century
women's suffrage movement, thepoint of their collection was,
at least in part, to look forprecedence so that they could
make the argument that look Imean, we're not the first people
to air these grievances, andwe're not the first people to
(36:15):
ask for, you know,representation or some
satisfaction. In that regard,they were creating, in effect, a
history of feminism to makefeminism seem like it was more
credible and more, I don't know,American or whatever, huh?
Kathryn Gehred (36:31):
That's fascinating. When I was doing
research on this letter, I foundthat the Library of Congress has
Elizabeth Cady Stanton's notes,and she lists Hannah as one of
the like feminist foremothers,yeah, which is pretty neat.
Cindy Kierner (36:45):
It is pretty neat. But, you know, I mean, I
also wonder how someone likeHannah Lee Corbin, or even, you
know, Abigail Adams would reactto that, you know, I mean, in
certain ways, Hannah Lee Corbinwas very conservative. She never
frees her slaves. She nevertells her own children, oh,
don't marry, because marriage isa patriarchal, evil institution.
(37:07):
She's not looking to leave afeminist legacy. But, you know,
she's dead so they could saywhat they want.
Kathryn Gehred (37:14):
Well, yeah, I mean, to take a historical
figure and use them forpolitical purpose. It's
interesting to see how that'shappened to her over time?
Cindy Kierner (37:21):
Yeah, it's been known to happen. Well, I mean,
it obviously it happens with,you know, Abigail Adams as well.
But the thing is, we haveAbigail Adams's words so people
can sort of debate on bothsides. Well, you know, no, she
wasn't asking for the right tovote. Was she asking for an end
of coverture? Was she askingfor, you know, whatever. And I
(37:42):
think well and scholars havecome up with a lot of different
interpretations of what shewanted. Hannah Corbin, at least,
apparently, was very clear inthe specific thing that she
wanted. She didn't want women tohave the right to vote. She
wanted widows and single womenwith property to have the right
to vote. So she didn't takeissue with the property
(38:03):
qualification, and she didn'ttake issue, apparently, with
marriage being a sort ofdisqualifying thing for women to
own property or to have theright to vote. And of course, we
know married women's propertyacts don't really happen until
the 1840s at best, and in someplaces a lot longer after that,
(38:24):
in Virginia, it's likereconstruction, which is insane.
Kathryn Gehred (38:28):
Yeah. Is there any other point that you really
wanted to get to?
Cindy Kierner (38:31):
Just that clearly, she was very aware of
what was going on politically,and not just as politics related
directly to her and herinterests. So the last paragraph
of the body of the letter whereRichard is saying this with the
(38:53):
other horrid comments ofslavery, he goes down and he
talks about getting a refund forher and Dr Hall's subscriptions
for Lord Camden's picture. Now,Lord Camden was this British
nobleman who was one of ahandful of important British
(39:15):
political figures who werereally outspoken in terms of
supporting the Americans intheir protest during the
Imperial crisis. I mean, this iswhy we have Camden, New Jersey.
Camden, South Carolina, youknow, the same way, like all
these places, are named afterWilliam Pitt for the same
reason, who later becomes theEarl of Chatham. So there's
(39:36):
Pittsburgh and Pittsboro andChatham, and you know, all of
that. And so Camden, I thinkeven at the time, was a less
famous version of a kind of proAmerican voice than, say,
someone like William Pitt. Butyet, she and Dr. Hall, I mean,
before he died, were buyingpictures of the guy to hang in
(39:58):
their house. So, I mean. And onthe one hand, it shows that as
late as 1774 when Dr. Hall wasalive, Hannah and Dr. Hall are
really pulling for there to be areconciliation on terms
favorable to the Americans, andthat there, as indeed were most
(40:21):
colonists at that point, butthey're keenly aware of the
political debates that are goingon, not only in Williamsburg,
but also in London. I thoughtthat that was really
interesting. I mean, I thoughtit was also really interesting
that now, since that whole thingdidn't work out, and they've got
independence now, she wants hermoney back, damn it, and
(40:42):
apparently she's gonna get it.So that's kind of cool.
Kathryn Gehred (40:45):
Thank you. I didn't even look into that, but
that's awesome. That's sointeresting. Well, thank you so
much for coming on the show. Dr.Kierner, this was awesome.
Cindy Kierner (40:53):
Yeah, super fun.
Kathryn Gehred (40:54):
We will provide links to this letter and other
information in the show notesfor my listeners, thank you very
much for listening, and I am asever, your most obedient and
humble servant. Thank you verymuch. Your Most Obedient &
Humble Servant is a productionof R2 Studios, part of the Roy
(41:16):
Rosenzweig Center for Historyand New Media at George Mason
University. I'm Kathryn Gehred,the creator and host of this
podcast, Jeanette Patrick andJim Ambuske are the executive
producers. Special thanks toVirginia Humanities for allowing
me to use their recordingstudio. If you enjoyed this
episode, please tell a friendand be sure to rate and review
(41:39):
the series in your podcast appfor more great history podcasts,
head to r2studios.org, thanksfor listening.
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 and I'mthrilled to welcome Dr. Cynthia
Kierner to the show. I firstbecame familiar with Dr.
Kierner's work when I was aguide at Monticello. And I read
(00:25):
her book, Scandal At the BizarreRumor and Reputation in
Jefferson's America, which is anabsolutely incredible book, and
you should read it. She also haspublished many other books,
including Beyond the Household: Women's Place in the Early (00:34):
undefined
South, 1700 to 1835 andInventing Disaster: The Culture
of Calamity from the JamestownColony to the Johnstown Flood
and Martha Jefferson Randolph,Daughter of Monticello: Her Life
and Times. Most recently, Dr.Kierner published the Tories
Wife (00:51):
A Woman and her Family in Revolutionary America, which is
about Jane Welborn Spurgin, anabsolutely fascinating North
Carolinian woman in the AmericanRevolution. Welcome, Dr. Kierner
thank you so much for coming onthe show.
Cindy Kierner (01:03):
Thanks for inviting me.
Kathryn Gehred (01:06):
I've noticed from looking up all of your
books, a lot of your work has todo with women in the early
south. Is there something thatdraws you to that subject?
Cindy Kierner (01:12):
Well, I really see myself as an early
Americanist, but I guess Igravitated toward women in what
became the South with a capitalS, because they were relatively
understudied, at least when Iwas beginning my career. And I
think that's because getting atthe sources, particularly for
the early period, is harder thanit would be say for New England,
places like that. Also, my firstjob was in North Carolina, where
(01:36):
students were interested inlocal history, so I felt like I
needed to know the sources inorder to teach them research
methods and so forth. And sothat's when I started doing
quote, unquote, Southern things.My first book in my dissertation
had actually been on New York.And then after that, one project
led to another. You mentionedScandal at the Bizarre, well in
(01:56):
some ways, that led reallyorganically to my biography of
Martha Jefferson Randolph, whohad married into the family the
Randolphs who became embroiledin that scandal. And I was
attracted to her less becauseshe was Jefferson's daughter
than because she seemed to belike the only non crazy person
in the family. She was prettywell grounded, unlike most of
them.
Kathryn Gehred (02:17):
I think of Peter Randolph of Roanoke all the time
from that book. I am when I
Cindy Kierner (02:23):
John?
Kathryn Gehred (02:23):
Yeah, sorry. John Randolph of Roanoke, I see
his portrait. I'm just like, Iget angry.
Cindy Kierner (02:29):
Yeah, a bit of a wacko.
Kathryn Gehred (02:32):
So obviously, this is women's history podcast.
We believe in women's history.Here. Is there something that
you wish more people understoodabout women's history?
Cindy Kierner (02:40):
Well, I mean, I guess that it's like real
history, and I guess even moreimportantly, that what happened
in the past often looked reallydifferent from a woman's
perspective than from a man'sthat difference needs to be
actually incorporated into whatwe consider to be the big
picture of history, in the sameway that, you know, we need to
(03:01):
work harder to do the same thingfor the histories of Black
Americans, the histories ofIndigenous people and so forth.
It's not okay just to sort ofhave them kind of on the side
and read books and say, Oh, thisis really interesting, but it
needs to be part of the largerwhole that people consider to be
real history with a capital H.
Kathryn Gehred (03:20):
It's been striking me recently of this
focus on objective history, andit seems like people think that
if there's a perspective that'sdifferent from a white male's
then it's necessarily notobjective. But I don't
understand why a woman'sexperience of something isn't a
fact, yeah, no, somebody else'sexperience is a fact.
Cindy Kierner (03:35):
Yeah, that's absolutely right.
Kathryn Gehred (03:36):
Today, we're continuing our series on the
American Revolution, and we'regoing to be talking about a
letter from 1778 1778 and thisis written by a man, but he's
writing it to his sister. Thisis Richard Henry Lee to his
sister, Hannah Lee Corbin, doyou mind sort of introducing
Richard Henry Lee to ourlisteners?
Cindy Kierner (03:54):
So he was one of 11 children of Thomas and Hannah
Ludwell Lee. He grew up atStratford Hall. He and several
of his brothers were importantleaders of the revolutionary
movement in Virginia. But Iguess he is most famous as the
member of the ContinentalCongress who made the motion to
declare independence in 1776 andof course, he was also a signer
(04:18):
of the Declaration ofIndependence.
Kathryn Gehred (04:20):
I do think of him in the musical 1776 there's
a whole song about all believe.Yeah, right, so that's Richard
Henry Lee, who you may haveheard of in your textbooks, but
tell me about Hannah Lee Corbin.
Cindy Kierner (04:32):
Okay so she was Richard's older sister. She was
well educated for a woman of hertime, especially a Virginia
woman of her time, the familyhired all these tutors to teach
her brothers, and she got taughtby them as well. Unlike her
brothers, though she didn't getto go to Europe for the grand
tour after her schooling wasover, and she got married when
(04:54):
she was 19 in 1747, which justsounds just horribly young, but
really wasn't that unusual. Herhusband was a wealthy planter by
the name of Gowen Corbin, and hewas also her cousin, which,
again, not terribly unusual. Andhe died in 1760 and when he
died, Hannah assumed control ofhis property. And what that
(05:15):
property was was thousands ofacres and hundreds of enslaved
people, besides other stuff,like furniture and what have
you. But Gowin's Will said thatHannah would retain control of
the property only if she didn'tremarry. And again, that was a
fairly typical condition of thetime. But it seems to me that
the really interesting thingabout Hannah Lee Corbin, is what
(05:38):
came next in widowhood. First ofall, she became a Baptist, which
might not seem like that big adeal, but it was actually a
really, really radical choicefor an upper class woman in a
place like Virginia, the Churchof England was the established
church. That meant that it wassupported by the state. The
Church of England was also veryclosely associated with the
power of the gentry, which,remember, were Hannah's people.
(06:02):
The second thing that she didthat was really unusual is that
she started cohabiting with afellow Baptist, a man, a
physician whose name was RichardLingon Hall, and they had two
children together. So thisclearly was not just a platonic
relationship, and for one of tworeasons, Hannah and Richard
(06:22):
never got married, and we're notreally sure the exact reason,
but there are two possibilities.The first is that if she did
remarriage, she would have lostcontrol of her husband's
property. But there was also akind of like a moral or
religious issue at stake, andthat was that in colonial
Virginia, because the Church ofEngland was the established
(06:44):
church, the only marriages thatwere legally valid were those
performed according to therights and rules of the Church
of England. And as a Baptist,she likely did not consider
those rights and rules to belegitimate. But yet, also as a
Baptist. She couldn't marry as aBaptist because that would have
been invalid or maybe evenillegal. But she was, she was
(07:07):
really interesting. I mean, shewas doing things that you
wouldn't expect, quote, unquoterespectable ladies to be doing
in Virginia at this time, andapparently, without severe she
wasn't ostracized or anythinglike that. As a result.
Kathryn Gehred (07:24):
I was surprised when I looked into this is
showing my ignorance, but I sortof have a certain idea of like,
what Baptists are like andBaptists in the south, but then
looking at the history of theBaptist Church, particularly at
this time period, it's sointerestingly, radical,
Cindy Kierner (07:39):
super radical. I mean, they let Black people
preach, even enslaved peoplepreach. They talked a lot about
equality. I mean, even if theydidn't always walk the walk,
they just talked the talk. And,you know, and that's one of the
reasons why, not only was beinga Baptist, on Hannah's part, a
kind of, you know, weird oreccentric choice. I mean, in
(08:01):
some ways, it was a dangerouschoice. I mean, basically the
Baptist, the sort of socialideals of the Baptist were the
antithesis of the sort of thingsthat she had grown up learning
at Stratford Hall, and theantithesis of things that the
rest of her family likelybelieved even during the
revolution.
Kathryn Gehred (08:21):
Does it seem like a lot of the Lees were sort
of radical politically? Do weknow much about what Richard and
Hannah's relationship was like?
Cindy Kierner (08:28):
Well, like I said, several of the Lee
brothers were important Patriotleaders during the revolution,
so like on the issue of Americanindependence, they were
certainly radical, and they werein the group with like Jefferson
and some others who were nudgingsome of the more conservative
planters in the direction ofindependence. You know, in other
ways, they're fundamentallyconservative. I mean, they don't
(08:50):
free their slaves. After therevolution in Virginia, there's
still property qualificationsfor even men to vote. So in some
ways they were radical, but inother ways, not so much. In
terms of the relationshipbetween Richard and Hannah. I
don't think there are a lot ofsurviving letters between them,
so I guess we don't really knowa lot, but I do think that the
(09:12):
letter we're discussing todayshows a certain level of respect
between the two of them. I mean,this is not just a goofy letter
about non serious topics. It'sabout very serious topics, which
suggests to me that she feltlike she could talk to him about
serious things, and that hewould take her seriously.
Kathryn Gehred (09:33):
And to sort of set the moment, set the place in
time before we read the letter.Do you have any idea of what's
going on for each of them at thetime they wrote this letter.
Cindy Kierner (09:41):
Well, for Hannah, she's living on her plantation
with her children. Richard Hallactually died in 1774 so she's
not technically a widow, becausethey weren't married, but she's
without a significant other. Thewar hadn't really come to
Virginia yet, so there's notlike battles going, going on
around her, but civilians weresubject to high taxes to pay for
(10:04):
the war. It was hard to selltobacco and other produce
because of British navalblockades. There were all sorts
of shortages for kind of thesame reasons. So she's at home
coping with that. Meanwhile,Richard was in Philadelphia
serving as one of Virginia'scongressional delegates.
Kathryn Gehred (10:23):
All right, so let's jump in
Okay, there's sort of a lot of18th century legalese going on
Richard Henry Lee to Hannah LeeCorbin, Chantilly March 17, 1778
My dear Sister, Distressed as mymind is, and has been, by a vast
variety of attentions, I am illyable by letter to give you the
satisfaction I could wish on theseveral subjects of your letter.
(10:44):
Reasonable as you are, andfriendly to the freedom and
happiness of your Country, Ishould have no doubt about
giving you perfect comfort in afew hours conversation. You
complain that Widows are notrepresented, and that being
temporary Possessors of theirestates, ought not to be liable
to the Tax. The doctrine ofrepresentation is a large
subject, and it is certain thatit ought to be extended far as
(11:06):
wisdom and policy can allow. Nordo I see that either of these
forbid Widows having propertyfrom voting, notwithstanding it
has never been the practiceeither here or in England.
Perhaps ’twas thought rather outof character for Women to press
into those tumultuous Assembliesof Men where the business of
choosing Representatives isconducted. And it might also
(11:28):
have been considered as not sonecessary, seeing, that the
representatives themselves aswell as their immediate
Constituents, must suffer theTax imposed in exact proportion
as does all other property Taxedand that therefore it could not
be supposed the Taxes would belaid where the public good di[d
not] absolutely demand it. Thisthen is the Widows security as
well as the never married Womenwho have lands in their own
(11:50):
right, for both of whom I havethe greatest respect, and would
at any time give my consent toestablish their right of Voting,
altho I am persuaded that itwould not give them greater
security, nor alter the mode ofTaxation you complain of.
Because the Tax idea does not goto the consideration of
perpetual property, but isaccommodated to the high prices
(12:11):
given for the Annual profits.Thus, no more than ½ percent is
laid on the Assessed value,altho produce sells now three
and four hundred percent abovewhat it formerly did. Tobo. sold
5 & 6 years ago for 15 pounds &2 pence, now ’tis at 50, & 55. A
very considerable part of theproperty I hold is like yours
(12:32):
temporary, for my life only, yetI see the propriety of paying my
proportion of the Tax laid forthe protection of property so
in this letter. Do you think youcould sort of summarize what's
long as that property remains inmy possession and I derive use
and profit from it. When wecomplained of British Taxation
we did so with much reason, andthere is a great difference
between our case and that of theunrepresented in this Country.
(12:53):
The English Parliament nor theirRepresentatives would pay a
farthing of the Tax they imposedon us, but quite otherwise,
their property would have beenexonerated in exact proportion
to the burthens they laid onours. Oppression therefore
without end, and Taxes withoutreason or public necessity would
have been our fate had wesubmitted to British
ursurpation. For my part, I hadmuch rather leave my Children
(13:16):
free, than in possession[illegible] at nominal wealth,
which would infallibly [have]been the case with all American
possessions had our propertybeen subject to the Arbitrary
Taxation of a BritishParliament. With respect to Mr.
Fauntleroy, if he spoke as yousay, it is a very good reason
why he ought not to be anAssessor. But if he should be,
(13:36):
the law has wisely provided aremedy against the mistakes or
the injustice of Assessors bygiving the injured Party an
Appeal to the Commissioners ofthe Tax, which Commissioners are
annually chosen by theFreeholders and Householders,
and in the choice of whom then,you have as legal a right to
vote as any other person. Ibelieve there is no instance in
our new Government ofunnecessary Placemen, and I know
(13:59):
the rule is to make theirSalaries moderate as possible,
and even these moderate Salariesare to pay Tax. But should G.
Britain gain her point, where wehave one Placemen we should have
a thousand, and pay pounds wherewe pay pence; nor should we dare
to [illegible] of Militaryexecution. This, with the other
horrid concomitants of Slavery,may well persuade the Americans
(14:22):
to loose blood and pay taxesalso, rather than submit to
them. My extensive engagementshave prevented me from adverting
to yours and Dr. Hallssubscriptions for L.[ord]
Camdens picture not having beenrefunded, as the [illegible]
have long since been, but themoney is ready for your call. I
am, my dear Sister mostsincerely and affectionately
(14:43):
yours Richard Henry Lee P.S. Dr.Steptoe & myself returned last
night from a ten daysconfinement at Belleview where
our brother Thos. has been invery great danger of losing his
going on?
life by obstinate fever. I havethe pleasure to inform you we
left him out of danger. R. H. L.
Cindy Kierner (15:11):
So the main issue here is why widows are being
taxed without representation,without being able to elect,
help elect the people who arelevying the taxes. All right, so
in Virginia, as in other states,only people who owned a certain
amount of property could vote,and therefore only those people
(15:33):
the voters had representation inthe state legislature. And the
state legislature was, ofcourse, the body that was
passing and implementing thesetax laws in practice, though
only male property owners voted,despite the fact that widows and
single women could also ownproperty, and in fact, did own
(15:54):
property. As Richard pointed outin his letter, there was nothing
explicit in the law that barredwidows from voting. But, I mean,
I think you can bet that if theytried, there would it would have
been controversial, it mighthave even have been scandalous.
And in fact, there's anotherVirginia widow, Mary willing
bird, also an incredibly wealthywoman who expressed the same
(16:15):
grievance in a letter to thegovernor of Virginia. She didn't
get a whole lot of satisfactioneither. I should add that wives
were not at all a part of thisdiscussion, because when a woman
married, control of her propertywas vested in her husband, no
one's asking this question aboutwives. It's widows and single
women who control property.
Kathryn Gehred (16:35):
In some of the books I read about Virginia at
this time period, they talkabout widows being sort of like
a way of transferring moneybetween different men in some
ways. But it's interesting methat there's these widows
dealing with legal issues, andit strikes them as sort of
obvious. I should haverepresentation, right? If the
issue is whether or not you ownproperty, whether you're a
citizen, I am in control ofquite a bit of property.
Cindy Kierner (16:56):
Well, I mean, I kind of wonder though, I mean,
so we've got Mary Willing Byrd,we've got Hannah Lee Corbin. I
wonder how many other women aresort of articulating the same
questions and the samecriticisms, you know? And in
fact, we'll never know, right?Because a lot of them are
probably sitting at a kitchentable or in a tavern. If they're
saying it, it's like, why can'tI vote? And we'll never
(17:18):
recapture that. Conceivably,there could also be other
letters out there that did notsurvive, or, you know, on the
other hand, maybe most womenwere just kind of like, okay,
you know, it is what it is. And,you know, maybe voting would be
great, but there are, like,other things I need more, you
know? I mean, you know, I don'tknow. We'll never know. But I
(17:40):
mean, I guess the thing that isworth noting is that it is the
revolution that causes at leastsome people to start asking
these questions that theypresumably would not have asked
before.
Kathryn Gehred (17:55):
Yeah, if the whole system of governments
being changed, then maybe thisis another change we can throw
in. I know the famous AbigailAdams letter.
Cindy Kierner (18:03):
Yeah, which is very different from this, yeah.
One way to read this letter isRichard being kind of
exasperated with his sister,like, you know, honey, I'm busy.
I'm like, in the Congress. Andreally, you want me to take this
on. I think in a lot of ways,this is a pretty impressive
letter. Richard took a fairamount of time writing by hand,
(18:25):
right? We should remindlisteners this longish letter
and assessing the issue fromboth the legal and cultural
angles. We might disagree withthat assessment, but, I mean, I
think it's significant that hedidn't blow her off. He didn't
dismiss her as being silly. Youknow, really girls voting? I,
you know, I don't think so. And,I mean, I think that the really
(18:47):
interesting comparison isactually to Abigail Adams, like
super famous letter, you know,where she's telling John, also a
member of Congress, to rememberthe ladies. You know, if you
look at John's response, hepretty much laughed at her, and
he really didn't address herconcerns directly, whereas
Richard Henry Lee is addressingHannah's concerns directly, even
(19:10):
if he's not necessarily givingher exactly the answer that she
wants.
Kathryn Gehred (19:16):
Yeah, I think that's fair. Reading it again,
he's definitely addressing herpoints and responding to them. I
noticed this time reading itthat he talks about, I could
clear this up with several hoursconversation. So I like that
idea of them sitting together,you know, by the fire and
talking about politics really.
Cindy Kierner (19:31):
Yep, absolutely, absolutely. I mean, it also
might be a difference between,you know, the relationship
between siblings and therelationship between husband and
wife. On the other hand, thereare a lot of letters between
John and Abigail Adams that showthat they respected each other
enormously. But yet John Adamswas either too busy or too
(19:52):
amused to say, well, you know,Abigail, what exactly do you
want us to do? And I really wishthat he. Had said that because
historians to this day debatethe meaning of that letter. What
did Abigail Adams want? I mean,we don't know for sure, because
John laughed her off, right?
Kathryn Gehred (20:10):
But the other section where he says, nor do I
see that either of these forbidwidows having property from
voting. Notwithstanding, it hasnever been the practice, either
here or in England, this sort ofreminds me of constitution
daily. Used to do a blog, andthey had something about, like,
when women got the right tovote. And the whole article was
about, like, Well, womenactually always had the
constitutional right to vote, islike, they just chose not to.
(20:31):
And I'm like, Yeah, okay, no.
Cindy Kierner (20:34):
I don't think that's true. I mean, for one
thing, the Constitution doesn'tdeal with voting rights at all
until after the Civil War, andthe state constitutions do, and
in every case except one NewJersey, shout out to the Garden
State. They specify that it'sgot to be men. And what happens
(20:54):
in New Jersey is reallyinstructive, because the 1776
constitution says, I meanexactly what Hannah Lee Corbin
is saying people, includingwomen, including free African
Americans, who own a certainamount of property can vote, but
in 18, 1807, they change it, andit's just like no white guys
with a certain amount ofproperty can vote. Oops. That
(21:15):
was a mistake. So I would takeissue with the idea that women
always had the right to vote.
Kathryn Gehred (21:20):
Yeah. It just struck me as odd. And then the
way that Richard Henry Leementions the story talks about,
I don't see that it forbidsthem, like it doesn't explicitly
forbid them, he's really takingher point seriously.
Cindy Kierner (21:31):
Absolutely. And it's like he's trying to explain
where the prohibition on widowsvoting came from, and he's
saying that it's not the resultof law or policy. I mean, he
actually says it's not theresult of wisdom or policy. It
just is, you know, it's likethat expression, that annoying
expression, it is what it is,
Kathryn Gehred (21:52):
yeah. And the fact that at this time period
when everything's changing, thatall of a sudden it's like, oh,
yeah, that is just this way,because of custom. Why is that
that they're bringing up thesequestions is interesting, and
then brings up perhaps it wasthought rather out of character
for women to press into thosetumultuous assemblies of men
where the business of choosingrepresentatives is conducted.
He's describing, sort of it'snot women's place to be in this
(22:15):
tumultuous assembly. And it kindof was depressing to me that
seems like society'sexpectations for women haven't
changed a whole lot well.
Cindy Kierner (22:21):
I mean, I guess I agree, sort of, but I mean,
without mentioning any names, Ithink it's worth noting that
some of our most quote unquotetumultuous politicians today are
women, and that, I guess, seemsto be okay to even the most anti
female segments of our society,if those women aren't trying to
(22:43):
advance a feminist agenda, orbetter yet, if they're advancing
an anti feminist one. In termsof Richard and Hannah, I think
what he's trying to say is thatthe prohibitions or the taboos
against women voting were morecultural than legal. And this
sort of really important pointthere that he's not making, but
(23:04):
I mean, I think we can sort ofconclude is that culture is
obviously harder to change thanlaws. You want to change a law,
you lobby the legislature, youget support, you got it enacted.
Changing culture is a whole lotharder, and it's certainly not
something that Richard Henry Leecould do right, even if he
wanted to, even if he wanted,not saying that he did want to,
(23:25):
but even if he wanted to.
Kathryn Gehred (23:27):
It does give me the nice mental image of Hannah,
sort of elbowing her way intothose tumultuous assemblies.
Cindy Kierner (23:34):
Listen to me guys
Kathryn Gehred (23:35):
Exactly. He says this, then is the widow security
as well as the never married,women who have lands in their
own right, for both of whom Ihave the greatest respect and
would at any time give myconsent to establish their right
of voting, although I ampersuaded it would not give them
greater security, nor alter themode of taxation you complain
of. So this part, I was like,Oh, wow. He's really saying he
(23:55):
supports women's rights to vote,and then he's saying, but it's
not actually good for you. Thatpart actually made me laugh.
It's like I love women.
Cindy Kierner (24:03):
I think he is saying that. I think he is,
among other things, you know,trying to agree with Hannah,
either sincerely or maybeinsincerely, while knowing that
even if he agreed with her like1000% no one could expect him to
change things. And I think thelast bit about basically, yeah,
(24:24):
you know, I'd be happy with youguys voting, but it's not really
going to help you. I mean, Ithink what he's saying is, I
love women. Women are great, butthey don't really need this,
right? Because we men will takecare of them. I mean, it's not
exactly chauvinistic, but it'svery paternalistic, right? It's
like you don't have to worry,because we'll take care of you.
And in fact, you know the entirecommon law of marriage,
(24:47):
coverture and all of that isbased on the same premise that
women are weak and they needtaken care of. Now I don't think
that Richard Henry Lee would saythat women were weak. I mean,
his sister surely wasn't. But Ithink he would say that, you
know, men are up to the task oftaking care of women, which, of
course, is highly debatable,both in their time and in ours.
Kathryn Gehred (25:10):
And that sort of makes me think of your most
recent book, The Tory's Wife. Orthe assumption is that if a
woman is married, then herhusband is representing her
politically, like that's hersort of protection and legal
protection. But that's notalways the case. We know that
married couples don't alwaysagree politically, and then in
the case of Jane Spurgin, weknow that she had different
political beliefs than her husband.
Cindy Kierner (25:30):
Yeah, yeah. For me, the big question is, did the
political beliefs cause thebreakup of their marriage, or
did their estrangement cause thedifference in political beliefs.
I don't think it necessarilymatters, but I think the larger
point is that, just like youknow, the sort of cliche is, you
(25:52):
know, brother against brother,well, can also be brother
against sister. It can also behusband against wife. When
you're talking about therevolution, which scholars now
pretty much agree was, amongother things, a brutal civil
war. Hannah and Richard were onthe same side.
Kathryn Gehred (26:09):
It seems like the Lees agreed, yeah. Now the
whole paragraph where he goesinto percentage of profits on
tobacco, I will admit that's ahard part for me to follow that
entire paragraph. Do you have anidea of what's going on there?
Cindy Kierner (26:23):
I mean, tobacco and the land and the enslaved
people that produced it was sucha fundamental part of these
people's lives that it pops upin all sorts of discussions. And
at this time, Hannah wasoverseeing several tobacco
producing plantations, and wedon't have her letter to
Richard, but I imagine that herletter to Richard included a
(26:48):
paragraph discussing tobaccoprices or what have you, and
that he's responding to thatdiscussion here. It's also
possible that she was somehowinvolved in watching over
Richard's tobacco or plantationinterest. While he was away in
Philadelphia, he was a widowerRichard, so he had no wife to
look over his business interest,which is often what happened in
(27:10):
families when the husband wentoff to serve in Congress or in
the state legislature or in war.The other thing that's going on
in that paragraph is he'stalking about inflation, and you
know how the prices of thingshave risen, and he's talking
about that, I guess, in relationto the amount of taxes people
are paying and why they're goingup. Yet it underlines the extent
(27:33):
to which tobacco is such a basicpart of these people's lived
experience, in terms of wherethey live, the environment in
which they lived, in the economyin which they operated.
Kathryn Gehred (27:46):
I have a pet theory, just from my work on the
Martha Washington papers, thatthe specific details of how
tobacco consignment was done inEngland is a much bigger reason
for the American War ofIndependence than it's sometimes
given credit for I know peoplehave so many millions of
arguments about why the AmericanRevolution was fought, but I
feel like the specifics of thetobacco trade were pretty
(28:08):
significant.
Cindy Kierner (28:09):
Well there's a book by T.H. Breen called
Tobacco Culture. He argues thatfor Virginia planters who are
still doing tobacco and stilldoing the consignment method,
that's like a really importantissue. But the fact of the
matter is that a lot of Virginiaplanters are no longer doing
tobacco, hardly for that reason,right? And that if it was just
(28:33):
Virginia planters who were angryabout tobacco, it wouldn't have
been a very big revolution,right? So like George Washington
is all in on wheat by the timewe get to this period. And
clearly, people in places likePennsylvania and Massachusetts
and even the Carolinas or SouthCarolina, they're not growing
tobacco. They're doing otherthings. But yeah, you're right.
(28:53):
I mean, all of this sort offigures into it in one way or
another.
Kathryn Gehred (28:57):
Now let's see. So when he talks about
revolutionary language aroundhow taxation is like slavery,
that makes me wonder about,obviously, we don't have her
letter. We don't know exactlywhat she was asking. But do you
think she brought up she sort oftied in her ideas about taxation
without representation to theactual revolution.
Cindy Kierner (29:16):
You know, that was like a standard slogan,
right? Going back to the days ofthe Stamp Act, the issue was
taxation without representation.It seems to me that Hannah is
obviously raising that issue.She's also raising the issue of
the high cost of taxes, so it'skind of like doubly offensive to
her that she doesn't getrepresentation, and if she did,
(29:38):
she surely would not have taxesbe that high. And she likely did
use that trope of slavery thatRichard also is using, which was
really common and here, ofcourse, slavery doesn't really
refer to the real thing, likewith black people. Rather, it
was a trope that they used. Usedto describe what they saw as the
(30:02):
violation of white people'srights by the king in Parliament
during the Imperial crisis. Ithink Richard, in response, was
saying that whatever taxationHannah or other Virginians were
being subject to, as you know,unpleasant as it might be, was
still a huge improvement overwhat had been the situation
(30:24):
during the colonial period,especially in the 1760s and 70s,
for several reasons. First ofall, because the Virginia
legislators who enactedRevolutionary era taxes were
local men who would also have topay them. And so that's an
argument that Americansexpressed during the Imperial
crisis. One of the reasons whythey object to Parliament taxing
(30:47):
them is that Parliament couldlevy enormous taxes on people
living in the American colonies,and they wouldn't have to pay
any of them, but people inVirginia, New York, or whatever
would have to. And then thesecond thing that he brings up
is Richard Henry Lee says, look,there are far fewer officials,
what he calls placement, drawinggovernment salaries, collecting
(31:11):
taxes here than there had beenduring the colonial period. So
not only are the taxes morelegitimate, but they're also
kind of more cost effective inthat way. And also, under the
new Virginia regime, thoseofficials were also subject to
the people's approval. You knowwho were the people will not
(31:32):
Hannah Lee Corbin, because shedoesn't have the right to vote,
but at least some people'sapproval. And that's the whole
discussion of Mr. Fauntleroy,which kind of seems like, you
know, who is this and why do wecare? Well, apparently, he
wasn't a very good tax assessor,and Richard was suggesting that.
Well, you know, if Hannah'scomplaining about him, maybe a
lot of other people arecomplaining about him. He's not
(31:54):
doing a very good job, and he'llbe history, so to speak.
Kathryn Gehred (31:58):
I like the idea that he did such a bad job tax
assessing that she she's like,Hey, give me the right to vote.
Cindy Kierner (32:04):
We're gonna get that Fauntleroy. Well, then the
other thing about Fauntleroy is,I mean, I Googled him just
because, I mean, I don't knowwho he was. And, I mean, I did
find little bits of informationabout who I think this person
was. And I guess the reallysalient point is that Fauntleroy
and arguably the other taxassessors as well, were
(32:26):
significantly below the lease inthe social hierarchy. So
basically, this guy is likecoming to the homes of the
gentry and saying, Hey, you owethis much pay up. And a lot of
people are angry about the costof taxes in the colonial period,
Hannah Lee Corbin has this extralayer of unhappiness because she
(32:46):
has no representation.
Kathryn Gehred (32:48):
Always the tax assessors are the most beloved
people. I had a comment aboutthe PS at the end, but reading
it again, I feel like it'sprobably just because he's
writing it a week later. So headds a PS, but like the little
family news that he adds at theend that her brother is so sick.
To me, it seemed like he wasbeing a little snippy the first
time I read it. But looking atit again, I'm not sure
Cindy Kierner (33:08):
One of the reasons why people wrote letters
during this period is basicallyto say, look, I'm still alive.
Or, look, you know, your brotheris still alive. One of my
favorite Jefferson letters ofall time is like, literally one
sentence that he writes to hisdaughter Martha, while he's
president. And I'm obviouslyparaphrasing, but it's basically
(33:31):
like, yeah, not dead yet. Thewhole idea that illness and
disease is everywhere medicalscience, I mean, I always
enclose in air quotes, because,you know, sometimes you're
better off without it. And whenyou read a lot of these letters,
there is always a line, usuallyat the beginning or at the end,
saying, everyone in the familyis healthy, or everyone in the
(33:54):
family is healthy, except forMary, who has a fever. And so
the way I read that PS is thatthat is one of the really common
functions of letters during thisperiod, to let people know that
you're not dead yet, or thatyour brother's not dead yet, or
that they've recovered, orwhatever. You know, I also think
(34:14):
Richard was probably gettingtired that's with a quill pen
while he's presumably got otherthings to do, it would be great
if we had her letter. But yes,alas.
Kathryn Gehred (34:27):
Maybe that's why he's sort of wistful at the
beginning, like we could clearthis up in a conversation.
Cindy Kierner (34:32):
Yeah, right, exactly, exactly. But we're
really glad that they didn't,because then we wouldn't even
have his letter.
Kathryn Gehred (34:38):
Yes, exactly. And that's why I like reading
the whole letter, is you do getthose little bits of family
information, which I enjoy.
Cindy Kierner (34:45):
And one of the things that I found out about
this letter, which I did notknow before, which is like,
super interesting, is so the waymost people get this letter is
it's published in a collectionof the letters of Richard Henry
Lee that I think is two volumes.And I. Think was published in
the 1880s maybe 1890s there is alittle footnote in that book
(35:07):
that says that the editors ofthat collection got the letter
from a newspaper in Alexandria.It was published in 1875 so
basically, it was undiscoveredfor like, almost a century, and
the other people who publishedit were Elizabeth Cady Stanton
and Susan B. Anthony in theirhistory of the women's suffrage
(35:30):
movement. And so I don't know,oh, wow, if Stanton and Anthony
published it first and then itgot exerted in this Alexandria
newspaper, or it was the otherway around. And this is like
Richard Henry Lee's letter, evenhis letter on this issue was
sort of buried, or kind of, Imean, obviously not destroyed,
(35:52):
but not paid attention to in anyway, until the 19th century
women's suffrage movement, thepoint of their collection was,
at least in part, to look forprecedence so that they could
make the argument that look Imean, we're not the first people
to air these grievances, andwe're not the first people to
(36:15):
ask for, you know,representation or some
satisfaction. In that regard,they were creating, in effect, a
history of feminism to makefeminism seem like it was more
credible and more, I don't know,American or whatever, huh?
Kathryn Gehred (36:31):
That's fascinating. When I was doing
research on this letter, I foundthat the Library of Congress has
Elizabeth Cady Stanton's notes,and she lists Hannah as one of
the like feminist foremothers,yeah, which is pretty neat.
Cindy Kierner (36:45):
It is pretty neat. But, you know, I mean, I
also wonder how someone likeHannah Lee Corbin, or even, you
know, Abigail Adams would reactto that, you know, I mean, in
certain ways, Hannah Lee Corbinwas very conservative. She never
frees her slaves. She nevertells her own children, oh,
don't marry, because marriage isa patriarchal, evil institution.
(37:07):
She's not looking to leave afeminist legacy. But, you know,
she's dead so they could saywhat they want.
Kathryn Gehred (37:14):
Well, yeah, I mean, to take a historical
figure and use them forpolitical purpose. It's
interesting to see how that'shappened to her over time?
Cindy Kierner (37:21):
Yeah, it's been known to happen. Well, I mean,
it obviously it happens with,you know, Abigail Adams as well.
But the thing is, we haveAbigail Adams's words so people
can sort of debate on bothsides. Well, you know, no, she
wasn't asking for the right tovote. Was she asking for an end
of coverture? Was she askingfor, you know, whatever. And I
(37:42):
think well and scholars havecome up with a lot of different
interpretations of what shewanted. Hannah Corbin, at least,
apparently, was very clear inthe specific thing that she
wanted. She didn't want women tohave the right to vote. She
wanted widows and single womenwith property to have the right
to vote. So she didn't takeissue with the property
(38:03):
qualification, and she didn'ttake issue, apparently, with
marriage being a sort ofdisqualifying thing for women to
own property or to have theright to vote. And of course, we
know married women's propertyacts don't really happen until
the 1840s at best, and in someplaces a lot longer after that,
(38:24):
in Virginia, it's likereconstruction, which is insane.
Kathryn Gehred (38:28):
Yeah. Is there any other point that you really
wanted to get to?
Cindy Kierner (38:31):
Just that clearly, she was very aware of
what was going on politically,and not just as politics related
directly to her and herinterests. So the last paragraph
of the body of the letter whereRichard is saying this with the
(38:53):
other horrid comments ofslavery, he goes down and he
talks about getting a refund forher and Dr Hall's subscriptions
for Lord Camden's picture. Now,Lord Camden was this British
nobleman who was one of ahandful of important British
(39:15):
political figures who werereally outspoken in terms of
supporting the Americans intheir protest during the
Imperial crisis. I mean, this iswhy we have Camden, New Jersey.
Camden, South Carolina, youknow, the same way, like all
these places, are named afterWilliam Pitt for the same
reason, who later becomes theEarl of Chatham. So there's
(39:36):
Pittsburgh and Pittsboro andChatham, and you know, all of
that. And so Camden, I thinkeven at the time, was a less
famous version of a kind of proAmerican voice than, say,
someone like William Pitt. Butyet, she and Dr. Hall, I mean,
before he died, were buyingpictures of the guy to hang in
(39:58):
their house. So, I mean. And onthe one hand, it shows that as
late as 1774 when Dr. Hall wasalive, Hannah and Dr. Hall are
really pulling for there to be areconciliation on terms
favorable to the Americans, andthat there, as indeed were most
(40:21):
colonists at that point, butthey're keenly aware of the
political debates that are goingon, not only in Williamsburg,
but also in London. I thoughtthat that was really
interesting. I mean, I thoughtit was also really interesting
that now, since that whole thingdidn't work out, and they've got
independence now, she wants hermoney back, damn it, and
(40:42):
apparently she's gonna get it.So that's kind of cool.
Kathryn Gehred (40:45):
Thank you. I didn't even look into that, but
that's awesome. That's sointeresting. Well, thank you so
much for coming on the show. Dr.Kierner, this was awesome.
Cindy Kierner (40:53):
Yeah, super fun.
Kathryn Gehred (40:54):
We will provide links to this letter and other
information in the show notesfor my listeners, thank you very
much for listening, and I am asever, your most obedient and
humble servant. Thank you verymuch. Your Most Obedient &
Humble Servant is a productionof R2 Studios, part of the Roy
(41:16):
Rosenzweig Center for Historyand New Media at George Mason
University. I'm Kathryn Gehred,the creator and host of this
podcast, Jeanette Patrick andJim Ambuske are the executive
producers. Special thanks toVirginia Humanities for allowing
me to use their recordingstudio. If you enjoyed this
episode, please tell a friendand be sure to rate and review
(41:39):
the series in your podcast appfor more great history podcasts,
head to r2studios.org, thanksfor 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.