Lemuel Haynes: An Abolitionist Voice in the Revolution

The Paradox as Context

The literature of the Revolution is replete with references to the Founding Fathers’ recognition of the anguishing contradiction between the ideals they ostensibly endorsed in the Declaration of Independence—specifically Thomas Jefferson’s rhetoric about human equality and inalienable rights—and the commitment many of them made to sustaining the institution of human bondage as practitioners thereof. While engaged in the cause of America’s self-determination against what was regarded as oppressive British policy, they were caught up in the incongruity that applied to many of the more prominent members of America’s founding generation. Theirs was a struggle to achieve liberty for some juxtaposed with a commitment to, or at least acquiescence in, servitude for others—especially among the slave owners who constituted at least a third of those signing the Declaration of Independence, among them Jefferson with his two hundred enslaved people at Monticello. The latter were a fragment of the half-million people of African descent who then comprised 20 percent of the population in colonial America, 90 percent of whom lived in slavery.[1]

As for George Washington, the squire of Mount Vernon owned 135 able-bodied slaves by 1775, even after ceasing to make such purchases three years earlier. Although he and other Virginia planters such as Jefferson and James Madison conceded the immorality of this institution, they confessed to being mystified about how to abolish it without causing a social maelstrom and their own financial ruin.[2] Ironically, slavery’s cruelty and omnipresence—it was legal in every colony but most prevalent in the South[3]—may have spurred the grievances among Americans that produced an insurgency, for freedom seemed that much more precious when colonists continually witnessed the humiliation and exploitation to which enslaved persons were subjected.[4] As Washington put it in August 1774, “the crisis has arrived when we must assert our rights, or submit to every imposition that can be heaped upon us until custom and use will make us as tame and abject slaves as the Blacks we rule over with such arbitrary sway.”[5]

There was no dearth of British observers who opined about the hypocrisy of American rebels advocating for greater autonomy while owning slaves, perhaps most famously in the question posed by the renowned English essayist Samuel Johnson in March 1775: “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?”[6] Ambrose Serle, private secretary to Admiral Richard Lord Howe—reacting to his first encounter with slavery when His Majesty’s troops landed in Maryland in August 1777—echoed Johnson with his scathing comments regarding the “negroes [who] appeared in great abundance . . . and are treated as a better kind of cattle, being bought or sold according to fancy or interest, having no property, not even in their wives and children.” His rebuke had a suitable acerbic edge to it: “Such is the practice or sentiment of Americans, while they are bawling about the rights of human nature.”[7]

The voices of white colonists who acknowledged the cant highlighted by Johnson and Serle ran counter to the general acceptance of such widespread subjugation. Virginia orator Patrick Henry, writing in January 1773, lamented “that at a time when the rights of humanity are defined and understood with precision, in a country, above all others, fond of liberty . . . we find men professing a religion the most humane, mild, gentle, and generous, adopting a principle as repugnant to humanity as it is inconsistent with the Bible and destructive to liberty.”[8] From Massachusetts, Abigail Adams’ correspondence with her husband in September 1774 reflected her consciousness of the contrived notions of liberty underlying colonial restiveness; while John Adams, as a congressional delegate, decried the strictures on America imposed from London, she termed it “a most iniquitous scheme to . . . fight ourselves for what we are daily robbing and plundering from those who have as good a right to freedom as we have.”[9] In Philadelphia, Thomas Paine—soon to indelibly embrace the Patriot enterprise in his bestselling pamphlet Common Sense—asked newspaper readers in March 1775 to consider, “With what consistency or decency [the colonists] complain so loudly of attempts to enslave them, while they hold so many hundred thousand in slavery; and annually enslave many thousands more, without any pretense of authority or claim upon them?”[10]

Advertisement

Before 1776 was out, a new voice emerged in service to an expansive interpretation of liberty that encompassed those shackled by the chains of slavery, both metaphorically and literally. Lemuel Haynes, a free Black soldier in the Continental Army, crafted an essay that highlighted Jefferson’s rhetoric about divinely conferred natural rights in the Declaration’s philosophical preamble. The Virginian’s phrases did not motivate the members of Congress to reconsider their collective stance on slavery but did draw the attention of its most ardent critics such as Haynes, and his dynamic effort to amplify Jefferson’s assertions initiated a process of reinterpreting them as a universal declaration of human rights that would be adopted by other abolitionists, then later by women’s rights advocates and ultimately by proponents of freedom around the globe.[11] It has been suggested that in his 1776 tract, one can discern the theological roots of a concern for racial justice found in later writings, such as Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” in April 1963.[12]

A Soldier and Preacher

Lemuel Haynes was born on July 18, 1753 to a black father and white mother in West Hartford, Connecticut. Some accounts of his life include details for which no convincing basis has been found, including no firm documentation either for the identity of his mother and father or his name.[13] According to Timothy Mather Cooley, the author of an early nineteenth-century biography of Haynes, the child bore the name of neither parent but probably of the man under whose roof he was born.[14] At the age of five months, having been abandoned by his parents, the mulatto infant was taken into the household of a deeply religious white family—that of David Rose, a farmer and Congregational deacon in the frontier community of Middle Granville, Massachusetts—and became legally an indentured servant. Growing up as a virtual member of the family, the boy began preparing for his eventual career in the ministry by way of family worship and Sabbath readings, and absorbed the rudiments of reading and writing at a district school. He has been described as quick of mind, with a boundless capacity to absorb and memorize both Scripture and sermons.[15] Educating himself in orthodox Puritan thought, Haynes began writing sermons for himself and was recognized by Deacon Rose and his Granville neighbors for his potential as a Congregational cleric.

This frontier youth was apparently inspired by the Revolutionary movement whose ideological precepts were conveyed to his neighborhood by newspapers, pamphlets and public dialogue. When his indentured status ended in 1774, the twenty-one-year-old Haynes—in one of his first acts as a freeman—enlisted as a minuteman in the local militia;[16] and on April 20, 1775, upon news of the fighting at Lexington and Concord, he and forty-one other Granville men, led by Capt. Lebbeus Ball, joined other militia units at Roxbury outside British-occupied Boston.[17] Haynes’ emergency service ended on May 14 after only twenty-four days, but in 1776 he enlisted as a private in the Continental army and served in Capt. Aaron Coe’s company of the Hampshire County regiment, which marched to Fort Ticonderoga under Lt. Col. Timothy Robinson to reinforce the Northern army. This tour of duty was also brief—a mere twenty-eight days—from October 21 to November 17, 1776, when the young soldier was invalided out of the army and dispatched home with typhus.[18] Notwithstanding the transient nature of his service, Haynes typified the voluntary Black recruits—most of whom came from the northern states where there were more free people of color in an overwhelmingly white population—who found a way to exert themselves beyond the limitations imposed on them as civilians and demonstrate that they were capable human beings who did not abuse the privilege of bearing arms.[19]

Haynes declined a proffered opportunity to enter Dartmouth College in 1779, opting instead to study Latin with Rev. Daniel Farrand in New Canaan, Connecticut—laboring in the field to defray the cost of board and tuition—and then be tutored in Greek by another Connecticut clergyman, Rev. William Bradford in Wintonbury (Bloomfield today) while serving as a schoolteacher to pay his way. On November 29, 1780, following intensive reading and study, Haynes was found qualified to be licensed as a preacher by a board of ministerial examiners, and an informal network of Congregational ministers who condemned slavery celebrated his achievement. His first clerical appointment was to his local church in Middle Granville. On September 22, 1783, with the approval of fellow ministers, Haynes married Elizabeth Babbit (1763-1836), a white schoolteacher with whom he would have ten children; and on November 9, 1785, after five years of service as a preacher, he attained his goal of ordination. Haynes became a Congregationalist (Puritan) minister—and the first African American ordained by a mainstream Protestant denomination.

Advertisement

In 1788, after a stint as minister at the church in Torrington, Connecticut, Haynes was chosen as pastor by a conservative congregation in the West Parish of Rutland, Vermont—a post he held for the next thirty years. From that pulpit, Haynes became a visible presence in Congregational circles, and among the accolades accorded him was an honorary Master of Arts degree from Middlebury College at its second commencement in 1804—making him the first African American to receive an honorary degree. He was appointed Field Secretary of the Vermont Missionary Society in 1809 and in that role undertook missionary tours to impoverished areas of the state to preach at local churches. In April 1818, after delivering several thousand sermons to his West Rutland parishioners (by his own count), Haynes’ service as their pastor was terminated in the wake of factional dissension within the church and resentment over his outspoken pro-Federalist views, which may have been compounded by racial prejudice.[20] The decision was made by mutual agreement without implying any “impeachment of [his] moral or ministerial character.”[21] He went on to serve as a minister in Manchester, Vermont, for four years and in South Granville, New York, for eleven years, before his death on September 28, 1833 at eighty years of age. On the last day of his life, Haynes is alleged to have said, “I love my wife, I love my children, but I love my Savior better than all.”[22]

In 1837, The Colored American, a Black newspaper published in New York, remembered Haynes as “the only man of known African descent” who had “ever succeeded in overpowering the system of American caste.”[23] Timothy Mather Cooley, in his biography of the preacher published that same year, hopefully suggested that a full accounting of his subject’s life and character “can hardly fail to mitigate the unreasonable prejudices against the Africans in our land, to encourage those who, though beset by difficulties, are anxious to improve their minds and their hearts, and, finally, to exemplify the power of divine grace over the affections and lives of men.”[24] Haynes’ distinctive status as a Black pastor to white congregations may have reinforced his fervent defense of established New England Calvinism against deism and other threats to orthodox religious doctrine. Whatever his motivations, Haynes proved to be a compelling preacher and a redoubtable opponent in theological disputes. By one account, he was known throughout New England for his scholarly but passionate sermons that earned him the nickname “The Black Puritan.”[25] Acclaimed for overcoming the obstacles of his parentage, race and limited early education, Haynes also earned widespread fame for a polemical homily delivered in June 1805—subsequently published in forty or more editions and commonly titled Universal Salvation—that responded to a lecture in his own West Rutland church by Hosea Bollo, the early standard-bearer of Universalism.[26] Haynes’ discourse inveighed against the belief that all humankind will eventually be saved, declaring “the devil . . . an enemy to all good, to all happiness and excellence” and contending that if “there was no truth in future punishment or was it only a temporary evil, Satan would not be so busy in trying to convince men that there is none.”[27]

On the other hand, perhaps one of the most conspicuous aspects of Haynes’ preaching over half a century is that he was largely reticent about discussing slavery, aside from two published speeches that tangentially referenced the subject: an address on July 4, 1801 to mark twenty-five years of American independence and a sermon at Brandon, Vermont, on February 22, 1813, before the Washington Benevolent Society.[28] This silence is curious in view of the fact that other clergymen, both Black and white, had called for improving the lot of free Blacks and abolishing slavery or at least mitigating its cruelty.[29] “If he had felt the scourge of slavery as strongly as he felt the scourge of a Puritan God,” according to one critic writing a century after Haynes’ death, “he might, with all his talents, have been an earlier Frederick Douglass for the race with which the America of today identifies him.”[30] Although Haynes could hardly have been unaware of abolitionist agitation in the neighboring states of Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York, perhaps his relative silence on the issue was due to Vermont having very few Black residents and a constitution that prohibited slavery.[31] In any case, he had long before expounded his convictions on extending the struggle for liberty to encompass the Black people of America.

Going Beyond the Declaration of Independence

In his 1776 essay, “Liberty Further Extended: Or Free Thoughts on the Illegality of Slave-keeping,” Haynes made a cogent argument for ending human bondage, insisting that an African has an undeniable right to freedom and liberty and condemning slavery as a sin, while calling attention to the irony of slave owners fighting for their own liberty even as they denied it to others.[32] Although petitions for freedom demonstrated that Blacks, as well as many whites, discerned the hypocrisy of preserving chattel slavery during a struggle against what they perceived as political enslavement, few Blacks had the literary skills or opportunity to formulate a theoretical statement of their views as Haynes did.[33]

Although the manuscript is undated, circumstantial evidence points to its having been written in 1776. The title page, which quotes from the Declaration of Independence, indicates that as the earliest possible year. There is no reference in the text to independence, Americans or states, but it alludes to the colonies and contrasts the practices, as well as rights, of Englishmen and Africans. It has been suggested that the text is too well prepared to be a first draft and so was largely composed before Haynes received news of the Declaration. Moreover, the sequence of topics in the essay closely parallels a pamphlet published by Rev. Samuel Hopkins in Connecticut during the first half of 1776.[34] And finally, the fact that the manuscript was later discovered among the papers of Rev. Ebenezer Bradford (with whom Haynes studied Greek), grouped together with other documents bearing a 1776 date, convinced Haynes’ biographer Timothy Mather Cooley that the author had put pen to paper in that same year.[35]

Quoting from the Declaration of Independence, the title page of the manuscript accentuates the concepts of equality and inalienable rights as well as the congressional adoption of the preamble as a statement of policy. The natural rights argument appears again with reference to liberty and freedom as “an innate principle . . . unmovably placed in the human species,” such that people could not willingly submit to being deprived of their liberty without counteracting the “very laws of nature.”[36] The text asserts that “even an African has equally as good a right to his liberty in common with Englishmen.”[37] Describing liberty as a “jewel that was handed down to man from the cabinet of heaven” and hence derived “from the supreme legislature of the universe,” Haynes avers that “it is he who has a sole right to take it away,” and therefore that any person who “would take away a man’s liberty assumes a prerogative that belongs to another.”[38]

Passages such as the following take aim at the inconsistency between slaveowners engaging in a fierce and bloody struggle for their own liberty at the same time as they are subjugating others:

While we are so zealous to maintain and foster our own invaded rights, it cannot be thought impertinent for us to candidly reflect on our own conduct . . . that may with propriety be styled oppression, nay, much greater oppression than that which Englishmen seem so much to spurn at. I mean an oppression that they themselves impose upon others.[39]

For, as the writer contended, “liberty is equally as precious to a Black man as it is to a white one, and bondage equally as intolerable to the one as it is to the other.”[40]

Haynes further prosecuted his case by discounting any religious or biological basis for slavery, noting the absence of any “precept or practice in the sacred Scriptures that constitutes a Black man a slave any more than a white one,” and asking “whence is it that an Englishman is so far distinguished from an African in point of natural privilege? Did he receive it in his original constitution? Or by some subsequent grant? Or does he boast of some higher descent that gives him this preeminence?” He then supplied the predictable response: “For my part, I can find no such revelation.” Although “mankind has an insatiable thirst after superiority one over the other,” Haynes opined, that does not mean “the practice is warrantable.”[41] The solution, he avowed, however idealized it may be, is a “system of law whereby to regulate our moral conduct,” based upon “that which was given by the blessed Savior of the world,” by which “if we strictly adhere to the rule, we shall not impose anything upon others but what we should be willing to have imposed upon us were we in their condition.”[42]

Haynes then turned his attention to the “vile and atrocious” slave trade, recounting how “generally many hundred slaves [are] put on board a vessel . . . shackled together two by two, worse than criminals going to the place of execution [and] crowded together as close as possible and almost naked.” The ordeal “often carries off one-third of them on their passage; yea, many have put an end to their own lives for very anguish,” and those who “have manifested a disposition to rise in their defense . . . have been put to the most cruel tortures and deaths as human art could inflict.” Then too, they and their families and friends left behind in Africa suffered “the sorrows, the grief, the distress, and anguish . . . when they must forever part with each other!” From this ensued an appeal to the “tender parents” among white Americans, whereby he surmised “what would be their distress should one of their dearest children be snatched from them in a clandestine manner and carried to Africa or some other foreign land to be under the most abject slavery for life, among a strange people.”[43]

“Men were made for more noble ends than to be drove to market like sheep and oxen,” Haynes observed, and he incriminated both those “guilty of man stealing that are the immediate actors” in the slave trade and “those in these colonies who buy them at their hands . . . for when they saw the thief they consented with him.”[44] He begged the reader to “consider the miseries of a slave, being under the absolute control of another, subject to continual embarrassments, fatigues, and corrections at the will of a master,” and asked, “How often are they separated from each other here in this land at many hundred miles’ distance, children from parents and parents from children, husbands from wives and wives from husbands?” This institution was “in short . . . a hell upon earth; and all this for filthy lucre’s sake.”[45]

The last object of this text was to counter “as lame and defective” those arguments that Haynes inferred might be offered by defenders of slavery in reply to his critique. He rejected any justification for this practice that was based on the Bible, for “however extant or prevalent it might be” in any age, “it does not in the least reverse the unchangeable laws of God or of nature or make that become lawful which is in itself unlawful,” nor does it call for deviation “from the unerring rules of heaven.”[46] Likewise, there are no grounds for upholding slavery in cases where slaves may be bought from their parents (however rare), for “if parents have a right to be free, then it follows that their children have equally as good a right to be free.”[47] Finally, Haynes rejected the notion propagated by slave traders that “Negroes who are emigrated into these colonies are brought out of a land of darkness under the meridian light of the gospel; and so it is a great blessing instead of a curse.” This is a claim that doing evil results in something good, he wrote. Furthermore, that “slave merchants who trade upon the coasts of Africa do not aim at the spiritual good of their slaves is evident by their behavior toward them,” as they encouraged “[quarrels] and bloodshed among” the various African nations so as to generate an ongoing supply of slaves from among those captured in these conflicts.[48] And the traders’ professions were belied by the reality that “slaves in these colonies are generally kept under the greatest ignorance and blindness, and they are scarcely ever told by their white masters whether there is a Supreme Being who governs the universe or whether there is any reward or punishment beyond the grave.[49]

Near the end of his sermon, Haynes offered a stark warning to slaveholders: “If you have any love to your selves or any love to this land, if you have any love to your fellow men, break these intolerable yokes and let their names be remembered no more, lest they be retorted on your own necks and you sink under them, for God will not hold you guiltless.” He concluded by admonishing the slave-owning supporters of the Revolutionary cause to “contend in a consistent manner” in the quest for America’s self-determination by aligning the “the patriotic zeal that fires your breast” with a disposition “to further expressions of so noble a spirit” that would—to quote from Scripture—let “the oppressed go free.”[50]

The manuscript ends with an incomplete sentence: “and I cannot think it is for the want of such a generous principle in you, but through some inadvertency that.”[51] The unfinished aspect of this treatise does not detract from its force or eloquence and is perhaps apposite in that Haynes offers us an enduring commentary on the unfinished nature of the Revolution, that is, from the standpoint of its failure to embrace the rights of Black people in colonial America (to say nothing of women, Indigenous Americans, and white men without property). Although he lingers in undeserved obscurity among the general public to this day, we can perhaps find a measure of solace in Lemuel Haynes having received at least this degree of public recognition: in 1975, his home in South Granville, New York, was designated a National Historic Landmark.[52]

[1] Rick Atkinson, The British Are Coming: The War for America, 1775-1777 (Henry Holt and Company, 2019), 184, 349.

[2] Ron Chernow, Washington: A Life (The Penguin Press, 2010), 111-112.

[3] Although slavery was legal, profitable and accepted throughout British North America, its presence varied significantly by region, accounting for 40 percent of the population south of Pennsylvania but only 4 percent of those residing in New England and the mid-Atlantic states. See Alan Taylor, American Revolutions: A Continental History, 1750-1804 (W. W. Norton & Company, 2016), 462; and James Kirby Martin, Insurrection: The American Revolution and Its Meaning (Westholme Publishing, LLC, 2019), 12-13.

[4] Taylor, American Revolutions, 22.

[5] George Washington to Bryan Fairfax, August 24, 1774. Founders Online, National Archives, founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/02-10-02-0097.

[6] Samuel Johnson, “Taxation No Tyranny; An Answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American Congress,” in The American Revolution: Writings from the Pamphlet Debate, II: 1773-1776, ed. Gordon S. Wood (The Library of America, 2015), 496.

[7] Ambrose Serle, The American Journal of Ambrose Serle, Secretary to Lord Howe, 1776-1778, ed. Edward H. Tatum, Jr. (The Huntington Library, 1940. Reprint: Arno Press, Inc., 1969), 249.

[8] Patrick Henry to Robert Pleasants, January 18, 1773, in The Spirit of ‘Seventy-Six: The Story of the American Revolution As Told by Participants, eds. Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris (Harper & Row, Publishers, 1967), 402.

[9] Abigail Adams to John Adams, September 22, 1774, in My Dearest Friend: Letters of Abigail and John Adams, eds. Margaret A. Hogan and C. James Taylor (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007), 47-48.

[10] Thomas Paine, “African Slavery in America,” The Pennsylvania Journal and Weekly Advertiser, March 8, 1775.

[11] Woody Holton, Liberty Is Sweet: The Hidden History of the American Revolution (Simon & Schuster, 2021), 248.

[12] Jared C. Wilson, Foreward, in Lemuel Haynes, Selected Sermons (Crossway, 2023), 14.

[13] Ruth Bogin, “‘Liberty Further Extended’: A 1776 Antislavery Manuscript by Lemuel Haynes,” The William and Mary Quarterly 40, no. 1 (1983), 85.

[14] Timothy Mather Cooley, Sketches of the Life and Character of the Rev. Lemuel Haynes, A.M. (Harper & Brothers, 1837), 28.

[15] Bogin, “‘Liberty Further Extended,’” 86.

[16] Minutemen were members of units drawn from the regular militia and comprised a set percentage of that militia. Specially trained and equipped, they were required to assemble very rapidly and be prepared at all times to march immediately into combat. See John R. Gavin, The Minute Men—The First Fight: Myths and Realities of the American Revolution (Potomac Books, 1989), 4.

[17] It should be noted that Massachusetts, in its 1776 militia act (enacted after Haynes’ service as a minuteman), explicitly excluded “negroes, Indians, and mulattoes” from militia duty, but in 1778 revised the law to allow them to serve by eliminating statutory exemptions to militia service without specifically mentioning such persons. See “An Act for Forming and Regulating the Militia within the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England, and for Repealing All the Laws Heretofore Made for That Purpose,” January 22, 1776, in The Acts and Resolves, Public And Private, of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay (Wright & Potter Printing Company, 1886), 5:chap. 10, 445, archive.org/details/actsresolvespass6980mass/page/444/mode/2up, and “An Act in Addition to ‘An Act for Forming and Regulating the Militia within the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England, and for Repealing All the Laws Heretofore Made for That Purpose,’” March 13, 1778, in ibid., chap. 24, 778-780, archive.org/details/actsresolvespass6980mass/page/778/mode/2up.

[18] [Massachusetts] Secretary of the Commonwealth, Massachusetts Soldiers and Sailors of the Revolutionary War (Wright & Potter Printing Co., 1900), 7:39, 227, archive.org/details/massachusettssolhhixmass/page/n5/mode/2up.

[19] Judith L. Van Buskirk, Standing in Their Own Light: African American Patriots in the American Revolution (University of Oklahoma Press, 2017), 60-61.

[20] Bogin, “‘Liberty Further Extended,’” 87.

[21] Lemuel Haynes to Deacon Elihu Atkins, May 20, 1818, in Cooley, Sketches of the Life and Character of the Rev. Lemuel Haynes, A.M., 172.

[22] Cooley, Sketches of the Life and Character of the Rev. Lemuel Haynes, A.M., 309.

[23] Bogin, “‘Liberty Further Extended,’” 87.

[24] Cooley, Sketches of the Life and Character of the Rev. Lemuel Haynes, A.M., 28.

[25] Haynes, Selected Sermons, 23-24.

[26] Haynes, “Universal Salvation,” in ibid., 27-40.

[27] Ibid., 36, 38.

[28] Bogin, “‘Liberty Further Extended,’” 88.

[29] Ibid., 88.

[30] Vernon Loggins, The Negro Author: His Development in America to 1900 (Kennicat Press, 1931), 126.

[31] Bogin, “‘Liberty Further Extended,’” 89.

[32] Lemuel Haynes, “Liberty Further Extended: Or Free Thoughts on the Illegality of Slave Keeping, Wherein Those Arguments that are Used in its Vindication are Plainly Confuted, Together with a Humble Address to Such As Are Concerned in the Practice,” in Haynes, Selected Sermons, 99-139.

[33] Bogin, “‘Liberty Further Extended,’” 91.

[34] Ibid., 91; Samuel Hopkins, A Dialogue Concerning the Slavery of the Africans; Showing it to be the Duty and Interest of the American Colonies to Emancipate all Their African Slaves: With an Address to the Owners of Such Slaves (Judah P. Spooner, I776), quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=evans;cc=evans;rgn=main;view=text;idno=n15010.0001.001.

[35] Cooley, Sketches of the Life and Character of the Rev. Lemuel Haynes, A.M., 58.

[36] Haynes, “Liberty Further Extended,” in Haynes, Selected Sermons, 102-103.

[37] Ibid., 104.

[38] Ibid., 103.

[39] Ibid., 104-105.

[40] Ibid., 107.

[41] Ibid., 107-108.

[42] Ibid., 109-110.

[43] Ibid., 110, 114-116.

[44] Ibid., 118.

[45] Ibid., 119, 120.

[46] Ibid., 126.

[47] Ibid., 127.

[48] Ibid., 128-129.

[49] Ibid., 130.

[50] Ibid., 138-139.

[51] Ibid., 139.

[52] The house on County Road 27 in the village of South Granville was built in 1793. Haynes lived there from 1822 to 1833. It was purchased from Charles Halderman as a private residence in 2009 by Bo Young and William J. Foote and is not generally open to the public. africanamericanheritagesites.stqry.app/en/story/44288.