Much has been written about Prince Whipple over the years (c. 1750 – 1796); mainly related to folk lore and romantic vignettes that gained prominence when Prince was incorrectly associated with two paintings depicting General George Washington crossing the Delaware River. Bare bones facts indicate that as a free child in Africa, Prince was caught up in the slave trade. That he was sold into bondage and spent all but twelve years of his life enslaved to a prominent white politician of New Hampshire. That this politician was embroiled in the American Revolution. That the politician was assigned as delegate to Congress and twice, as Brigadier General of twenty-day militia, was present at two battles; having seen no action but for a near miss cannon ball that fell into headquarters and killed a horse. And that the white master was often accompanied by a male slave/servant; Prince Whipple.
But if we look at Prince beyond fabricated stories of the stereotyped ‘faithful servant,’ we see a highly intelligent man. One who helped pen a petition for freedom in 1779 that beyond the saber-rattling rhetoric that was little more than having to wait on his master at some military camp, illustrated a greater contribution to recognizing the rights of all humanity in what became a new nation. That in itself was far more than the shallow tributes of loyal servitude during war’s ‘glorious’ moments. The petition for freedom that Prince and nineteen other slaves put forward to the New Hampshire State Legislation would be ignored in 1780; victim to the paradox of New England assemblymen who proclaimed liberty and equality as the stalwart for resistance to England’s rule, while maintaining the institution of slavery.
William Cooper Nell’s The Colored Patriot of the American Revolution
For well over a hundred years, what we knew of Prince Whipple was penned by African American abolitionist William Cooper Nell in his ground breaking 1852 historical text, The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution. Over the years, mainly most recently, much of what Nell wrote about Prince has been either proven incorrect or remains questionable. One must keep in mind is that when Nell wrote his text, the abolition movement was gaining momentum. Nell’s publication was but one of many written by proponents of abolition to highlight the moral corruption of slavery and the valued contributions to society by African Americans. Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe was published the same year as Nell’s text. In effect, these early pioneers of civil rights believed the ends justified the means towards eradicating the institution of slavery once and for all. It is with that tip of the hat towards Nell’s reasoning, that we can understand his eagerness to grasp oral stores and hear say about Prince and publish them as fact.
Early Life
Nell wrote that Prince had been a member of a wealthy family of Ambou, Central Africa. That at age ten, he and his cousin were sent to America to be educated. The captain transporting them proved to be a ‘treacherous villain’ and they were carried to Baltimore where they were sold as slaves to a wealthy sea captain; General William Whipple. Of this, scholars have concluded that the child Prince, born c. 1750, and his cousin (or brother) left Africa free and were forced into slavery upon transportation to America. Captured Africans to be sold into slavery were first shipped to the Caribbean where they either remained to work the sugar plantations, or were carried onto America to be auctioned either as household servants or onto farms or larger plantations. A feature of what has been termed the triangular trade or rum trade.
The two boys ended up with brothers Captain William Whipple (1730-1786) and Joseph Whipple (1738-1816) of Kittery, Maine. Captain William Whipple was active in the slave trade. Cooper Nell lists Baltimore as where the two children were sold and purchased. It is more likely that Captain Whipple brokered the deal to obtain the two boys while they were still in the Caribbean and had them shipped directly to Boston. According to Charles Brewster’s Ramblings About Portsmouth, published in 1873, the two boys were purchased by the Whipple brothers in 1766, six years after William Nell’s claim. If that were the case, they would have been in their mid to late teens when forced into slavery. Prince Whipple (it was customary for slaves to take the surname of their master) was owned by William. Cuffee, or Cuff, became the property of brother Joseph. It was also Brewster who wrote that Cuffee was Prince’s brother, not cousin as Nell recorded.
The Whipples were an old New England seafaring family of some wealth. William Whipple Jr. was the son of Captain William Whipple Sr. and Mary Cutts. Keeping within the family, in 1767, William married his first cousin, Catherine (sometimes spelt Katherine) Moffat (1724-1821), daughter of wealthy sea Captain John Moffat and Katherine Cutts. William’s father had continued the family fortune from the mercantile and slave trade. William Jr. followed in his father’s footprints and so too was active in the slave trade. In 1769, Captain Whipple and his wife Catherine moved from Kittery, Maine, to Portsmouth, New Hampshire to live with Catherine’s father at his three-story elegant mansion (later named Moffat-Ladd House) on Market Street, Portsmouth, built in 1763. No doubt the move had to do with the timing of the death of Catherine’s mother earlier that year.
The Whipples brought their slave Prince along. Brother Joseph Whipple and his wife Hannah Billings (1735-1811), also claimed residence in Portsmouth, though the date has not been ascertained. Cuffee accompanied Joseph and his wife. Another bonded servant was already living at the Moffat House when the Whipples moved in; Windsor Moffatt, slave of Katherine’s mother who was given to John Moffat upon marriage. It did not take long for affluent Captain Whipple, age 39 in 1769, to establish himself in the Portsmouth community and become active in local politics.
In 1769, if we can trust Nell’s birthing of Prince, he would have been 19 upon arrival in Portsmouth. The only description we have of Prince was in Brewster’s 1873 text. He does not cite his source so we can assume it may have come to Brewster’s attention through local oral history. He wrote that Prince was “a large, well-proportioned, and fine looking man” who carried himself like a gentleman, and was “prominent among the dark gentry of the day.”
Politics of War
As the relationship between England and her colonies worsened, particularly in Sons of Liberty hotbed New England, it was not long before Captain Whipple obtained a leading role in the local militia and assemblies of rebellion. The year 1775 was important for William. He was appointed Colonel of the 1st New Hampshire State Militia Regiment. Though New Hampshire law did not allow blacks to serve in the militia, a throwback to a 1718 statute, it was common practice for slave owners to bring along their armed servants to serve and drill alongside them. We can assume that in 1775, twenty-five-year-old Prince stood before his master as one of Colonel Whipple’s militiamen. So too in 1775, now Colonel Whipple was chosen to represent Portsmouth in the New Hampshire Provincial Congress. He also became an active member of the Committee of Safety; the Provincial Assembly’s military arm.
After the Battle of Lexington and Concord, April 19th, and the advent of open hostilities with England, a Second Continental Congress was called. Colonel Whipple was selected as one of the three delegates to be sent to Philadelphia from New Hampshire. Joining Whipple were two physicians; Josiah Bartlett and Matthew Thornton. We do not know for certain if Prince accompanied Whipple to Philadelphia. As it was common practice to bring one’s bonded servant to militia duty, so too, it may be assumed that William brought Prince with him to act as his ‘man-servant.’
Declaration of Independence
At Philadelphia, William Whipple would sign his name, along with fifty-four other delegates, to the Declaration of Independence. Like so many Founding Fathers, he had no trouble affixing his signature to a document that proclaimed all men are created equal while he himself not only owned a slave, but benefited financially from the slave trade. William would remain active with the Second Continental Congress on and off until 1779. As 1776 brought the war close to Philadelphia, an event took place at the very end of the year that nearly eighty years later, would blazon Prince’s name in the history books for the next several generations. The only problem, it was not true. And again, we can look to William Nell.
Prince Whipple Was Not at Washington’s Crossing
By late 1776, Washington’s army was driven out of New York City. The Continental Army was chased across New Jersey and by mid-December, 1776, sought refuge in Pennsylvania, establishing headquarters just west of the Delaware River. During this time, the fate of Philadelphia was in the balance. All thought that British General Charles Cornwallis would cross the Delaware and claim the city. On December 12, 1776, Congress fled Philadelphia and reconvened in Baltimore on December 20, 1776. Whipple was present in Baltimore with Congress and we can assume Prince was with him acting as his servant. Cornwallis and his officers were surprised when Commanding General William Howe called them back to New York City. Instead of further pursuit, strong outposts lined the New Jersey side of the Delaware River to keep an eye on Washington’s movements.
On the evening of Christmas Day, December 25, 1776, Washington’s Army crossed the Delaware River and attacked the Hessian force at Trenton the next morning, resulting in a rousing victory. Seventy-six years later in 1852, Cooper Nell published that, “When William Whipple joined the revolution as a captain, Prince accompanied him and was in attendance to General Washington on Christmas night 1776 for the legendary and arduous crossing of the Delaware. The surprise attack following the crossing was a badly needed victory for America and for Washington’s sagging military reputation.” Why would Nell pen something that would be accepted as fact for the next one hundred and forty or so years before research, most especially historians Blaine Whipple and Valerie Cunningham, proved it wrong. The answer is simple.
The crossing was portrayed for posterity by two artists. Thomas Sully, in 1819, painted a mounted General Washington overseeing his troops embarking in boats across the icy Delaware River. Off to Washington’s right in the far side of the painting, is a black man in red. Sully never designated who the black man might be. Though years later it was pointed out to be Prince Whipple, it was most likely the portrayal of Washington’s slave William (Billy) Lee who accompanied his master throughout the war. The other painting became far more famous. In 1851, German artist Emanuel Leutze revealed a showstopper. At 12 feet high by 21 feet long, the painting was released to ecstatic praise. The boat that transported a standing Washington besides a stars stripped flag clutched by an officer, was rowed by several soldiers; one being black. Leutze would not have had Prince in mind when he painted the black rower, having not been cognizant of Prince’s existence at the time.
Nell was compiling his research and writing his text in 1851 when Leutze’s painting came out. It was elementary to just connect the dots and place Prince Whipple as the black rower in the boat. Also, Nell may have had correspondence with some of Portsmouth’s residents who conveyed local oral history that put Prince at Trenton.
Bottom line, the portrayals of Washington’s crossing, esp. Leutze’s, is symbolic, not factual. The black soldier in Washington’s boat represents all the many African American patriots who fought for America’s Liberty. Fact; Prince and William Whipple were over 130 miles from Trenton that eventful Christmas night. Also, William Whipple was not in the Continental Army; nor was he ever for the duration of the war. Meaning that Prince would also not have been a Continental Soldier either. William was a Colonel, but for state militia. When he was commissioned a Brigadier General, it was by the state of New Hampshire, not Congress in Philadelphia, to which twice he commanded a brigade of temporary militiamen assembled for one month’s service.
Battle of Saratoga
By the summer of 1777, William and Prince were back in New Hampshire. At Exeter, the state legislature, as in other New England states, were assembling local militias to counter the British invasion from Canada. Colonel Whipple was commissioned a Brigadier General and given command of four New Hampshire state militia regiments. The militias were called up on September 22, 1777 and ordered to join the Northern Army in New York. They assembled and marched an average of ten miles a day to cover the near 250-mile distance to Saratoga, New York. As such, they showed up just before the surrender of the British Army on October 17, 1777; too late for the Battles of Freeman’s Farm, September 19th, and Bemis Heights on October 7th. Much praise was given to Whipple as one of the principal officers who met with and brokered Burgoyne’s surrender. This earned him a spot on the classic portrait of the surrender painted by John Trumbull (1756-1843). Brigadier General Whipple is fifth from the right, standing behind the cannon while wearing a brown coat of civilian attire.
Prince the ‘Faithful Servant’; Filling the Role as Racist Archetype
It was prior to General Whipple marching his brigade of militia to Saratoga that an exchange between master and slave was reported, in which Whipple’s fidelity and desire for freedom was supposedly proclaimed. First by 18th century romantics, it continued right up to the 1960’s and the Civil Rights movements. Basically, it went like this:
“On way to the army, he [General Whipple] told his servant [Prince] that if they should be called into action, he expected that he would behave like a man of courage and fight bravely for his country. Prince replied, “Sir, I have no inducement to fight, but if I had my liberty, I would endeavor to defend it to the last drop of my blood.” The general manumitted [freed] him on the spot.”
You can just feel the goose bumps down the back of your neck. Only problem was that General Whipple did not see his ‘Amazing Grace’ moment and free Prince until after the war, and only one year before his death. This casting of African Americans in racist archetypes supported a ‘warm and fuzzy’ relationship between master and owner which for later generations, especially after emancipation, softened the stomach-churning reality of slavery. Even Nell got into the act, sharing a highly questionable event that demonstrated the valued black servant as protector; though Nell’s intent was most likely to portray the African American’s sense of righteousness. He wrote:
“[Prince] was once entrusted by the General with a large sum of money to carry from Salem to Portsmouth. He was attacked on the road, near Newburyport, by two ruffians; one was struck with a loaded whip, the other one he shot”
A further example of this stereotyping is provided by writer J. Dennis Robinson in his February 19, 2018 internet article, “Getting Prince Whipple Right.” He wrote:
“In 1964, for example, local historian Dorothy Vaughan wrote a glowing speech about the life of the heroic William Whipple. In Vaughan’s essay, delivered to The National Society of the Colonial Dames of America, Prince appeared “tagging at the heels” of the famous founder. At Gen. Whipple’s wedding, Vaughan wrote: “Close behind Mr. Whipple were his two slave boys, Prince and Cuffee, who went everywhere their master went. Tonight, they were dressed almost as elegantly as the groom and their black faces glowed in the candlelight.” Vaughan repeated the false story that William Whipple released Prince from bondage, before going into battle. “From this moment on you are a free man, Prince,” Vaughan quoted the general. “Hurry up now, and we will fight for our freedom together.””
Pure dribble or, as they would say in England, ‘Bullocks.’ For generations, Americans have looked beyond reasons why the African American man or woman participated in the American Revolution; those who’s conscious and self-worth led them on a path for liberty. They did so by propagating romanticized tales about the ‘faithful servant;’ envisioning enslaved African Americans who rewarded the kindness offered to them from benevolent masters by sticking beside their white owner no matter what. The dynamic duo of loyal slave and heroic white. A symbiotic relationship whereas the slave’s devotion was so strong, he or she would never dream of running, whereas the white’s dependence on his human ‘property’ became sacrosanct. Think of Francis ‘Swamp Fox’ Marion and Oscar, or George Washington and his slave Billy, who was forever seen riding at the general’s side. It was, and remains to this day, a current theme in novels, movies, and politics; labeled the ‘White Savior’ or the ‘Magical Negro.’ And one would think, isn’t it about time such nonsense was put to rest? Just have to get Hollywood in on it.
Battle of Rhode Island
As at Saratoga, Brigadier General Whipple’s brigade would not see any action. They were part of the initial siege of British defenses at Newport that began on August 9th. American commander, Major General John Sullivan ferried his 11,000-man army of eight Continental Regiments and thirteen State Militia Regiments onto Aquidneck Island and marched south to Newport. So too, the French began landing 4,000 French regulars off their fleet’s transports.
Once France recognized the United States in February, 1778, in April, a French fleet of 12 ships of the line, including all transports and supply vessels to transport 4,000 troops, sailed for America. They were originally to aid Washington in a planned attack to regain Philadelphia. It would take three months for the voyage and by then, the British had abandoned Philadelphia in June and returned to New York City. With New York’s defenses strong, so too the larger French ships could not sail into the harbor, it was decided to attack the British at Newport, Rhode Island.
News of the French involvement rallied support and militias began streaming into Rhode Island for the planned joint attack on British forces at Newport. However, muster took time and most of the militiamen did not show up until the first week in August. In May of 1778, Brigadier General Whipple would be given the command of two New Hampshire State Militia regiments and one company of light horse. By early August, Whipple, with Prince at his side, arrived at the American camp along with Colonel Stephen Peabody’s State Regiment, Colonel Stephen Evans 4th State Militia, called up for 20 days service, and one company of Langdon’s Light Horse.
Everything started to go wrong on August 9th. No sooner than the French began to offload, than the French commander, Admiral Comte d’Estaing, got word that a British fleet had just arrived. He immediately reboarded his troops and sailed out to do battle. Fate would step in and a massive storm on August 12th and 13th damaged and scattered both fleets before they could meet. The French fleet gave up the planned attack and limped to Boston for repairs, leaving the Americans on their own. General Sullivan continued the siege, hoping that the French could be enticed to return.
News of the French departure prompted a mass exodus of the American militia, significantly shrinking the American force, many of whom had only enlisted for a 20-day stint. By August 28, Sullivan had less than half his original force. He was now outnumbered by the British he was besieging. We have no record as to the number of New Hampshire militiamen who gave up early and went home. Since a large portion of them were called up for twenty days, it can be assumed many of their numbers did so. Sullivan decided to call off the investment and as he moved his force north up the island on Aug. 29th, the British sallied from their defenses and attacked.
The American rear-guard that felt the blunt of the British attack were Continental troops. They held the British off, allowing the army to ferry off Aquidneck Island. Particularly mention must go to the 1st Rhode Island Continental Black Regiment, who threw back three assaults by 1,500 Hessian troops. During the British assault, there was a prolonged cannon dual. It is recorded that one of the British shot landed just outside General Whipple’s Headquarters. The ball went through a horse tied up outside the building and wounded one man. The only close call both General William and Prince would experience in the war.
Prince Petitions for Freedom
After the Battle of Rhode Island, Prince and William Whipple returned to Portsmouth. Prince would remain a slave and in the service of William at his home. The following year, on November 12th, 1779, Prince, along with nineteen other African American slaves, signed a petition for their freedom through the New Hampshire Assembly meeting in Exeter. It appeared on the House of Representative docket on April 25, 1780 and as per by law, published in the Gazette, appearing on July 15th.
It is believed that Prince, having received an early education in reading and writing, penned either part of or all of the petition. The website of the Moffatt-Ladd House claims that Prince “is believed to have written thee Petition,” citing Windsor Moffatt, the slave of William Whipple’s father-in-law and one of the petition signers. The document was written with common sense arguments that mirror the rights proclaimed by all mankind. As D. Allan Karr, contributor to the Portsmouth Herald wrote, “…its words still resonate today, poetic in their eloquence and poignant in their plea for nothing more than basic humanity.” The document stated in part:
“That Freedom is an inherent right of the human species not to be surrendered, but by consent, for the sake of social life; that private or public tyranny and slavery are alike detestable to minds conscious of the equal dignity of human nature…that in power and authority of individuals derived solely from a principle of coercion against the will of individuals and to dispose of their persons and properties consists the completest idea of private and political slavery…. Here we can read with others, of this knowledge slavery cannot wholly deprive us. Here we know that we ought to be free agents! Here we feel the dignity of human nature. Here we feel the passions and desires of men, though checked by the rod of slavery. Here we feel a just equality. Here, we know that the God of Nature made us free!…Is their authority assumed from custom? if so, let that custom be abolished which is not founded in nature, reason nor religion.”
The House voted to postpone a hearing on the petition for liberty – the hearing was never held and there was no further legislative action on it. The request was ignored. Prince and the others would remain slaves. It appeared that as the War for Independence shifted into its final stages, the movers and shakers of New Hampshire were willing to embrace the hypocrisy of retaining their slaves, rather than embracing the unalienable rights that all men were created equal. It would take another generation for the hallmark of New England’s ancestor’s self-important declaration of Liberty or Death to truly come into its own.
Marriage, Manumit, and Remembrance
On Feb. 22, 1781, Prince married Dinah Chase (1760-1846), aged 21, who was enslaved by the Reverend Chase of Newcastle, who manumitted her the same day of her wedding. William Whipple wasn’t about to concede his legendary promise of freedom. The day of Prince’s wedding, William proclaimed that Prince would be granted the rights of a freeman, while still remaining his slave. Perhaps the wealthy merchant thought he was giving Price a wedding present; however, granting Prince the rights of a freeman while still remaining William’s slave would be confusing at best, and hypocritical upon closer consideration.
By the end of 1784, William Whipple finally conceded and manumitted Prince. By then, the General was losing his health and within the year, would die in 1785. Though a freeman, Prince would continue to work for General Whipple’s widow. Catherine Whipple granted Prince, his wife Dinah, and Cuffee, along with his wife Rebecca, a lot behind the Moffatt-Ladd House’s Walled Garden. Prince and Cuff would build a small, two-story dwelling that the two couples would also run as a school for free Black children called the African Ladies’ Charitable School. After all four had died, the house began to deteriorate and was demolished. The present building, somewhat altered, was constructed on the original foundation and is now a stop on the New Hampshire Black Heritage Trail.
Prince would not gain recognition for his involvement during the war. Such notoriety would come years later, after his death. He and his cousin/brother Cuffee Whipple were remembered in Portsmouth primarily as two talented musicians. They would perform for wealthy white guests at the gala dances at the Assembly House. So too, Dinah, Prince’s wife, would aid with the planning and catering of such events. She had been servant to one of the wealthier households in New Hampshire and had been educated. Besides teacher, she was an avid reader and member of the local literary societies.
Death
Prince Whipple died on November 21, 1796 at the age of 46. He is buried in the North Burial Ground on Maplewood Ave., Portsmouth, NH. Beside him is his wife, their one daughter, Esther (1785-1868), and one of their five grandchildren, a granddaughter, either Anna or Elizabeth.
In 1905, long after his death, Prince Whipple was recognized by local veterans as “New Hampshire’s foremost, if not only colored representative of the war for Independence.” So too, in 1908, the veteran’s association placed a headstone for Prince, replacing a wooden cross.
New Hampshire’s African American Participation in the War
Of African Americans from New Hampshire, 180 served as patriots in the American Revolution. At the time the state population of African American men, women, and children was around 690. A conservative estimate: approximately 68% of all black males from New Hampshire would serve as Continental or Militia soldiers during the war. Compare this to the white patriot participation that was approximately 7%.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO READ MORE ABOUT NEW HAMPSHIRE AND AFRICAN AMERICANS IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, CHECK OUT THESE FREE PREVIEWS ON AMAZON
OF SIMILAR INTEREST ON REVOLUTIONARY WAR JOURNAL
RESOURCE
Bailey, Anne. African voices of the Atlantic Slave Trade: Beyond the Silence & the Shame. 2005: Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
Bennett, Harold Hotchkiss & Pearson, Helen (Illustrator). “Moffatt-Ladd House Garden.” Vignettes of Portsmouth. 1913: Online:
Benton, B. “Prince Whipple, Soldier of the American Revolution”. Negro History Bulletin. 1973, Vol. 4: 126–127.
Brewster, Charles. Ramblings About Portsmouth. 1873: Lewis W. Brewster, Portsmouth Journal Office, Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
Cunningham, Valarie. “Dinah Whipple.” Jan. 25, 2010: Black Past.
Geake, Robert A. & Spears, Loren M. From Slaves to Soldiers, The First Rhode Island Regiment in the American Revolution. 2016: Westholme Publishing, Yardley, Pennsylvania.
Hartgrove, W. B. “The Negro Soldier in the American Revolution.” The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 1, No. 2 (April, 1916): 110-131.
Kaplan, Sidney; Kaplan, Emma Nogrady. The Black Presence in the Era of the American Revolution 1770–1800. 1975: The University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA.
Kerr, D. Allan. “Prince Whipple, slave of Declaration signer, was a source of legend – and inspiration” June 22, 2022: Portsmouth Herald Seacoastonline.
Nell, William Cooper. The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution. 1852: J.B. Yerrinton & Son, Printers, Boston, MA.
Quarles, Benjamin. The Negro in the American Revolution. 1961: The University of Noerth Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Robinson, J. Dennis. “Getting Prince Whipple Right.” Feb. 19, 2018: Portsmouth Herald Seacoastonline.
Robinson, J. Dennis. “Untangling the Prince Whipple Legend.” SeacoastNH.com.
Sammons, Mark & Cunningham, Valerie. Black Portsmouth, Three Centuries of African-American Heritage. 2004: University of New Hampshire Press, Durham, New Hampshire.