The Hubbards, an African-American Family in Connecticut, 1769-1810 Author(S): VINCENT J

The Hubbards, An African-American Family in Connecticut, 1769-1810 Author(s): VINCENT J. ROSIVACH Source: Connecticut History Review, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Fall 1994), pp. 263-277 Published by: University of Illinois Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44369389 Accessed: 24-03-2020 18:10 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Connecticut History Review

This content downloaded from 192.160.243.59 on Tue, 24 Mar 2020 18:10:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms The Hubbards, An African- American Family in Connecticut, 1769-1810

VINCENT J. ROSIVACH Fairfield University

While slavery as a legal condition was quickly disappearing from Connecticut in the late eighteenth century, the published retums of the 1790 census show that a substantial number of Connecticut's free Af- rican-Americans continued to live in households headed by whites.1 Although legally free, this residence pattern strongly suggests that whatever their lawful status, these African-Americans remained in conditions of economic and probably social dependence upon white householders who were typically their former owners. In the town of Fairfield, the 1790 census retums contain two households headed by non-whites. One of these was in fact an extension of the household of the African-American's former owner.2 The other household which was headed by Sarah Hubbard, was and had been independent since 1769.3 Most of Connecticut's African-Americans received their freedom only as slavery was gradually abandoned in the last quarter of the eighteenth century. As one of the few independent African-American families in colonial Connecticut, the Hubbards were something of an anomaly, and their story is intrinsically interesting, in no small mea- sure because it does not fit a familiar pattern.4 Yet even with their advantages of early freedom and economic independence, the Hub- bards fared badly; this presaged the difficulties other African- Ameri- cans in Connecticut would face when they later received their freedom. Fairfield was one of Connecticut's oldest and largest towns. Ac- cording to the seven censuses conducted between 1756 and 1790, the

This content downloaded from 192.160.243.59 on Tue, 24 Mar 2020 18:10:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 264 number of inhabitants ranged between 4500 and 5000.5 During the same period, African-Americans accounted for roughly 5 to 6 percent of Fairfield's total population, or about one African-American for each fourteen to eighteen white inhabitants.6 The 1790 census shows African-Americans living in ninety-seven households headed by whites, 13.7 percent of the total number of households headed by whites in Fairfield. This suggests that the presence of dependent Afri- can-Americans was far more widespread than the simple population figures would indicate. But the number of African-Americans in individual households headed by whites was modest: more than half the households with dependent African- Americans had only one or two.7 Although similar information is lacking for earlier years, there is no reason to believe that the distribution of African-Americans in Fair- field's households headed by whites was significantly different in the period covered by the earlier censuses. Fairfield's economy was essentially agricultural, and a reading of probate and church records leaves the impression that most African- Americans lived in households headed by farmers. In these households adult African-American males would help farmers with the heavier agricultural chores while adult females and children would do lighter agricultural tasks and would work around the house. Fair- field's economy also included a small number of non-farmers who supplied goods and services which Fairfield's subsistence farmers could not provide for themselves. One such artisan was Zachariah Hubbard, a hatter who moved from Boston to Fairfield sometime between 1732 and 1734.8 Not long before 1750, Zachariah acquired an African- American slave, James, and taught him the hatter's craft.9 James remained with Zachariah until the latter's death in 1769. In his will, Hubbard manumitted James as a reward for his good behavior and loyalty:

In consideration that my Negro Manserv1 James hath all times behav"1 with great faithfulness diligence & obedience my will is that he shall have his freedom at my decease & I do accordingly Manumit & make free from Slav- ery the said Negro James willing thereby declaring tht from and After my decease he shall not be a Serv1 or Slave to any of my heirs or to any other person but to all intents & purposes Shall be & Remain free from Slavery.1®

This content downloaded from 192.160.243.59 on Tue, 24 Mar 2020 18:10:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 265

Not only did Zachariah give James his legal freedom, but also he provided for his livelihood:

Item. I give & devise unto the aforesd Negro James all my Tools Utensels & Apparatus of every kind proper or Necessary to be Used in & About the Hatters trade to be to him his heir & assigns forever. 1 '

Normally the first provision of a contemporary will was a variation of the blanket injunction: "I will and order all my just debts and funeral charges to be paid by my executor." In a departure from normal practice, Zachariah also specified that neither James nor the articles be- queathed to him were to be sold to discharge any of Zachariah's personal or outstanding debts. In effect, Zachariah had provided James with what he needed to be independent after his manumission, notably the skills of the hatter's trade, the equipment needed to practice that trade, and perhaps an established clientele. Thus, James be- gan his new life as a free man with a significant advantage compared with newly manumitted agricultural slaves. They often lacked any personal resources, and many continued to live in the household of and to work for their former masters or their successors.12

According to the town of Fairfield's Family Book, in November 1752 James married Sarah, daughter of Joseph Caesar.13 Since "Cae- sar" was typically an African-American and occasionally a Native American name, one may assume that Joseph Caesar was either an African-American, presumably a freed slave, a Native American, or of mixed blood.14 It is uncertain when Sarah entered Zachariah Hub- bard's household, but it was probably at the time of her marriage to James, if not earlier. In any event, she was clearly a part of the household when Zachariah died in 1769. In the inventory of Zachariah's property made after his death, she was listed as a "negro" (i.e. slave), together with James and their children.15 It should be noted that the inventory was in error. The description of Sarah in the Family Book as Joseph Caesar's daughter and not as Zachariah Hubbard's servant, make it clear that she was not a slave. The inventory's assumption that she was shows just how marginal Sarah and her father Joseph Caesar were to Fairfield society. For despite her freedom, Sarah married a slave and lived in circumstances that could be mistaken for those of a slave by the takers of Zachariah's inventory.

This content downloaded from 192.160.243.59 on Tue, 24 Mar 2020 18:10:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 266

James and Sarah had seven children.

Table 1. The Hubbard Children, 1752-1771

Name Birth Baptized Death

Sarah I 4/27/1752 7/1/1753 Before 1767 Phoebe 4/24/1755 5/25/1755 1/24/1756 Philip 1/27/1757 James I 11/16/1760 Before 1762 James II 12/12/1762 Sarah II 9/19/1767

Joseph Caesar

Sarah I was born before James' and Sarah Sr.'s marriage was formal- ized in November of that year. Of their seven children, at least two died in infancy and one, Sarah I, in infancy or childhood.16 In this period, a high incidence of infant and child mortality was not unusual in either the white or African-American population. When Zachariah Hubbard died in 1769, James, Sarah, and their children were listed on the inventory of his possessions prepared for the Probate Court.17

Table 2. Zachariah Hubbard: Probate Court Records

Item £ s d 1 Negro man James 40 0 0 one Negro Woman Namd Sarah 1 0 0 Negro Boy Named Philip 17 0 0 one Negro Boy Namd James 4 0 0

1 Negro Girl Namd Sarah

The values assigned to the Hubbards were not potential sales prices but rather they were what the court appointed assessors thought each of the Hubbards was worth compared with other goods and chattels. By those standards, Sarah Sr.'s value was surprisingly low, and one might speculate that she might have suffered from some disability that lessened her worth.18

This content downloaded from 192.160.243.59 on Tue, 24 Mar 2020 18:10:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 267

Of course Sarah Sr. and the children should never have been listed on the inventory of Zachariah's possessions since he did not own them. Apparently the court-appointed assessors simply assumed that if Sarah and the children were African-Americans, they must be slaves. This mistake was quickly corrected because Sarah and the children remained in Fairfield; they were not sent to Milford, the home of Zachariah's sole surviving heir.19 There is no reason to doubt that Zachariah's will was carried out and that James Sr. was recognized as free.20 Indirect evidence suggests this was the case. A copy of the inventory of Zachariah's estate filed with the Probate Court listed Zachariah's hatter's equipment item by item; it was valued at 3£ 12s 7d. Added in a later hand, a notation read: "Now James hatters Utenseils." Because no real estate was listed in this inventory, Zachariah and his household probably lived and practiced the hatter's trade in rented quarters, an arrangement which was relatively rare, but nonetheless understandable given Zachariah's comparatively recent arrival in Fairfield and given his somewhat marginal position as a tradesman in this predominately agricultural community. James and his family probably continued the same living and working arrangements after Zachariah's death.

The Hubbards' given names call for further comment. Most Afri- can-Americans received names such as Pomp, Boston, Candace, and Tamar, or they were called by the diminutives of English names: Jim for James and Nance for Anne. It is thus somewhat surprising to find the Hubbards named James, Sarah, Philip, and Phoebe. James, of course, received his name from his master, Zachariah Hubbard. It might also be assumed that his children received their names at least with Zachariah's approval, if not at his instigation, for they were all bom in his household. The naming pattern thus suggests that Zachariah Hubbard thought of the African-Americans in his household differently than other slaveholders in Fairfield. After James' manumission, he and Sarah had at least one more child, Joseph Cesar, who was baptized in 1771 and named after her father. Unlike the other given names in the family, Cesar was a typically "African-American" name. The change in the naming pattern is

This content downloaded from 192.160.243.59 on Tue, 24 Mar 2020 18:10:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 268 noteworthy, but one can do no more than speculate on the reason for it.

The last mention of James is in the 1771 baptismal record of Jo- seph Cesar. While it is difficult to know precisely when James died, in all probability, he was dead by 1790. He was not listed in the Federal Census for that year. In this first census, his wife Sarah was listed as the head of a four-person household.21 Of their children, at least three had died; Philip, the eldest surviving child had left Fair- field by 1790 while the last three children including the second James, the second Sarah and Joseph Cesar apparently remained with their mother in Fairfield. Sarah Sr. died sometime before 1800.

In the 1800 Federal Census no Hubbard was listed as head of a Fairfield household. The disappearance of the family by the turn of the century strongly suggests that after the death of James Sr., its members lost their economic independence and that the children who remained with Sarah Sr. either entered into service in white households where they eventually took up residence, died, or left the community. The story of Philip, the eldest child, is a somewhat happier one. In 1780 when he was about twenty-three years old, Philip married Amarillis Morehouse. A record of that marriage recorded at the First Congregational Church mentioned that Philip and Amarillis were both "free negroes."22 At this time there were several branches of the Morehouse family in Fairfield, and there is no information about her family, her age, or when or how she came to be free. The retums of the 1800 census for Redding, two towns north of Fairfield, listed Philip Hubbard as the head of a household of seven free persons of color.23 After his death in 1810, probate records show Amarillis as the administratrix of his estate.24 The comparative rarity of the two names, Philip and especially Amarillis as well as the con- tents of this estate make it certain that the Philip Hubbard in the 1800 Redding census was the same Philip Hubbard who married Amarillis Morehouse in 1780 in Fairfield. Why the Hubbards left Fairfield and moved to Redding, however, remains a question. Philip and his family may have moved to Redding before 1790. A Philip "Roberts" appeared as the head of a household of four free persons of color in the 1790 census retums from Redding.25 While

This content downloaded from 192.160.243.59 on Tue, 24 Mar 2020 18:10:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 269 there was no Philip Roberts mentioned in the retums for Redding in the next Federal Census of 1800, there was a Philip Hubbard. More- over, several heads of household listed in the vicinity of Philip "Rob- erts" in the 1790 census were also listed in die vicinity of Philip Hubbard in the 1800 Federal Census, strongly suggesting that the Philip "Roberts" was really Philip Hubbard: a poorly written capital "H", easily mistaken for a capital "R" in the late eighteeenth century script, could be the source of the error.26 The seven members of the Hubbard household in 1800 were presumably Philip, Amarillis, and five children. Three were bom after 1790. The names of the several children and their exact ages are unknown; there is no record of any of them being baptized in either Fairfield or Redding.27 By 1810 the Federal Census retums show the family with only five members, presumably Philip, Amarillis, arid three children. There may have been two deaths in the family between 1800 and 1810, but it seems more likely that the older children who were now in their twenties had moved away. Sadly, Philip was no longer called "Philip Hubbard" in the 1810 census records, but simply, "Philip a Negro."28 The last mention of Philip Hubbard is in a series of papers filed with the Probate Court in Danbury between December 1810 and July 181 1. 29 Philip must have died a month or two before December 11, 1810. It was on that date that Amarillis first appeared before the Court to be appointed administratrix of his estate. His total estate was appraised at $82.42, a remarkably small amount. By way of compari- son, Amarillis was allowed $24.09, almost 30 percent of the total appraised value of the estate, for expenses incurred in its administration between December 1810 and July 1811. It is no wonder then that in her application to be appointed administratrix, Amarillis declared the estate insolvent.

Commissioners appointed by the Probate Court found that at his death, Philip had outstanding debts totalling $85.08: $66.08 to Ste- phen Betts, $13.22 to Daniel Betts, $5.03 to Enoch Marchant, and $.75 to Dr. Israel Graves, who had attended Philip in his final illness. Stephen Betts was a tavern keeper, his son Daniel ran a general store, and Enoch Marchant was a blacksmith.30 The smaller amounts Philip

This content downloaded from 192.160.243.59 on Tue, 24 Mar 2020 18:10:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 270 owed to Daniel Betts and Enoch Marchant may well have been unpaid bills for goods and services received, but $66.08 would be an improb- ably large tab for Philip to run up at Stephen Betts' tavern. Stephen Betts was a prominent member of the Redding community, and although we have no evidence to support the speculation, it is at least consistent with what we know about small communities like Redding that the $66.08 represented a series of small loans which Betts probably made over time to help Philip and his family.31 Perhaps it was from a sense akin to noblesse oblige. Given the size of the debt and Philip's poverty, there seems to be little expectation that the amount would ever be paid in full. In any event, the probate Court allowed Ámarillis, as widow, to retain the household furnishings, and the sale of remaining items yielded only $24.84, of which $24.09 was granted to Amarillis as reimbursement for expenses incurred administering the estate. Dr. Graves received $.75 while the two Betts and Enoch Marchant received nothing. In the inventory of this estate, a dwelling house valued at $12.50 and an old mare valued at $10 were listed. While the inventory also contained a small but conventional collection of household furnishings, linens, and utensils similar to those found in other contemporary inventories, it also included a few unusual items which give an insight into Philip Hubbard's life. These included a "Hatters Bason 1.30 ditto Stamper .75" which were prominently listed after the house and horse. It would thus appear that Philip continued to practice the hatter's trade, having learned it from his father James who had learned it from Zachariah Hubbard. The inventory also included a violin valued at $3.00. In nineteenth century popular paintings, African-Americans were frequently shown playing musical instruments including the violin for the entertainment of whites at dances and on other social occasions. Anec- dotal evidence suggests that these paintings fairly reflect common contemporary practices. In the small towns of early nineteenth century New England where Puritan values still influenced behavior, public entertainment was something marginal and somewhat illicit. Providing such entertainment for the white community thus appeared an appropriate position for African-Americans who were considered marginal people on the fringe of white society. Demeaning as the role of entertainer may have been, on a practical level it did allow impov-

This content downloaded from 192.160.243.59 on Tue, 24 Mar 2020 18:10:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 271 erished African-Americans to earn some extra change, and Philip Hubbard was not the only one who availed himself of the opportunity. Puppets valued at $.50 were listed on the inventory as well. This affords further evidence that Philip provided public entertainment. Unfortunately puppet shows violated local ordinances. "In 1801 the town [Redding] voted to relinquish to Enoch Merchant the fine im- posed on him ... for 'admitting puppet shows into his house contrary to the law.' " The next year, "John Read, Jr., was 'excused' for admitting puppet shows into his house 'on said Read's paying the costs.' "32

The list of entertainment items continued. "Showbox and Pic- tures 4.00" also belonged to Philip. The "pictures" were probably silhouettes cut from paper and the "showbox" was a shadow-box for displaying these silhouettes in simple dramas.33 The violin, puppets, showbox and pictures together with the capital invested in them which amounted to 9 percent of the appraised value of the estate, suggest that entertainment revenues provided an important source of income for Philip Hubbard. Finally the inventory also included an "Old Spelling Book .12 do Bible .25." These were the only two books in his estate, but they suggest that he was not illiterate.34 The Bible also implies that Philip was a religious man. Although there is no evidence that he belonged to the local church or that his children were baptized, this might not have been his choice. It seems likely that Philip used the spelling book for the education of his children. Just as the hatter's trade was passed on from Zachariah to James to Philip, the Hubbards probably valued the skill of reading enough to pass it on within the family. Amarillis Hubbard's application to serve as administratrix of her husband's estate was co-signed by Jonathan Hawley of Newtown, the town immediately to the east of Redding. Her expenses as administratrix included trips to Danbury to appear before the Probate Court and trips to Redding to inventory the estate, to notify the court-appointed commissioners, to attend the public sale, and twice to collect debts and attend the commissioners. It seems apparent that Amarillis no longer lived in Redding. She might have moved to Newtown, and could now be living in Jonathan Hawley' s household. To continue the speculation, perhaps one or more of Amarillis' older children were

This content downloaded from 192.160.243.59 on Tue, 24 Mar 2020 18:10:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 272 already in service to Hawley and living in his house. Amarillis and her younger children, with Hawley's permission, might have moved in with her older child or children. Of course, she would have had to do her share of domestic chores.

The Hubbard household does not appear in the retums of the 1820 Federal Census for Redding, either because Philip's survivors moved away or because they took up service and residence in local households headed by whites. In the absence of census or church records, it has been impossible to trace the Hubbards further.35 There were few African-American families in late eighteenth and early nineteenth century rural Connecticut that had the Hubbard's advantages of comparatively early manumission and the possibility of real economic independence. That the Hubbard family eventually lost its economic independence despite these advantages suggests that the obstacles facing less favored African-Americans were substantial. As independent free African-Americans, the Hubbards lived on the edge of white society. While they almost certainly suffered discrimination, in the sense that they were never treated as equal to whites, no evidence suggests that they were actively persecuted. Indeed whites occasionally helped them: the Betts and Marchant provided credits and loans and Hawley may have assisted Amarillis.36 But the hatter's trade was not enough to maintain Philip and his family. Patronized by white society, the Hubbards held on until Philip's death. After that the family lost even the appearance of independence, and its members either moved away or entered into service in households headed by whites.

Zachariah Hubbard had taught his servant James the hatter's trade and willed him his tools, thus providing him with the means to achieve economic independence. The close relationship of slave and master working together and living under the same roof engendered this affection and concern for James. Once independent, the Hub- bards were set adrift in the white-dominated community where they maintained their marginal existence for forty-one years, helped from time to time by generous if condescending whites. Eventually they were overwhelmed by a society which never really accepted them as equal or as free.

This content downloaded from 192.160.243.59 on Tue, 24 Mar 2020 18:10:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 273

NOTES

1 Bruce P. Stark, "Slavery in Connecticut: A Re-Examination," Connecticut Re- view 9 (November 1975): 75-81. For a good summary of Connecticut's legislation concerning the abolition of slavery, see The Public Records of the State of Connecticut (Hartford: 1951), VIII:xvii-xviii. The colonial assembly banned the importation of slaves into the colony in 1774, and ten years later, the state legislature extended the ban and added a provision that all negroes born after March 1, 1784 were to be free upon reaching the age of twenty-five. The 1790 Federal Census was the first census in Connecticut to provide information on individual households. U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of the Census, Heads of Families at the First Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1790: Connecticut (Washington, D.C.: 1908).

2 This was the household headed by the African- American Job Silliman, who, although freed by Gold Selleck Silliman during the Revolutionary War, continued to be dependent upon the Silliman family. Separate housing for African-Americans on the Silliman property was described by G.F. Fisher, Life of Benjamin Silliman, M.D. LL.D. (New York: 1866), 1:21. In addition to the free but dependent African- Ameri- cans in Job Silliman's household, the main Silliman household still had two slaves in 1790.

3 This was the only independent African-American household in eighteenth century Fairfield for which we have evidence.

4 General works on slavery in New England include L.J. Greene, The Negro in Colonial New England 1620-1776 (New York: 1942); E.J. McManus, Black Bondage in the North (Syracuse: 1973); W.D. Piersen, Black Yankees: The Development of an Afro-American Subculture in Eighteenth Century New England (Amherst: 1988).

5 On the census figures see Vincent Rosivach, "New Evicence for the Populations of Connecticut's Towns in 1776, 1779, and 1782," Connecticut Historical Society Bul- letin 56 (1991): 205-211. The figures are somewhat misleading, however, since the total area of the town also declined during this period as various sections were succes- sively incorporated as separate towns.

6 The exact figures are 5.8 percent in 1756 (260 African-Americans or 1 African- American per 16.1 whites), 6.2 percent in 1762 (313 African- Africans or 1 African- American per 15.2 whites), 6.5 percent in 1774 (315 African- Americans or 1 African- American per 14.4 whites), 5.1 percent in 1782 (273 African- American or 1 African- American per 18.3 whites), 5.4 percent in 1790 (217 African- American or 1 African- American per 17.4 whites). The figures for 1782 assume that all of Fairfield's "blacks" were African-American; note that there were only four Native Americans, all above the age of twenty, counted in Fairfield in the 1774 census. The 1790 census has the category "all other free persons," but Native Americans were not enumerated. Heads of Families at the First Census of the United States.

This content downloaded from 192.160.243.59 on Tue, 24 Mar 2020 18:10:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 274

7 On these points see Vincent J. Rosivach, "Agricultural Slavery in the Northern Colonies and in Classical Athens: Some Comparisons," Comparative Studies in Soci- ety and History 35 (1993): 561-563; see also tables 4 and 5.

8 For the termini post quern and ante quem , Hubbard was still in Boston when he was married on May 18, 1732, but he was in Fairfield by December 27, 1743, when his daughter Susannah married David Barlow. The marriage of another daughter, Mary, to Peter Pound of Milford, Connecticut around 1739 suggests that Hubbard may have spent some time in Milford after leaving Boston and before coming to Fairfield. For these and other details of Hubbard's life see D.L. Jacobus, History and Genealogy of the Families of Old Fairfield (Fairfield: 1932), 11:474-475.

9 James was baptized as an adult in Fairfield's First Congregational Church on February 18, 1749/50. "James, a negro man ... professing faith . . . ." Connecticut, Fairfield. First Congregational Church, Records, 1694-1806 (photostat copy, Hartford: 1929), 67. It is likely that slaves baptized as adults had been recently acquired (by purchase or inheritance) by owners who thought it important that their slaves become members of the church; such previously unbaptized slaves may have been held by owners who neglected the spiritual needs of their slaves, or less likely, they may have been directly imported from Africa. In James' case, we know nothing of his origins or earlier life.

10 A copy of the will is transcribed in Connecticut. Fairfield Probate District, Probate Court Records , vol. 16, 238. The will was dated November 11, 1768, four and one-half months before Zachariah's death on March 31, 1769.

H Ibid.

12 He could have left this agricultural community and moved to one of the cities where either he found employment as a common laborer, or as happened often enough, he entered into the same kind of dependent relationship as a servant in an urban household.

13 Connecticut. Fairfield. Family Book: 1696-1855 (Additional Dates, 1628- 1880) (photostat copy, Hartford: 1938), 9. The Book is a list of families, including some African-American families, in the town of Fairfield giving for each family the dates of marriage and births and some deaths. In it unclear whether the Book was meant to be kept as a running record or was periodically updated by the different registrars who made the entries. The Hubbard entry is written in a single hand, perhaps at a single time, apparently sometime between January 24, 1756, the date of death of Phoebe, daughter of James and Sarah, and the latest family event listed in the Book , and March 27, 1757, the date of birth of Philip, son of James and Sarah. The marriage probably took place in the First Congregational Church, in which both James and all but one of these chilren were baptized. There is no record of where or even if Sarah was baptized. African- American marriages do not appear in the First Congrega- tional 's records until 1775, but their absence from the records cannot be taken as proof

This content downloaded from 192.160.243.59 on Tue, 24 Mar 2020 18:10:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 275 that such marriages did not take place. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine where James and Sarah might have been married if not in the First Congregational Church.

14 Manumission of slaves was comparatively rare before the Revolutinary War, but it was still frequent enough to be regulated by legislation as early as 171 1. Ham- mond Trumbull and Charles Hoadly, eds., The Public Records of the Colony of Con- necticut (Hartford: 1850-1890), V:233. We have no information on Sarah's mother.

15 A copy of the inventory is transcribed in the Connecticut. Fairfield, Probate Court Records, vol. 16, 131.

16 Birth dates and Phoebe's death are from the Family Boot, baptismal dates are from the First Congregational Church, Records, 1694-1806. This does not include Sarah II. Sarah I must have died before Sarah II's baptism and James I before James II. Unlike the other children who were baptized in the First Congregational Church, Sarah II was baptized in the Greenfield Hills Congregational Church. See, G.H. Mer- win, Ye Church and Parish of Greenfield: The Story of an Historic Church in an Historic Town: 1725-1913 (New Haven: 1931), "Supplement," 91. The reason for the change of church is unclear, but since James was still Zachariah's slave and Sarah was living in his household, it is more likely that the change depended on Zachariah's choice rather than James' and Sarah's. After James 'manumission James and Sarah returned to the First Congregational Church for the baptism of their youngest son Joseph Cesar.

17 Connecticut. Fairfield, Probate Court Records, vol. 16, 238.

18 Alternatively, she might already have been quite old, but this seems less likely because she was to live at least another twenty-one years. She appeared in the 1790 Federal Census.

19 Since we have evidence for Sarah Sr. and for Philip whose marriage was recorded in Fairfield's First Congregational Church, we may safely assume that the other two children also remained in Fairfield. The surviving heir of Zachariah Hub- bard appeared to be his grandaughter Susannah who is also mentioned in the will.

20 State legislation enacted in 1777 regulated the manumitting of slaves by re- quiring the town's selectmen to review candidates for manumission and to certify in writing that manumission was in the slaves' interest, that they will not become wards of the town, and that they are "of good and peaceable life and conversation." Con- necticut. Public Records of the State of Connecticut, 1:415-416. There is, however, no evidence for any procedure in 1769, and it appears rather that at this date there was no formal procedure of any kind for manumitting slaves nor any register of manumissions kept by either the town or the colony, and that a slave became free on the simple word of his master, either viva voce or ex testamento, presumably in the presence of witnesses.

21 1 790 Heads of Families, 13.

This content downloaded from 192.160.243.59 on Tue, 24 Mar 2020 18:10:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 276

22 First Congregational Church, Records , 254. Amarillis' name was spelled "amarillis."

23 United States Federal Population Census, Manuscript Schedules, Second Cen- sus of the United States, 1800, Redding, Connecticut.

24 Danbury Probate District, Danbury, Conn. Probate Packets, Hoyt-Hull 1 756- 1800 , packet no. 2492. It contains the following original documents: Amarillis Hub- bard's application to serve as executor of her husband's estate; the appraisers' inventory of the estate; the commissioners' report on claims outstanding against the estate; accounts of Amarillis' expenses as administratrix and of items sold from the estate at public sale. Danbury, Connecticut. Register of Probate Court Records , vol. 10, contains the following transcribed documents: the appointment of Amarillis as administratrix, and upon her declaration of the estate as insolvent an order setting a date for the appointment of commissioners; the order appointing commissioners to settle claims against the estate; the appraisers' inventory of the estate; the order to sell off the estate, other than the widow's share, to satisfy creditors; the commissioners' report on claims outstanding against the estate; the Court's allowances to Amarillis, for her expenses as administratrix, and to Dr. Graves (who attended Philip in his final illness), and the declaration that nothing remains for the other creditors. Both Danbury Probate Pack- ets and Danbury Probate Records are cited from microfilm copies in the Connecticut State Library, Histoiy and Genealogy Unit, Hartford, Connecticut.

25 1 790 Heads of Households , 27.

26 If such a mistake did occur, it was in the transcription of the census enumera- tor's notes into the final report. See, United States Federal Population Census, Manu- script Schedules, First Census of the United States, 1790, Redding, Connecticut.

27 A few African- American baptisms are recorded in the Redding Congregational Church. If the Hubbard children were not baptized, it was not because Philip did not take religion seriously. Rather I suspect that only African-Americans sponsored by whites were admitted to the Redding Congregational Church; as independent African- Americans, Philip and Amarillis had, in effect, no one to sponsor them, and hence were not admitted as members of the church and therefore could not have their children baptized.

28 United States Federal Population Census, Manuscript Schedules, Third Census of the United States, 1810, Redding, Connecticut. Also "Jack a Negro" and "Jonas a Negro" were recorded for the other two households headed by free persons of color in Redding in 1810.

29 Danbury Probate District, Danbury, Conn. Probate Packets , packet no. 2492, and Danbury, Register of Probate Court Records , vol. 10.

30 C.B. Todd, The History of Redding, Conn. From Its First Settlement to the Present Time (New York: 1880), 125, 230.

This content downloaded from 192.160.243.59 on Tue, 24 Mar 2020 18:10:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 277

31 Stephen Betts was chosen selectmen in 1777 and appointed deacon in 1785. Ibid., 66, 92, 229-230.

32 Ibid., 131.

33 "Showbox and cuts" were in the account of the public sale of items from Philip's estate. This theatrical device was apparently undervalued by the appraisers, fetching $7.50 when it was sold at public sale.

34 Amarillis, however, probably was illiterate. She used "her mark" (an "X") rather than a signature to sign the form requesting to be appointed administratrix of her husband's estate.

35 The Hubbard household and two others headed by free persons of color had appeared in the 1810 census returns for Redding. By the time of the next census in 1820, all three had disappeared, and Redding's African-Americans now lived in households headed by whites. See United States Federal Population Census, Manu- script Schedules, Fourth Census of the United States, 1820, Redding, Connecticut. One may infer from the absence of Hubbards in the census records, that in 1820 no Hubbard lived in the dwelling house mentioned in the inventory of Philip's estate. The house was not sold to satisfy the debts outstanding against the estate, nor is there any record of subsequent sale. It would appear that the house was simply abandoned, which suggests that it might have been an undesirable place to live. A Philip Hubbard, aged between 24 and 36, was listed as head of a household of four "colored" persons including a female also between 24 and 36, and a boy and a girl both under 10. They were found in the 1830 census returns for Cornwall in the far northwest section of Connecticut. See ibid., Fifth Census of the United states, 1830, Cornwall, Connecticut. The age would be about right for one of Philip's children, and the name is not that common. There is no way without further evidence, however, of telling whether this Philip is related to the family under discussion.

36 Note also that racial attitudes did not keep the white Dr. Graves from minister- ing to Philip Hubbard in his final illness.

This content downloaded from 192.160.243.59 on Tue, 24 Mar 2020 18:10:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms