Portrait of a Young Woman, formerly attributed to Jean-Étienne Liotard, late 18th century. Public domain image courtesy of Saint Louis Art Museum, via Wikimedia Commons.
In honor of Independence month and the American crusade to achieve liberty on both a collective and individual level, we examine a New Haven County Superior Court case involving a freeborn woman named Rhoda, who was sold into slavery despite her mother and grandmother being freewomen and her great-grandmother an Englishwoman.
When quoting from documents, we will use the actual spelling, including transcriptions of individual words as necessary. (For more information about colonial spelling practices, see The Standardization of American English at teachinghistory.org.) In certain circumstances, we will add missing letters to abbreviated words or substitute modern spelling in brackets to enhance reader comprehension.
Writ, Lucas Wingard vs. James Reynolds and Allen Sage, 1768 (County Court)
In June 1768, Lucas Wingard (also spelled Wingaard and Wyngaard) of Kinderhook, New York sued James Reynolds and Allen Sage of Waterbury for repayment of their debt by bond, which was “the Sum of £200—Current Money of New York.”
In this seemingly straightforward case, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount, plus court costs. But Reynolds and Sage appealed to the Superior Court and were bound on recognizance of £200 “if they make not their plea good” (County Court Records, New Haven County, Vol. 7, 1767-1773, p. 127).
Rhoda’s involvement was not mentioned anywhere in this writ—the only extant document in the County Court case.
Writ and court proceedings, Lucas Wingaard vs. James Reynolds and Allen Sage, 1769 (Superior Court)
The writ and court proceedings for the Superior Court case likewise omitted Rhoda, although Reynolds and Sage claimed that Wingaard “an Assault did make in and upon the Bodies of the [Defendants] and them with Force and strong Hand did fully imprison and of their Lawful Liberty unjustly restrain for the Space of more than Six Hours and untill the [Defendants] were compelled Against their Minds & Wills to sign Seal & deliver said Writeing in Order to regain their Lawful Liberty wherefore they say the said Writeing on which &c purporting to be a Bond was obtained by Duress of Imprisonment and the same is therefore Void[.]”
This aforementioned bond is where Rhoda’s involvement in this debt began.
Bond, Lucas Wingaard vs. James Reynolds and Allen Sage, 1769
Per the bond that Reynolds and Sage allegedly signed under duress, they sold Rhoda to Wingaard as partial repayment of their debt:
Know all men by these presents That we James Reynolds & Allen Sage both of Waterbury in the Colony of Connecticut are held & firmly bound unto Lucas Wyngaard of Kinderhook in the County of Albany Farmer in the sum of Two hundred pounds Current Money of New York to be paid to the said Lucas Wyngaard his [Executors Administrators] or assigns for which payment well & Truly to be Made & done we and each of us bind ourselves & each of our heirs Executors & [Administrators] Jointly and Severally firmly by these presents Sealed with our seals & Dated this Twenty fourth Day of November in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred & Sixty four
The Condition of the above Obligation is Such that whereas the above bounden James Reynolds & Allen Sage have this day sold & delivered unto the said Lucas Wyngaard a certain Negro girl named Roday for the consideration of the sum of Seventy three pounds to them well & truly in hand paid by the said Lucas Wyngaard and they said James Reynolds & Allen Sage have agreed to warrant and defend the said Lucas Wyngaard of the said Negro Girl of all claim whatsoever & covenant & agree that the said Girl is a Slave & not free & that She is free and clear from all Incumbrances whatsoever and that She shall & will remain a slave to the said Lucas Wyngaard & his [Executors] during her natural Life unless by his own act She is Made otherwise Now therefore if at any time hereafter the said Negro Girl should prove her freedom before any court of Justice to the satisfaction of said Court then the above bond to be of full force otherwise to be Void
Testimony of Volkert P. Douw, Lucas Wingaard vs. James Reynolds and Allen Sage, 1769
The mayor of Albany, Volkert P. Douw, confirmed via sworn affidavit that on November 24, 1764, “I received from James Runnel the sum of Five pounds for the Duty of one Negro wench which Luykas Wyngaard Bought[.]”
Testimony of Roger Moor, Lucas Wingaard vs. James Reynolds and Allen Sage, 1769
Although Rhoda’s voice is conspicuously but unsurprisingly absent from the testimony, she did not accept this arrangement between Wingaard, Reynolds, and Sage. Per the following statement from Roger Moor, she fled from Wingaard, but was subsequently recaptured:
The [Deposition] of Roger Moor of Lawfull age testifyes and says that som[e] time in [January] 1768 & by [virtue?] of an Advertis[e]ment under the hand of Mr Lucas Wyncord & Did tak[e] up a Negro g[i]rl Named Radah who was then Run away from her marster the above said Wynecord and [according] to the Advertis[e]ment & was intiteled to five Dolers Reward and all [Reasonable] Charges and I did [recover?] of him the sa[i]d Wynecord the above said five dolers Reward and any Charges which was three Dolers moor and [further] the Deponant saith Not
Testimony of John and Mabel Smith, Lucas Wingaard vs. James Reynolds and Allen Sage, 1769
However, the testimony of three European-descended people who knew Rhoda from her hometown of Wethersfield confirmed that not only was she freeborn—that is, her mother Betty Ned was not enslaved—her grandmother Mary was also a freewoman and her great-grandmother Elizabeth was a (presumably white) Englishwoman:
John Smith of Weathersfield in Hartford County of Lawful age & Mabel his wife Depose & say that many Years ago we well knew an English woman named Elizabeth Addams Daughter of one Benjamin Addams of this Town, which s[ai]d Elizabeth Addams had a female Child which was Called Mary reputed to be by a Negro man of Col Chester[’]s that the Last named Mary lived in this Town many years ago & had a female Child Named Betty now called Betty Ned (said to be by a Negro man of Mr Patterson[’]s of Farmington) that the Last named Betty Called Betty Ned afterwards about Seventeen Years ago Came & lived at our House and there had a female Child Called Rhoda Supposed to be by our Negro man Named Quash Which Rhoda afterwards was put out by her Mother or by order of the town to Abraham Harris to Serve him, till of Age & we well knew that the Said Elizabeth Addams was an English woman that the Said Mary her Daughter & the Said Betty Ned & the Said Rhoda were all Free born and always were so Reputed Treated & Esteemed in ye Said town of Wethersfield and Elsewhere—and we Suppose this Same Rhoda to be the person now in Controversy between Lucas Wingard & James Reynals & Allyn Sage as we understood they the Said Reynals and Sage had her of Said Harris for a term or untill She came of Age and afterwards Sold her somewhere in the Dutch Country as a Slave for Life & we also know that the Said Betty Ned Her Mother is now Living a Free woman in this Town & hath had Sundry other Children who have all been Esteemed & treated as Free & not as Slaves by any one Whatsoever
Capt[ain] John Rennals of Wethersfield agrees with the said [John] Smith & Mabel his wife & says that he knew the said Elizabeth Addams an English Woman & her Daughter Mary & the Said Betty Ned Mother of Said Rhoda—and that they were all Free born & so Reputed Esteemed & Treated in this Town and all the Other Children of ye S[ai]d Betty Ned
While Rhoda’s status as enslaved or free posed an important question to all parties involved, Wingaard’s lawsuit was primarily focused on recovering the money that Reynolds and Sage owed to him. Given that the plaintiff was a Dutch-descended New Yorker rather than an English-descended Puritan, his mentality may have been more pragmatic and pecuniary. As Allegra di Bonaventura quipped, in colonial New York “the official religion was the moderate Dutch Reformed Church, although the real creed was trade and profit” (For Adam’s Sake: A Family Saga in Colonial New England, p. 5).
The “Jury Sworn” for the Superior Court case were Caleb Johnson, Caleb Hotchkiss, Lamberton Smith, John Hall 2nd, Stephen Andruss, Stephen Baldwin, Stephen Hine Jr., Nehemiah Smith, Eliphalet Howde, Benjamin Palmer, Nathaniell Tainter, and Joseph Beecher. After deliberation, they determined “that the Defendants were Not compeled against theirs Minds and Wills to Sign and Deliver Said Writing in Order to regain their Lawfull liberty and that Said Writing was Not Obtained by Duress of Imprisonment in manner and form as the Defendants in their plea in Barr have Alledged therefore find for the [Plaintiff] thirty five pounds New York currancy damage and Costs” (Connecticut Superior Court Records, Vol. 19, 1766-1769, p. 322).
Interestingly, the Smiths named all of the women descending from Elizabeth Addams in their testimony, but not Rhoda’s grandfather or great-grandfather—which is highly unusual for a culture where men were the legal head of household by default, ancestry was traced primarily through patrilineal lines, and the “inheritance system [was] designed to keep property in the hands of men” (Carol F. Karlsen, The Devil in the Shape of a Woman: Witchcraft in Colonial New England, p. 101).
However, according to chattel slavery practice in colonial New England, enslavement followed the status of the mother. The fact that three previous generations of Rhoda’s maternal ancestors were not only freewomen but also freeborn was a powerful argument in favor of her freedom, even though all of her paternal ancestors were likely enslaved. As di Bonaventura wrote, “Because children inherited their legal status from their mothers, a bondsman who procreated with a free woman would have free children” (For Adam’s Sake, p. 272). Wendy Warren also observed, “Whereas the English family was patriarchal, we might see enslaved families as matrilineal because the status of the mother so often determined the children’s fate, and because... masters were not bound to recognize the paternal claims of African men whose children were born outside of Christian wedlock” (New England Bound: Slavery and Colonization in Early America, pp. 157-158).
Why then, after this compelling evidence in her favor, did Rhoda seek her liberty in an extralegal manner? Illegally enslaved women like Phillis of New Haven—as well as several other women and men—successfully obtained their freedom through lawsuits. Unfortunately, we can only speculate that she encountered insuperable obstacles precluding such a solution to her situation. Slavery and servitude in New England was inexplicably ad hoc in nature, and this “legal vagueness sometimes made it more, not less difficult for Indians and, later, Africans to escape slavery... individual slaves had to file costly individual freedom suits or try to liberate themselves by walking away from slavery... local norms and usages, and the ability of purported owners to invoke the policing power of local officials and institutions, shaped what was possible for the owners of captives” (Margaret Ellen Newell, Brethren by Nature: New England Indians, Colonists, and the Origins of American Slavery, pp. 16, 54).
Conditions could be even more difficult for enslaved individuals in New York. “Although New Netherland would not establish a slave code, they ‘equated blackness with slavery’” and, after the English took control, “New York did not accept slaves as legal plaintiffs or witnesses against whites, and slaves did not have jury trials unless the accused slave’s master demanded it... Given the legal and social barriers to freedom, African Americans used a variety of extralegal measures to avoid abuse.” In addition, “Servants of color found it more difficult to prosecute their cases of abuse than whites, and they were more likely to suffer from unfair contracts and assaults... By the eighteenth century, courts were disposed to viewing Indians and African Americans as having less of a right to their autonomy than whites” (Kelly A. Ryan, Everyday Crimes: Social Violence and Civil Rights in Early America, pp. 32, 40-41, 82, 87-88).
Rhoda may not have had a viable choice other than fleeing her Dutch-descended captor. It is also possible that she initially tried to pursue freedom through legal means but was rebuffed by the local justices—or the record of any such attempt was lost. Regardless, her marginalized status in the English legal system, even as a freeborn woman from a long line of freewomen, no doubt fueled Reynolds’ and Sage’s arrogance in thinking they could enslave her without repercussion.
While the Court did not record Rhoda’s ultimate fate, researchers tracing the ancestry and family history of African-descended peoples in colonial New England now have access to invaluable information about Rhoda’s lineage, thanks to the detailed testimony of John Smith, Mabel Smith, and Captain John Rennals. Until more information comes to light, we can only hope that the New Haven County Superior Court upheld Rhoda’s freeborn status and that she was able to reunite with her family in Wethersfield.
As noted in a previous post, the records for these cases, as well as several of the cases previously profiled in this blog, are currently in the process of being digitized. They will eventually be available for public viewing at the Connecticut Digital Archive (CTDA).
This project is made possible through funding from the Historic Documents Preservation fund of the Office of the Public Records Administrator. We also recognize the past support of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC).
Connecticut State Library | 231 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, CT 06106 | 860-757-6500 * Toll-free 866-886-4478
Disclaimers & Permissions | Privacy Policy | State of Connecticut Home Page
The State of Connecticut is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and strongly encourages the applications of women, minorities, and persons with disabilities.
0 Comments.