Rethinking the Historical Approach: Using Genealogy to Tell the Story of a Veteran of Color, Pvt. Sharp Liberty, Connecticut Continental Line

Rethinking the Approach

In recent years, scholars of Connecticut history have begun to grapple with the prior discussions of the participation of Connecticut soldiers of color in the American Revolution. As one historiographical study notes, the easy accessibility of two problematic texts on the subject online poses potential issues to future research. The author describes them as “false foundation to the historigraphical record.” While this effort is leading to greater awareness of the soldiers among public and academic historians, it’s unclear if that awareness translates to true awareness of the role these soldiers played in the general public’s image of the American Revolution. Introducing genealogical methodologies into the discussion may change that.

Genealogy and History have long had a somewhat contentious relationship. In a 2015 blog series, the National Council on Public History invited scholars to address the role of genealogy in the sphere of public history. In her response, Dr. Regina Poertner argued: “Genealogy needs to be seen in the context of practices of ancestor worship, attitudes towards death, codes of conduct defining family shame and honour, and occasionally a belief in the continuing spiritual presence of the deceased amongst the living.” Yet, even in the midst of such arguments, there have been calls for collaboration.

Such calls are slowly leading into joint projects, most often in the field of campus history. The GU272 Memory Project, for example, delves into the history of the individuals enslaved by Georgetown University sold by the University in 1828. Yet, in such projects, genealogists are most often being restricted to “traditional” roles of tracing ancestry and descendants.

Yet, there is a potential for a much greater collaboration. First, on a research level. Although rarely cast as such, genealogy is an extreme form of microhistory. Genealogists tend to approach the study of a single ancestor as a jumping off point for a greater understanding of their family tree or even themselves. Yet, their approach could be equally well applied to an understanding of a historical period, practice or more. The depth of source knowledge of a genealogist is often much deeper than that of the average history. A combination of source knowledge with training in historical analysis would be a powerful one. Second, on public appeal. In a 2018 opinion piece, historian John Sedgewick noted that genealogy’s basic appeal is in personal connection to the past. In a 2020 interview, historian Tiya Miles noted that the “key trait” of public history “is an engagement of history beyond the walls of the campus or classroom.” If the goal of Public History is engagement, and it is known that genealogical methodologies tend to produce that engagement, why not take advantage of “what works” in genealogy to further deepen the historical approach?

Private Sharp Liberty

Private Sharp Liberty has been the subject of previous study, but only in a limited way. In 2014, The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History produced a student discussion guide on a pay warrant issued to Liberty. In that guide, they noted: “Before the war, he had been enslaved in Wallingford, Connecticut. In 1777, he enlisted in the army, served in the 6th Connecticut and 4th Connecticut, and was manumitted for the end of the war for his service.” In 2020, Christine Pittsley pulled together several references to Liberty in an effort to support the much needed restoration of Hillside Cemetery in Cheshire. Her 2011 PowerPoint on the same subject can be found here. A closer look at Pvt. Liberty’s life provides the ability to contextualize discussions about slavery, manumission, and the challenges of researching the African American community in Connecticut in the period of the American Revolution.

The affidavit offered by Lucy Mix, the “former widow” of Sharp Liberty, included in her application for a widow’s pension provides a significant amount of detail on his life. According to that affidavit, Liberty’s first enlistment was under Captain Sloper of Stonington. The two married in Middlefield in 1780 by Rev. Abner Benedict. Sharp Liberty died on 29 January 1809. Lucy remarried to Sharp Mix of Wallingford. She further noted “that at the commencement of said war he was held as a slave, but in consequence of his faithful services through the whole of the Revolutionary War he was at its close emancipated[…]”

Sharp Liberty enlisted from Wallingford on 3 March 1778. At the time, the unit was part of the 6th Connecticut. Details of his service can be found in his Compiled Military Service Records, which have been digitized by FamilySearch. The last note in the file indicates that he deserted from the 4th Connecticut in 1781.

Liberty was apparently paid a bounty in 1780, of which the town of Cheshire demanded repayment in 1782, apparently well aware of his desertion. The timing suggests that he reenlisted under the Bounty Act of 1780. As Liberty had married the same year, it’s possible his desertion was a response to discovering his wife was pregnant and may have desperately needed his support at home.

The marriage records from Middlefield are not among the surviving records digitized by FamilySearch. Yet, the minister named in the pension affidavit did serve in Middlefield at that point – and was noted as an abolitionist. It is possible that the couple chose to marry in Middlefield, where they apparently never lived, due to that fact.

Sharp Liberty’s story, even in this brief overview, raises several points of historical importance which could be further examined as well as one genealogical point. The first is the participation of veterans of color in the Revolutionary War and the implications of that service for discussions of citizenship and emancipation. The second, similar discussions on the state level that would lead the couple to chose to marry in Middlefield. Finally, a methodological gap: although sources suggest Liberty was enslaved prior to his enlistment, there is not a good way to begin to search for the name of his enslaver. If a manumission was filed, it may be in either Cheshire or Wallingford records – or it may never have been recorded.