Perils of Leadership: The Law Takes Slaves from a Maryland First Family

In school I learned that historians use archives to compile evidence or find illustrative examples of a much longer case they are making. Genealogists, who are historians with a narrower interest, meanwhile consult indexes or other records looking for very particular items (usually names) and then move on. In the Legacy of Slavery in Maryland project at the Maryland State Archives we perform a hybrid type of work that, on the ground anyway, resembles genealogical research—only in reverse.

Genealogists often start their research with the names of their extended family in hand and work from there. Although case studies built around runaway ads start with names and locations just as genealogists do, the richest case studies start by examining attractive records themselves like a historian might. Freedom petitions from the Schweninger Collection, United States Colored Troops muster rolls and court cases on slave crimes have a wealth of information about slaves and former slaves; these are not stepping stones but rather the origin of our work. From here we use these names to search the indexes just like genealogists would. But rather than assemble a family tree, we are using state and municipal records to expose a history of an exploited racial class, like a historian would. If the groundwork of LOSIM is genealogy reverse, the collectivities of research that LOSIM compiles are itself the long case that historians make.

William Paca’s portrait by Charles Wilson Peale

Coincidentally, the raw Schweninger Collection was compiled in a similar manner as a genealogist looking for the names of ancestors. Since it is a research collection of sources rather than a collection of Dr. Schweninger’s notes or compositions, it is reminiscent of a fishing trawler scooping up any and all information it can about slaves (voluntarily or involuntarily) involved in court cases. From these resources I think I made an original discovery about one of America’s founding fathers, Maryland Governor William Paca.

It was with a certain giddy excitement that I read Robert Moody’s freedom petition. [See the post “Moody Moments”; January 13, 2013]  The blossoming research geek within me was challenged by the dearth of corroborating materials in the census, court and probate records, but stimulated by the implications of the unspoken subplot unfolding before me.

Robert Moody was a slave of Richard Jones in the early 19th century. In May, 1803 Moody challenged his bondage by Jones and submitted his freedom petition to the Queen Anne’s County Court. Following multiple continuances, the case was heard in May, 1812; using transcripts from three successful cases spanning courts across Maryland, Moody and his counsel William Carmichael successfully petitioned for his freedom by proving his descent from a free Indian woman named Mary or Moll. His case is an example of the complex legal environment of slavery and the legal means to escape it.

The State of Maryland officially discouraged activities that created familiarity and racial or class equality between whites and blacks but these laws were not unbending and ultimately aided Moody. A 1681 law governed the relationships between white servants and slaves by carrying a penalty of 10,000 pounds of tobacco for any priest marrying a “ffreeborne Englishe or white woman” and an African slave. This same law however stipulated that “all Children borne of such ffreeborne women, soe manymitted & ffree as aforesaid shall bee ffree as the women soe married”; this legal discrepancy between mulattoes borne of free mothers with slave fathers and mulattoes borne of free fathers and slave mothers essentially transferred freedom through the maternal line no matter how many generations removed and, if proven, invalidated bondage.

Moody vs. Jones

As of 1810 Richard Jones owned approximately sixty-two slaves in his Queen Anne’s County property, including Moody. Attempting to abort the petition process, Jones’ attorney argued that Moody “ought not to have or maintain his Petition against [Jones] because he saith that the said Robert Moody on the day of proposing the petition…was a slave” and was willing to verify this. Moody’s attorney William Carmichael responded that Moody was a “free man and of free condition, and not a slave” and thus not precluded.  Perhaps little more than a gesture in the dramaturgical interplay of the court room, Jones’ attorney simply reiterated his argument that Moody was in fact a slave. By neglecting this opening gambit he would probably harm his own case.

Carmichael presented records of three cases as evidence that Moody was legally entitled to freedom: Thomas Carver against Samuel Lloyd Chew, Rachel Baker and others against John Paca, and Margaret Creek against William Wilkins.

Carver vs. Chew

The 1794 case of Carver vs. Chew relied on the testimony of Queen Anne’s County residents, especially those familiar with Wye Island, but also crossed the Chesapeake into Annapolis and Herring Bay. In retrospect this connection to Annapolis should have made me suspicious that this case was bigger than I anticipated. Over thirty persons, many of whom knew Philemon Pike’s plantation on Wye Island for years if not decades, gave testimony regarding an Indian servant named Moll or Mary, whom Carver claimed was his great-grandmother. Many deponents were workers, white servants, or other persons familiar with the plantation; most claimed to have never heard of a woman named “Indian Moll” and lent credence to Samuel Lloyd Chew’s claim.

The widow Elizabeth Chew, quite possibly the step-mother of the defendant, stated that a slave named Margaret was pregnant when her deceased husband (also named Samuel) acquired her from Wye Island. Crucially for Moody, Elizabeth testified that Tom was Margaret’s son and claimed “Margaret was a free woman, free as any body.” She verified this with Samuel Chew’s sister, one and the same of Samuel Lloyd Chew’s aunt, Mary Hepburn of Upper Marlborough. Hepburn told her that “Margaret certainly is a free woman and no slave [because] her mother [Rachel] was the daughter of an Indian woman a native of this country” and brought up in the family of Philemon Lloyd on Wye Island. Chew acquired Margaret through his marriage to Henrietta Maria Lloyd, the only daughter of Philemon Lloyd. Henrietta Maria was probably the birth mother of Samuel Lloyd Chew, the defendant. Since Philemon Pike and Philemon Lloyd occupy the same time and space in this reference case, they are  likely the same person or at least blood related. [Contains some incorrect information. Read the disclaimer below or the William and Mary Paca biographies linked in the third paragraph beneath this one.]

Baker and others vs. John Paca

Moody’s case was first filed in 1803, the year after his mother Betty, the daughter of a “yellow woman called Rachel [Baker],” was freed along with at least fifteen other slaves in a case against John Paca. Since I am new to Maryland, the name “Paca” did not mean too much. I knew it shared the name of a Maryland politician however that meant little. Unlike my native Midwest where families scatter across the landscape, Maryland names remain geographically confined.  For example, Baker and Moody shared an attorney, William Carmichael, but research into him would be difficult. The name Carmichael is everywhere in Queen Anne’s County and William is perhaps the most common name during this historical period; furthermore, families tend to name children after a beloved relative. I suspect his son is R. B. Carmichael, a Queen Anne’s County politician and judge. It’s a start but without knowing William’s approximate birth year it is nigh impossible to know whether the records I am looking at pertain to him or someone else.

I made the connection to William Paca through an incredible coincidence; I clicked a link from the Legacy of Slavery’s official Twitter account. @LegacySlaveryMD—“Ratification Day! OTD in 1784, Congress meets in Annapolis to ratify the Treaty of Paris, ending the Revolutionary War http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/educ/exhibits/treaty/treaty.html”

A living history portrayal of Paca by Marcos Salaverria: Photo by Joshua McKerrow – The Capital

The link took me to an MSA Web page where I spotted a link to a biographical page for Governor William Paca. I clicked that link, satisfying my itch, and checked his partial biography. I immediately noticed his wife’s maiden name—Mary Lloyd Chew. Whatever the tendency for Marylanders to share surnames across many generations, Paca’s first wife had two names frequently mentioned throughout Moody’s petition. It went on to say that Paca had a son named John and died in 1799 (the year before Baker’s petition was filed) at “Wye Hall” in Queen Anne’s County. This all could still be a coincidence however; “John” was also a common name and the Wye River after which the island was named is fairly extensive and many places would be entitled to its moniker. I clicked the link to Mary’s biography and was hit again with even more names—Philemon Lloyd and Henrietta Maria. Her extended biography stated that Philemon Lloyd Chew died childless in 1770 and Wye Island was split between Paca (by virtue of his wife Mary) and his other sister Margaret Chew Bordley. Unbeknownst to me I had read a complicated tale of genealogy and probate concerning some of Maryland’s most prominent political families.

Wye Island – J. G. Strong’s Map of Queen Anne’s County, 1866, MSA SC 5080-1

I realized that Moody’s owner Richard Jones probably purchased him from William Paca himself. Since Moody claimed the same lineage as Rachel Baker and her family but was not listed as a co-petitioner in their 1800 filing, his sale probably happened before 1800 when William was still alive; this was corroborated upon a re-reading my notes. The 1802 verdict found Rachel and her co-plaintiffs were descended from a free Indian woman named Mary or Moll and the judge ruled them to be of free condition. They were also awarded $39.48 and one-third cents. Moody’s attorney William Carmichael, who also represented Rachel Baker et al.,  placed a record of this case into evidence.

Creek vs. Wilkins

Moody and Carmichael also entered into evidence the 1799 Baltimore County case of “Negro Margaret Creek against William Wilkins.” Attempting to abort the petition process, Wilkins’ attorney argued that Creek “ought not to have or maintain her petition against him because he saith that the said Margaret Creek on the day of proposing [this petition] was a slave” but her attorney Thomas Kell argued otherwise. The jury found Margaret to be free and awarded her 1,783 pounds of tobacco.

Verdict

Paca House, a home and garden that attracts many Annapolis tourists: Photo by Joshua McKerrow – The Capital

The jury at Moody’s trial was convinced by the evidence from these three petitions and found in favor of Moody against Richard Jones. They awarded him the sum of $105.63 and one-third cents compensation. Jones’ attorney argued that Moody did not adequately prove that the Margaret Creek from the Wilkins petition was the same Margaret from the Samuel Lloyd Chew petition; he filed an exception. To challenge this exception, a “mulatto man with wooly head” named Cesar Boose testified that Jones purchased Moody from William Paca fourteen or fifteen years earlier and that John was William’s representative.

The defense counsel “objected to the admissibility of the witness alleging him to be a negro [and] precluded by the Act of Assembly”; the defense likely cited a law similar to an 18th Century act stating that “no Negro, or Mulatto Slave, Free Negro, or Mulatto born of a White Woman…[or] or any Indian Slave, or Free Indian Natives…be admitted and received as good and valid Evidence in Law, in any Matter or Thing whatsoever…wherein any Christian or White Person is concerned.”  The court however ruled that it was incumbent upon the defense to prove whether Boose “was a negro slave [or] free negro descended from a slave.” Although it is not stated explicitly, it appears that Jones  excepted the evidence presented through the three preceding freedom petitions in addition to Cesar Boose’s testimony.

Judgments Affirmed

The case was given to the Court of Appeals for the Eastern Shore the following month, June 1812. It was entered into the docket in the low triple digits so a continuance was  was issued for the next session. The case appears again on the Court of Appeals Docket in June, 1813, which states the court’s decision: The Court of Appeals for the Eastern Shore affirmed the Queen Anne’s County Court judgments for all exceptions, however Judge Buchanan broke from his colleagues and dissented on the fourth exception. Jones’ exceptions to the Queen Anne’s County Court judgments were not numbered but it is likely that exception four concerned Boose’s testimony. The dissent was probably recorded in the more detailed Judgment Records, which are lost; since no catalog entry for a book containing Judgment Records for 1813 exists, the record was probably lost before its transfer to the then-named Maryland Hall of Records.

The fate of Robert Moody is unknown however there are other free persons by that surname in the Queen Anne’s County certificate of freedom index.

Ygolaeneg or, Genealogy Backwards

Rather than start with the name “William Paca” or “John Paca” like his descendants might, I started with a record that happened to include a court exhibit concerning his son. Although William and John Paca’s names are crucial in proving Robert Moody’s case, their names are lost in conventional indexes since they are not technically the co-defendants. It took the work of Dr. Loren Schweninger, his fellow researchers, and follow-up from the Legacy of Slavery in Maryland team (you know, me) to make this connection; I’m currently awaiting a book edited by Dr. Schweninger to see if he also made this Paca connection.

The successful petition of Rachel Baker and her extensive family represents a sizable exodus from a Maryland first-family perhaps not seen again until Henrietta Ogle’s slaves fled to British ships in the War of 1812. Currently there are two researchers at least partly dedicated to studying just these slaves. One of them, Chuck Weisenberger, used his Comegys Bight Scholarship to fund a summer research trip to the National Archives in London. If memory serves, he examined naval and Canadian provincial records to find as much information as possible about Ogle’s slaves. It’s an intriguing contrast that Paca’s slaves escaped with the law on their side while Ogle’s slaves escaped extra judicially.

Woe to be a Maryland first family.

[Corrections: This post contains many genealogical errors that were brought to light by further reading and support of community historians. The Chew/Dulaney/Paca families have a historically intricate relationship and history of intermarriage (at that time at least) and my comments on these relationships, especially concerning Philemon Lloyd, should be taken lightly. For example Lloyd, who was one of many Philemon Lloyds at the time, died childless.]