By Scott Smyers
When many of us learn about local history, we enjoy learning about individuals, their personalities, their participation in historical events, and even details of their routine, daily lives. The contributions of “free colored people” (the term of the time) to the Revolutionary War in Massachusetts alone is generally underappreciated and relatively new research*** has revealed more details in just the past six years. Approximately 2,100 “men of color” served in the Revolution. Considering there were approximately 6,700 “men of color” in Massachusetts (including approximately 1,700 Native Americans), more than 25%* of the entire population volunteered for service. This high proportion of volunteer service is a very strong indicator of their patriotism, courage, and dedication to freedom.
*Corrected from initial publication.
**Corrected title from Three Black Patriots Served in Revolutionary War … William Cutting was older and did not serve in the War, but did live in Acton. The numbers were also corrected in the text. William Cutting Jr. did serve in the War.
***Original link does not work and revised
Two such men served honorably in the Revolutionary War and lived in Acton: John Oliver and Cesar Thomson. They all chose Acton as their home. John Oliver fought with Isaac Davis in Concord and Lexington, was married, raised a family, and they stayed for several generations. William cutting also owned a farm in Acton and lived there with his family.
All three men have interesting stories, but details are relatively limited. Finding a diary or personal notes by family members would be very interesting. However, we can read between the lines and learn a lot about the community at the time.
If racism was so unbearable for free black citizens in 18th century Acton, why on earth would Oliver, Cutting and Thomson live in Acton, the Massachusetts Colony, or the newly formed United States where slavery was legal in many jurisdictions? Why not move to Canada as soon as possible? Maybe, just maybe, it was not terrible. Maybe they believed in America and chose Acton because most in the community were helpful people who also knew when to mind their own business. Maybe most of the residents respected ALL Revolutionary War veterans, and their respect for each individual soldier was not compromised by his race or ethnicity.
To many of us this is a wonderful addition to Acton’s Colonial History. It adds to the story and could be very inspirational to students and student-athletes. Why not promote this part of the Town’s history because it exemplifies values like family, courage, freedom and hard work instead of focusing on the negative aspects of life that are beyond our control? We cannot let someone else’s negative thoughts about us influence our own ideas and ambitions. Who cares what they say? I am sure Oliver, Cutting and Thomson were called names and much worse. There was certainly segregation between races across Massachusetts including Acton’s own meeting house. Despite these substantial obstacles and challenges, they did not let racist policies or anyone else’s words or opinions dissuade them from living their version of the American Dream in Acton.
I thank the Acton Historical Society and J. Hannigan’s Dissertation from Brandeis University.
Sign up for our Acton Forum email list here
Please follow Acton Forum on Facebook here
Scott – it’s simple math. You’ve taken the number of soldiers of color (which includes both Black and indigenous soldiers) and divided by the Black population to arrive at a percentage of the Black population which served, writing that it’s 42%. In fact, you should divide the number of soldiers of color (since they aren’t differentiated in the source you’ve cited) by the population of Black and indigenous to arrive at a percentage of the people of color who served.
I agree that the percentage of Blacks who served in the Revolution does not need to be any particular number to be impressed by their bravery and contribution.
In my opinion, the elements of an article which aims to present an accurate picture should include accurate statistics and statements, no matter the focus or theme.
Thanks for your further explanation. You are correct and I was not. The author explains they cannot split the group into black vs. Native Americans. Therefore, I have corrected the number using the same terminology as the researcher.
I am mystified by these replies to my comment pointing out factual errors… a mistake in a percentage calculation and an inaccurate characterization of the particulars of some of the soldiers’ enlistment. I would have expected corrections to be made to the article rather than a defense emphasizing the aim of the article which I did not question. It was not misunderstood and is a worthy one.
Nowhere did I state, or even imply, that the service of Black men, whether volunteer or enlisted by their owners, should not be included in our histories, honored and celebrated.
And Corinne, how fascinating for you to share the article here that I myself shared with the group conversing on the Acton Forum Facebook page. My very point in sharing that article was to provide an example of a more accurate account and broader scope that I feel could better serve a presentation of Acton’s own history of Black soldiers serving in the Revolutionary War.
I don’t understand why you can’t understand why I didn’t include the Native Americans in my calculation. I explained this previously, but they were not the focus of this topic because they had a very different experience and it would be irresponsible to lumped them in with black soldiers. There are examples of Native Americans, especially from Mashpee, serving in the Revolutionary War. Furthermore, why focus on the percentage? Even if it were 10%, I would have been impressed considering the era. I notice you are focusing on the hardships and challenges that faced black soldiers at the time, which I also point out, but not properly according to your taste. I’m looking forward to your upcoming article that “better serves” us all with a “broader scope”.
It is both sad and infuriating to read of Ms. Nicol’s ‘objection’.
Given that she is locally famous for homeschooling her kids, but most likely never volunteered for military service herself, I wonder is she is just being argumentative, – or is looking to publicly cast her virtue.
In the heat of a fire-fight – NOBODY makes a fine point about men of color, Blacks, American Indians, Caribbeans, Eskimos, Aleuts, or Samoans.
And I’ll guarantee you that neither 1775 British musket balls or 2020 Chicom 7.62 x 39 mm round today care what race or color their targets are.
If Ms Nicol was a true student of History, she would have learned back in high school that kings have pressed slaves and serfs into military service since the beginnings of recorded history. Who does she think rowed the Greek triremes?
The second finest horseman in our Continental Army was Billy Lee, – Washington’s personal slave, – who rode everywhere with the General, – and could have easily ridden away.
Washington could never afford to free Billy, – because the Commonwealth of Virginia required a ridiculous high bond be posted to free any slave; – an amount equal to the expected earnings of that man or woman for the rest of their lives.
Scott Smyers has written well, – pointing out additional evidence why the School Committee’s knee-jerk attempt at me-too political correctness was both historically BASELESS and set a horrible example for today’s kids – by ignoring FACTS, and by their cowardly caving in to the emotional whims of the mob.
They serve as an example though: that people who are ignorant of History will always make ignorant decisions.
/s/ Iron Mike
The Brandeis publication states a population of 6,700 “men of color” (Indigenous and African descended), so the 2,100 men who served should be divided by that population number to give 31% of the population, not 42%. I object to the phrase “volunteered for service.” Many of these men were enslaved and enlisted by their “owners.” Many enslaved men enlisted on the promise of their freedom, not from British tyranny, but from their “owners” Scholars are in disagreement on whether more African descended men fought for the Crown or Continental Army, but certainly Dunmore’s proclamation was the impetus for many of the enslaved to sign up while Washington barred these men for quite some time until the Patriots became desperate for more men.
I am aware of the 1,700 Indigenous population, but that is not the point of this story. It does highlight how few Native people remained in Massachusetts at the beginning of the Revolution. Very few remained mostly due to disease spread by early explorers/trappers prior to any English settlements.
I understand why you would disagree with the term, volunteer for service for enslaved blacks who were signed up by their owners, but that discounts and marginalizes the services of those free black men who DID enlist and serve honorably. They should all be celebrated and studied (even those signed up by their owners), not entirely downplayed and forgotten.
Do we differentiate between WWII vets based on whether they were drafted or volunteered? Of course not, they and all who sacrificed for the country are still referred to as the Greatest Generation. Blacks who were signed up by their owners are no less deserving of our gratitude.
Here’s an interesting article that adds to the history of blacks serving during the Revolutionary War:
https://www.army.mil/article/97705/Black_Soldiers_in_the_Revolutionary_War/
It concludes — “If they were misrepresented in our histories before, then we owe it to them to make sure we include it now, because they certainly did their part to earn not only their own freedom, but ours as well. We should never forget that for them, it was a double fight for liberty: their own and their country’s.”