Biddy Mason

A published court-order transcription, inspected newspaper clippings, Beasley’s scanned biography and a memorial deed reproduction provide distinct anchors. Each has a different evidentiary reach.

What did Mason earn, acquire, retain and transfer? Occupational taxes, sale prices, assessed values, family assets and probate net estate require different documents.

This is a full audit of the recovered research and accessible evidence. Original deeds, assessment rolls and the complete probate file remain open acquisition tasks; their absence is identified throughout.

Beasley credits Ellen Huddleston’s family Bible for the precise birth date and Hancock County, Georgia. NPS notes conflicting census birthplace reports. Preserve the attribution rather than declaring the discrepancy closed.

The published 1856 order identifies Biddy and her daughters separately from Hannah and her children and grandchild. It does not prove that all fourteen petitioners were Mason’s relatives.

Later narratives describe travel and livestock duties. Exact mileage, walking every mile and the beginning of her medical training are not independently established by the inspected court order.

Use the historical title In the Matter of Hannah and Biddy and their children on Petition for Habeas Corpus. Popular shorthand Mason v. Smith should not replace the document’s identity.

The published opinion records a private inquiry into her wishes. It supports reluctance to go to Texas, but does not justify an invented courtroom speech, a self-written petition or a claim that she purchased freedom.

Institute analysis: protection from coerced removal made independent work and property holding possible. The legal record alone does not establish the amount of later savings or wealth.

The published order is dated January 19, 1856. January 21 appears as a later procedural entry; the January 28 published opinion explains the case. Do not collapse them into one event.

Beasley reports daily nursing pay and the first lots. The deed-cover reproduction gives a dated acquisition anchor. Employment, savings and consideration need their own supporting records.

Stovall’s inspected 1909 feature recounts relief, shelter, prisoner visits and church expenses. These are retrospective accounts, not an itemized contemporary donations ledger.

The inspected February 12, 1909 feature describes wealth at that later date and relatives then controlling it. It does not establish a $300,000 estate at Mason’s death in 1891. The newspaper amount itself is an attributed valuation.

A $250 acquisition story and a later reported sale cannot yield verified profit without matching parcels, ownership shares, improvements, expenses and transaction dates. Nominal family-deed consideration is not market value.

The complete probate inventory and accounts, Recorder instruments, assessment rolls, leases and receipts can distinguish assets from debts and personal holdings from descendants’ wealth.

Birth in 1818 is attributed to family and institutional accounts. The order is dated January 19, 1856; its copy January 9, 1860. NPS cites a tax entry October 30, 1862. The homestead deed cover is dated November 28, 1866.

Prior research identifies a possible 1868 acquisition, January 2, 1875 sale, April 7, 1884 sale and June 20, 1890 family transfer. The inspected 1869 festival advertisement establishes community activity before FAME’s remembered 1872 organization.

Beasley’s family-Bible account reports death January 15, 1891. Huntington identifies Probate Case 14493. Stovall’s 1909 feature and Beasley’s 1919 book preserve retrospective family and community history.

Do not publish a verified $300,000 death estate, modern-dollar millionaire claim, richest-woman ranking or absolute first-Black-landowner claim. Each needs a dated comparison or complete financial record.

Preserve FAME’s account as institutional attribution. The 1869 advertisement shows a pre-1872 AME network. Sole funding, donated land, a first school/orphanage and medical qualifications require additional original instruments or contemporary records.

The familiar open-hand saying is preserved through descendants and later publications; no contemporaneous autograph is identified here. Beasley repeats Stovall and also prints an inconsistent 1854 freedom date. Do not count that repetition as a second independent witness or erase contradictions.

A court copy, newspaper portrait, descendant account and property instrument each preserve a different aspect of Mason’s life. Their differences make the biography richer and more accountable.

The Conservancy identifies the park and de Bretteville’s timeline artwork at 333 South Spring Street. A modern depiction of a deed is valuable for public history, while the full recorded deed remains the title authority.

Complete probate and deed records can clarify the value and disposition of assets. Tax rolls, church records and descendant litigation can explain how holdings and institutions changed after Mason’s lifetime.

Prioritize the complete 1866 deed, then reconcile 1868, 1875, 1884 and 1890 leads with Recorder indexes. Record execution and recording dates separately; retain lot and block descriptions.

An Owens business operating on family land does not prove Mason owned the business or received all its earnings. Match leases, title, partnerships and dated advertisements before assigning revenue.

Probate Case 14493 is the key estate target. AME minutes, incorporation papers, trustees’ deeds and expense records can distinguish institutional founding, legal title and personal assistance.