In Our Own Words: Revolutionary War-era town records of Old Dartmouth Presenting Four Perspectives

The transcribed town records can be accessed at https://wpthistory.org/in-our-own-words-the-path-to-independence-1760-1790/

The late 1700s was an era of revolution for the American colonies. It was also a time of formation for Westport and other neighboring towns. In the decade following the Revolution, Westport separated from Dartmouth and, in 1787, was incorporated as a town, forging its own unique identity. In order to gain a deeper understanding of this region before, during, and after the Revolutionary War, we embarked on a project to transcribe town meeting records of Old Dartmouth from 1760 – 1790. During this time Old Dartmouth encompassed Westport, Dartmouth, New Bedford, Fairhaven, and Acushnet.

Completed in December 2025, this effort has revealed a unique story of the town government response to the challenges of war. This document includes presentations by four local historians on aspects of the revolutionary story of this region.

The transcribed town records can be accessed at https://wpthistory.org/in-our-own-words-the-path-to-independence-1760-1790/

This project was co-sponsored by the Westport Historical Society, Dartmouth Heritage Preservation Trust, and the Dartmouth Historical and Arts Society. April 2026.

Contents
Early Town Government – First 100 Years [1663-1763]
By Sally Aldrich, Dartmouth Historical and Arts Society

Above the Fray: Old Dartmouth Quakers During the Revolution
By Richard Gifford

“The Little House with a Big Story to Tell.”
By Diane Gilbert, President, Dartmouth Heritage Preservation Trust, Inc

Two Important Petitions Submitted by the Cuffe Brothers in 1780
By David C. Cole

EARLY TOWN GOVERNMENT – FIRST 100 YEARS [1663-1763]

By Sally Aldrich

Unlike other New England towns, Old Dartmouth did not receive a land grant from either Plymouth Colony nor Massachusetts Bay to set up a town as a compact settlement with a Protestant church, a minister, a town hall, and a public common. Instead, in 1664 all of the land in Dartmouth was held privately by Plymouth Old Comers and their descendants, or their subsequent land buyers. When the Town of Dartmouth was incorporated that year, it owned no land nor had any place to put a town house.

The Town was one town in name only, as the populations of the three villages of Acoaxet, Apponagansett and Acushnet grew in the years from the 1660s to 1790.  When the three areas split in 1787, there were 452 families in Westport, 448 in current Dartmouth, and 582 families in New Bedford, Fairhaven and Acushnet, according to the 1790 Federal Census – and quite equal geographically in size as well.

The Town’s purpose (as it is today) was to provide services to its inhabitants and to control them. Jobs included selectmen, clerk, treasurer, moderator, constables, assessors, highway surveyors, hog reeves, fence viewers, pound keepers, surveyors of timber, sealer of weights, and the like. There was an effort to recruit equally from the three villages, especially selectmen and highway surveyors. However, there was no town minister in Old Dartmouth!!  And those serving in the Town offices only got their out-of-pocket expenses reimbursed, if that.

Town meetings were called once or twice a year by means of a warrant posted in each village, and held in a public place. Inhabitants qualified to vote were required to attend or pay a fine. Town meeting also selected representatives to send to colony government and county government, and to serve on juries. There was no religious component to Town Meetings. Quakers and Baptists and any other denomination held entirely separate meetings.

The amount of annual tax (the tax budget) to be raised each year was set by vote at Town Meeting. Town taxes were not collected from non-resident landowners. They were collected from each freehold (male) inhabitant as a poll tax, provided he had a certain minimum of property value. He did not need to own land; he could have money or be a blacksmith or mill worker.  The types of assets being valued and taxed were houses, shops, mills, tanneries, animals, crops, wharves and vessels. Paying the poll tax made him a voter with town obligations, and if he did not have means of support, he was most likely “warned” out of town or committed to the town poor farm.

For the first hundred years until the 1760s, the Town meeting issues were all local. Mostly they were devoted to finding voters who would fill the required positions and to settle any town disputes. Most of the Town’s revenue came from the “forfeit” fine for not attending town meeting or from the fine assessed on those refusing to serve. Come to a town meeting just to contest being appointed to an office!  The words “in the room of” in the minutes mean “in place of,” naming the substitute. The constable job was most hated! However, some civic-minded men DID serve faithfully year after year. The taxes assessed and collected in the town budget were paid as county taxes or colony taxes. Local tax money was spent on a schoolmaster, who roamed the villages staying at local farms, and for road repairs. Accepting and laying out public roads and their upkeep was taken over by the Town almost entirely from the landowners about 1717.

There is one stand-out conclusion from all Town Meeting records, whether in the first 100 years before the Revolutionary War or as colony tensions grew after 1760. In Old Dartmouth, town meetings never wanted to make a decision without a clear consensus, and for consensus, they used committees: at town meeting, they appointed “responsible” men to examine the issue and report back to town meeting; then individual (unnamed) town meeting members agreed or disagreed with any recommendations; if no clear consensus emerged, town meeting sent the committee back to reconsider the issue or it just appointed a new committee; and finally, when town meeting was sufficiently in agreement, they voted “yea” or “nay” or simply voted to postpone the whole matter until the next town meeting.

With the Revolutionary War coming on, in addition to conducting Town Meeting exactly as it had done for a century, Old Dartmouth was faced with new, much more difficult challenges: the need to take a stand in political decisions farther afield, the request for militia, the request for food and clothing to supply patriots, and raising funds for the patriot war effort. And the tax burden went sky high.

ABOVE THE FRAY: OLD DARTMOUTH QUAKERS DURING THE REVOLUTION

By Richard Gifford

At the time of Revolution, the Quakers had seven meeting houses in Old Dartmouth: Parting Ways and Long Plain in Acushnet, Bedford, Apponegansett and Newtown (Faunce Corner Road) in Dartmouth and Acoaxet and Centre in Westport. Most people, I would think, would conclude that the one in Acoaxet must be long-ago demolished. No, there never was one in the area we know as “Acoaxet” today (Westport Harbor). In the 18^th century, “Acoaxet” had a broader meaning and referred to the area we now know as “Westport.” Well, at least the other one’s easy, everyone knows that the Meeting House is in Central Village, so that one is Centre. No, Centre, long ago demolished, is located north of the old High School, but the Quaker burial ground which was one to the rear of the meeting house can now be easily seen.  Why this location would be the center of anything remains anybody’s guess. At the time of the Revolution, the overall population was probably over 60% Quaker.

Several aspects of Quaker practice earned them the suspicion, if not hostility, from their non-Quaker neighbors. Foremost of these was their refusal to bear arms in the militia. Quaker pacifism had forbidden bearing arms in any military company since the beginning, and the Dartmouth Monthly Meeting records show that those who did so would face “disownment” (dismissal) without exception. Going beyond that, any Quaker serving on a privateer would like face disownment. Buying “prize goods” — the cargoes of British vessels seized by privateers — merited a stern warning from the Meeting. A Quaker gunsmith was disciplined for mending guns he knew would likely be used by the militia, and one Quaker artisan was disciplined for making leather straps that could be used by the militia to sling their powder horns.

The refusal of Quakers to serve in the militia had direct consequences for the town’s finances. Directives from Boston required each town to fill a militia quota, and falling short of the mark resulted in heavy fines being imposed on the town. Dartmouth recruited soldiers from other towns, particularly from Freetown and Tiverton, to enlist in Dartmouth militia companies. But Dartmouth had to pay out large bounties to entice these outsiders to enlist. This resulted in a severe financial crunch, with the fines paid to Boston, combined with the bounty payments, only partially offset by the fines assessed by the town to its Quakers for not serving in the militia.  Of the need for a militia there could be no doubt, as shown in 1778 when the British raided New Bedford, Fairhaven and Padanaram. Even here the Quakers had an indirect impact: town leaders had planned to place a fort protecting New Bedford in the area that later became Ft. Taber, but the Quaker property owners of that area did not want to transfer land that would put to military use, leading to a fort less optimally sited being placed on the Fairhaven side.

A second characteristic of the Quaker experience was a withdrawal from town government. The local historian Henry Worth noted that lists of Dartmouth delegates to Patriot government organizations like the Committee of Correspondence or the County Congress seemed to contain few if any Quaker names. Quakers had held town offices, from selectman on down, since the earliest days of Dartmouth, but during the Revolution it is clear that many were declining office. The office of constable was apparently particularly odious, as man after man would decline, resulting in hefty fines imposed on those who declined (in those days all town officers were elected at Town Meeting, and apparently could be selected for office regardless of any wish to serve). These fines were a significant part of the town’s budget. One can imagine a pre-election whispering campaign: “make sure to vote Quakers in, so we can keep our tax bills down.”

Quaker records indicate a priority was placed on not appearing to take sides in the conflict. Privately, in their heart of hearts, Quakers seem to have favored the Patriot side, but each Quaker should take care not to make any public declaration of sentiment for one side or the other. Such “above the fray” sentiment reached almost ridiculous levels when the Dartmouth Monthly Meeting filed a protest with the town objecting to the posting of town meeting and other town notices on the doors of the meeting house, billboard style. Such notices had likely been posted on the meeting’s doors since it first opened in 1698, but Quakers seem to have been apprehensive that even this could be construed as some sort of the endorsement for the town, by that time firmly aligned with the Patriot cause.    

Related to this was the Quaker belief that because they were above the fray, and not tied to either side, there should be “business as usual” in carrying out trade, even with the British. One scheme which Worth wrote about resembles a smuggling operation out of “The French Connection.” Three members of the Slocum family (the sellers) would transport cattle (the contraband) out to Cuttyhunk (the drop). There was nothing unusual about this, the Slocum family had been ferrying cattle to the islands for summer grazing for generations. But shortly after the cattle were dropped off and the Slocums returned to the mainland, British ships from Newport (the buyers) would appear at Cuttyhunk and cart off the cattle. The British and Hessian garrison at Newport was in dire need of supplies, from firewood to fresh meat, and their normal supply routes from Halifax or the Caribbean made shipment of such items impractical, they had to obtain those types of commodities locally. This process was repeated several times, and Dartmouth officials suspected that one William Cornell (the bagman) was completing these transactions by acting as a courier, traveling to Newport and carrying back cash payments from the British. No arrests were ever made, but regulations were put in place limiting the number and types of cattle which could be transported to the islands, and the Slocums and Cornell were compelled to take an oath of fidelity to the commonwealth, the only such instance referred to in town meeting records.

Worth writes that war-time friction between the Quaker and non-Quaker elements of Dartmouth created lingering resentment and played a role in the division of Dartmouth in 1787, when New Bedford (at that point including Fairhaven and Acushnet, the more Congregationalist side of Old Dartmouth), split off from Quaker-dominated Dartmouth (Westport split off separately later in the same year). The Revolution also had consequences for the Quakers: membership declined sharply from its pre-war apogee, but this decline was also caused by internal doctrinal divisions within the Quakers and the meeting’s long-term trend of kicking more members out, usually for “marrying out of meeting,” than it was taking in. Despite a decline in membership, Quaker domination of whaling and other early industries was uninterrupted. Reinforced by the Quaker concepts like “fair dealing” and “forthright” speech, doing what was right instead of what was popular, regardless of consequences, the Quaker businessmen of the 1800s had a well-earned reputation for being above-board and reliable.

“The Little House with a Big Story to Tell.” The 1762 Elihu Akin House is a “witness site” to the Revolution.

Akin Family Origins

David Akin (1640-1671) with his wife Mary traveled from Aberdeenshire, Scotland to Portsmouth/Newport, Rhode Island. Their eldest (of three sons), John Akin (1663-1746) whom I call “the Patriarch,” relocated to Dartmouth, Bristol County, Massachusetts. He was a prominent landowner and local politician, including Town Clerk. A father to 16 children, by Mary Briggs m. 1689 (1671-1708) and Hannah Sherman m.1711 (1682-1741), he instilled an entrepreneurial spirit to his eight sons’ ambitions, from land ownership to building community, and a commitment to public service.

Today, I will speak about three of those sons: James Akin (1706-1804), Benjamin Akin (1715-1802), and Elihu Akin (1720-1794), the namesake of our historic house who was James’s business partner. Elihu’s son Jonathan (1753-1799) also figures in today’s historical narrative.

Why a “Witness Site” to the Revolution? The Akin House Survives the British Raid.

Built two years into the reign of King George III, the Akin House farmstead on Potters Hill is a witness site to the American Revolution. This unique historic landmark includes a Georgian cape style structure built on land owned by British subjects––the Akin family––and remarkably survived intact during the Revolution and all the way to the present day.

As history suggests, the Akins who had switched their allegiance from the Crown to embrace the “Common Cause” were unified to defend their economic interests, even before the conflict escalated when, under the command of Major General Charles Grey, the British destroyed [New] Bedford Village on September 5,1778 after which moved on to the Apponagansett River in Dartmouth Village.

The British Raid was motivated, in part, by intentions to destroy rebel privateering. On their way to Martha’s Vineyard for much-needed provisions but unable to proceed due to

weather conditions, the British forces took a U-turn on Buzzards Bay toward the coastal area known today as Padanaram Harbor. Why? To continue their rampage to destroy rebel assets. Presumably, front of mind was the Akins’ shipbuilding business at the foot of Prospect Street.

As a direct result of the raid, the Akins’ shipbuilding business, allegedly used for privateering, a tavern, and other businesses were destroyed. Most homes, including Georgian-style manses were burned to the ground. Is it a coincidence that the three Loyalists [Eldad Tupper, Joseph Castle, Richard Shearman] who were banished by the Akins joined up with the British and shared what they knew about the Akins’ business dealings? Was this an act of revenge by these Loyalists?

“It’s All about the Stories.”

Having lost “everything” but their lives in the raid, the Akins were not totally defeated. The Akin House namesake Elihu Akin and his family moved to this property, a farmstead on Potters Hill, where he died in 1794. There can be no doubt that brothers Benjamin and James Akin spent time at this “Akin House,” planning their next move. As records indicate, the Akins carried on in the town and continued their activities in forging a local government and in other roles, as inhabitants and landowners.

There are many references to the Akins from the Dartmouth Town Meeting Minutes, [(1760- 1794), transcribed and reviewed for the “In Our Own Words” project, initiated by the Westport Historical Society]. Among these Dartmouth settlers who built a town government, Benjamin Akin is cited most often.

Who was Benjamin Akin, Esqr. (1715-1802)?

Sources indicate that Benjamin Akin was a businessman [tanner and currier], but history remembers him as an activist politician during the Revolution. Elihu Akin’s older half- brother, he was married to Eunice Taber (1711-1762) who bore him ten children; with wife Lydia Almy Wing (1733-1767) whom he married in 1763, he sired three more children. After

1767, he married “widow Barker” (Elizabeth Howland) and presumably had no more children. He died in Dartmouth at the age of 87.

Benjamin Akin is a prominent figure in shaping local government and appears dozens of times in those Town Meeting Minutes. His leadership skills are evidenced by his appointments to various roles of responsibility and influence. [Examples: Town Clerk, Town Treasurer, Assessor, Town Moderator, Justice of the Peace, etc.]

Benjamin Akin served as a representative (delegate) to the provincial congress in Boston. [Examples: Committee of Correspondence, Committee of Safety, the development of the Massachusetts Constitution, etc.]

There can be no doubt that Benjamin Akin was one of the most prominent and active civic leaders in Dartmouth. He also served his family’s interests.

Let’s Move on to Jonathan Akin (1753-1799), Elihu Akin’s Son (1720-1794)

About 1777-1778, Elihu’s fifth child, Jonathan, was suffering through great turmoil. Captured by the British on a ship sailing from Dartmouth, inarguably a ship owned by his father, he was imprisoned in England. He somehow managed to escape and made his way onto another British ship headed south. This ship was captured by a French warship and Akin was imprisoned again! On French soil! An American ally! He had no papers to prove he was an American.

Meanwhile as Jonathan was sitting in a French prison, the aforementioned British Raid was destroying his hometown.

While a prisoner of war, Jonathan wrote to Benjamin Franklin asking for help. At that time, both Benjamin Franklin and John Adams were in Paris. Somehow, perhaps through prison contacts, this was known to Jonathan, who was about 25 years old at the time.

The following letter from the beleaguered young man to Franklin was written from Granville [prison] on November 10, 1778. He tells his tale “In His Own Words:”

Honoured Sir

I make Bold to Rite these Lines to Let you know my Condition about Eighteen months ago I was taken in a Ship from Bedford in Dartmouth Bound to Bourdaux By an English frigit and Carred into porchmouth where I was put in prison I Staid there Six weeks and then I made my Escape to London where I found a gentelman that had Lived at Nantucket and there I Staid till about Six weeks ago and we Disagreed and I was obliged to Ship myself or Be prest to go on board of a man of war and I Shiped my Self mate of a marchnt Ship to go to the Braziels and on the Tewetieth of october We was taken By a french Ship the Capt and all the peopel taken out of the Vessell and Carred in to Brest & Staid onbord of the Vessell and She Came into this port whare I am at preasent I told the gentelmen of this place how that I Belonged to amaricar and I was obliiged to Be in the English Servis and Now thank god I am Clear of it and I Beg the

Liberty of going home I have Nothing to Show that I Belong to amaricar when we was taken By the English all my papers was taken from me But I Dare Say you know Benjamin Akin one of the Congress for Boston I am Nephew to him Elihu Akin Living in Dartmouth is my Father—9 I Beg the favour of you to Let them know here that I Belong to Amaricar So that I may git home the gentelmen of this place advised me to Rite to you I Beg that you would assist me for I am in a bad Condition1

From your humble Servant

Jonathan Akin

Addressed: For / the Honoured Dr / Franklin / Att Parris Notation by John Adams: Jona. Akin, Prisoner

Source: ALS: American Philosophical Society, 1778

[Note numbering follows the Franklin Papers source.]

9. 9. Benjamin Akin was first elected to the Mass. Provincial Congress in 1774; see The Journals of Each Provincial Congress of Massachusetts in 1774 and 1775 . . . (Boston, 1838) under Aikin. The Akin family were early proprietors in Dartmouth: Daniel Ricketson, The History of New Bedford, Bristol County, Massachusetts . . . (New Bedford, 1858), p.
10. 1. When the commissioners wrote Sartine on Jan. 7, requesting liberty for Americans taken prisoners on English ships, they included Akin in their list.

Citation: “To Benjamin Franklin from Jonathan Akin, 10 November 1778,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-28002-0050. [Original source: The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 28, November 1, 1778 through February 28, 1779, ed. Barbara B. Oberg. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990, pp. 71-72.]

How Does Jonathan Akin’s Story End?

Both Benjamin Franklin and John Adams worked to secure his release from prison in France. Adams knew Benjamin Akin and that relationship proved influential to the release of Jonathan Akin. Freed in early 1779, he eventually returned to Dartmouth and the family homestead on Potters Hill, our 1762 Elihu Akin House.

Although no doubt physically and mentally traumatized by the experience as a de facto prisoner of war far from home, Jonathan carried on with his life and married Mary Sherman (1760-1813) in 1782 and had one son, William Howland Akin (1783-1828).

Jonathan was presumed to be chief mate of the Brig Brothers but so far little more is known. Like his father, Jonathan too presumably picked himself up by the bootstraps and in his case, went back out to sea. Jonathan died at the age of 46.

Two Important Petitions Submitted by the Cuffe Brothers in 1780[1]

By David C. Cole

In the year 1780, John and Paul Cuffe signed two petitions seeking relief from taxes imposed by their local town government. The first petition, submitted to the Honourable Council and House of Representatives of the State of Massachusetts in March 1780, was signed by “seven poor Negroes and Molottoes who are inhabitants of the Town of Dartmouth.” It was mostly devoted to describing their impoverished conditions and requesting “Relief from Taxation while under our present depressed circumstances.” But it also sought relief from taxation because they were “not allowed in voting in the town meeting” on such taxes nor in choosing the officers.”

Although the petitioners reportedly never received a response to this petition, some biographers and historians have suggested that it may have played a role in encouraging inclusion into the Massachusetts Constitution, approved in November 1780, of the provision that “all elections ought to be free; and all the inhabitants of this commonwealth… have an equal right to elect officers, and to be elected.”  Harvard historian, Jill Lapore, has questioned whether the Cuffe et al petition contributed to inclusion of this provision in the 1780 Constitution, but, she suggests, it may have contributed to an understanding of how the constitution should be interpreted.[2]

The second petition was to the Justices of the Court of General Sessions held in Taunton on the third Tuesday of December 1780 and was signed only by John and Paul Cuffe, who identified not as Negroes or Mulattoes, but as Indian men. They sought relief from the heavy taxes that had been imposed on them by the Town of Dartmouth on the grounds that Indians should not be held liable for such taxes.

Walter Spooner, a prominent Dartmouth citizen, judge and delegate to two constitutional conventions, became involved in resolving the issues raised in this second Cuffe brothers’ petition and he not only saved them from incarceration in the Taunton jail for non-payment of taxes, but ultimately helped reduce their tax liability to a minimal obligation which they paid.

 The story provides interesting insights into the interactions among English, Indian and African residents of Olde Dartmouth to reach a fair resolution of conflicting views about citizens’ rights and obligations, including the obligation to pay taxes and the right to vote, that were at the heart of the then-raging Revolutionary War.

John and Paul Cuffe inherited their father’s 120-acre farm in Dartmouth in 1772, when they were just 15 and 13 years old. John took over responsibility for managing the farm with help from other members of his family, probably including his new brother-in-law, Michael Wainer, a Native man who had recently married his older sister, Mary. Paul, on the other hand, opted for a life at sea and signed on as a crew member on three whaling ships in 1773, 1775 and 1776. On the last trip, with the War already underway, Paul’s ship was captured by the British Navy, and Paul and other crew members were jailed on a prison ship in Brooklyn for 3 months. After his release, Paul returned to the family farm in Dartmouth and soon took up a new seafaring enterprise – delivering much needed goods to the mostly Quaker residents of Nantucket who were being subjected to a blockade by the British Navy. Although captured by British Naval vessels and Privateers several times, Paul appears to have persevered with this endeavor throughout the war years and began to build his reputation as a coastal trader.

However, in 1780 the Dartmouth Assessors, perhaps facing pressures to produce more revenue to support the war effort, took steps to collect the accumulated property and pole tax liabilities that they had assessed on John and Paul Cuffe. The brothers had refused to pay these taxes on the grounds that they were Indians and were therefore not obligated to pay local taxes. The Assessors ordered the Dartmouth Constable to arrest the two brothers and confine them in the Bristol County jail in Taunton until they paid their accumulated liabilities.

On December 19, 1780, the Constable arrested the two brothers and took them to Taunton. In response, the Cuffe Brothers submitted a petition to the Justices of the Court of General Sessions in Taunton citing all the taxes for which they had been assessed and seeking relief from those taxes on the grounds that they were “Indian men and by law not the subjects of taxation for any Estate Real or Personal.” This rationalization had some merit for Indians living on reservations but was perhaps less clear for those like the Cuffe family who owned a sizeable farm and had become part of the Colonial Settler society.

There are two different figures for the Cuffe Brothers cumulative tax liability. Sherwood provides an estimate of £154. In the petition, submitted by the brothers, the cumulative amount, as I calculate it, is £185. Either amount seems very large relative to the purchase price of the 120-acre farm, when their father bought it in 1766, of £120.

It appears from Sherwood’s text that all this came to a head on December 19, 1780. The Constable brought the Cuffe brothers to the Taunton jail. Their petition was taken up by the Court of Common Pleas that was then in session in Taunton, and that Court directed the jailkeeper in the “Name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to have the bodies of John and Paul Cuffe, said to be Indian men whom you have now in keeping, before the Justices of our Inferior Court of Common Pleas in Taunton.” This directive was signed by Walter Spooner Esq. a member of that Court. The brothers were released that same day. The Court also ordered the Dartmouth Assessors to appear at the next term of the Court to show cause wherefore the Prayer (petition) of the Cuffe Brothers should not be granted.

On February 20^th, 1781, the Selectmen of Dartmouth were asked to choose an agent to defend the Town’s action against the Cuffe brothers and at the Town’s annual meeting on the 8^th of March, the Honorable Walter Spooner was chosen to make answer to the petitioners.

At the March meeting of the Court the case was continued and then taken up at the next meeting of the Court in June. Disposition of the case occurred on June 11^th when the Dartmouth Constable received of John Cuffe 8 pounds 12 shillings in full for all John Cuffe and Paul Cuffe Rates. The next day, the Court of General Sessions ordered that the Petition of Paul Cuffe and John Cuffe and the proceedings thereon be dismissed.” Undoubtedly Walter Spooner played an important role in reaching this settlement, but there is no record of his actions. His efforts appear to have led to a 94% reduction of the Cuffe Brothers’ tax liability.

The outcome of this case demonstrated the complexities of legal status for Indigenous, Black and mixed-race Persons within the colonial society. These issues were not resolved for the Cuffe Brothers in this case, and they did not fully escape taxation, but their petition was largely successful and the large reduction in their tax burden marked an important moment in their struggle to receive fairer treatment.

[1] Much of this discussion is based upon and quoted from: Sherwood, Henry Noble, “Paul Cuffe,” Journal of Negro History, Vol. 8, No. 2, April 1923, pp. 153-232.

[2] Lepore, Jill, We the People: A History of the US Constitution, Liveright Publishing Co. 2025, pp. 58-60.