Profile №10 BEHI-P010-PC

Paul Cuffe

1759–1817

Merchant, Shipowner, Shipbuilder, Sea Captain, Community Advocate

ERA: Colonial and Antebellum America (1619–1865)
PRIMARY INDUSTRIES: Shipbuilding, Shipping & trade, Whaling & fishing
LIFE: 1759 · Cuttyhunk Island, Massachusetts (contemporary account) · 1817 · Westport, Massachusetts (institutional accounts)
GEOGRAPHIC REACH: Massachusetts · Atlantic ports · Britain · Sierra Leone

Myths & Disputes

TAKEAWAY: Fleet totals, financial claims, and migration narratives require precise sourcing. Later summaries do not replace vessel registers, petition endorsements, or correspondence.

MYTHS & DISPUTES

The audit preserves disagreements that materially affect interpretation. A compelling maritime story does not require inflated fleet totals, profit figures or a simplified migration narrative. Discrepancies in source presentation are recorded alongside disputed historical claims.

What the source supports—and what it does not

One voyage / every voyageThe memoir’s Black-crew description does not establish the composition of every crew.ATTRIBUTED
Capacity / ownershipA ship’s register tonnage does not show Cuffe’s share, cargo weight, or wealth.OPEN
Petition / legal outcomeCataloged civic action is distinct from enactment or proof of sole causation.CATALOG VERIFIED
Label / letterA page labeled Forten must be matched to the actual author, text, and date.OPEN

The visual summarizes the audit’s central corrections. Original registers, petition endorsements, and correspondence remain the best tools for resolving the broader claims. Neither a website title nor a repeated financial figure substitutes for the underlying document.

Myths & Disputes at a Glance
●
Fleet:
Changing shares and dates
●
Money:
Valuation versus profit
●
Sources:
Labels can be misleading

COMMON SOURCES OF CONFUSION

◆
Not one fixed fleet

All named vessels were not necessarily held at once.

◆
No settled camwood profit

Buyer leads are not a final account.

◆
No unanimous migration position

Read community responses and original correspondence.

THE RECORD & ITS LIMITS

1
Vessel chronology and tonnage

WHS ships/voyages pages disagree on some Alpha and Traveller details. Other summaries differ on Mary tonnage and Hero share. Original registry dates must resolve these; do not total inconsistent numbers as verified capacity.

2
All-Black crews and firsts

The memoir's 1811 crew description is event-specific. Other voyage reconstructions name white masters. Avoid converting contemporary praise into a universal first or a claim about every voyage.

3
Petition causation

A signed petition demonstrates an action, not that it single-handedly changed Massachusetts law. Different petition texts and dates should not be merged.

4
The PBS transcription mismatch

The page labeled Forten letter links to a Richmond January 24, 1817 resolution. That text is not Forten's January 25 letter. The original Forten letter is retained as the unresolved target.

5
Printed will anomalies

The 1923 text repeats a $50 bequest and contains an inconsistent allocation passage. An original will/probate comparison is required before fractions or totals are treated as settled.

6
Financial and identity boundaries

The $8,000 loss, Alpha receipt, $100/ton sale price, unnamed vessel and Barnes identity remain open. Cuffe’s father, son and vessel namesakes must not be merged into the founder’s record.

BEHI RESEARCH STANDARD

READING THE EVIDENCE

INSTITUTE ANALYSIS

Read the evidence and measurement rules in Receipts.

EVIDENCE & CONTEXT

SourceDescriptionDateEvidence ClassificationNotes
December 1780 court petitionOfficial object catalogDecember 19, 1780VERIFIEDSmithsonian NMAAHC object 2009.26.1 identifies a Taunton court petition signed by John and Paul Cuffe. Catalog identity, date and holding verified; manuscript lines were not independently transcribed in this audit. Distinguish this court document from the February 1780 legislative petition. A petition is not proof of a subsequent law or sole causation of voting reform.
Legislative tax petition and Dartmouth draftsPrimary manuscript leads1780–1781ATTRIBUTEDFebruary 10, 1780 legislative petition, January 1781 copies and April 1781 Dartmouth drafts are distinct documents. Earlier findings and displayed collection descriptions establish research targets; complete originals and endorsements remain to be reconciled. Do not collapse them into Smithsonian object 2009.26.1.
Liverpool Mercury memoir — published excerptContemporary memoir transcriptionOctober 1811ATTRIBUTEDPBS reproduces an excerpt credited to the Library of Congress. It describes Cuffe as independent trader and master/owner with a Black crew, gives 1759 birth and Cuttyhunk origin, and recounts early seafaring and tax resistance. Text inspected; original newspaper/pamphlet pages not recovered. Praise, early chronology and priority claims require corroboration.
Sunfish and Mary vessel recordsVessel register research leads1780s–1790sATTRIBUTEDEarlier reconstruction and WHS ships summary name Sunfish and Mary as Cuffe–Michael Wainer vessels. Sunfish 25 tons and Mary 40/42 tons appear in summaries; exact dates, register tonnage and ownership shares await dated registrations/bills of sale. Do not count all historical vessels as a simultaneously owned fleet.
Hero vessel recordsVessel register research leadEarly 1800sATTRIBUTEDEarlier reconstruction reports 162 tons; summaries differ over date, rig and Cuffe's ownership fraction. The WHS ships page gives a quarter interest with Cory partners, while other accounts give a half interest. Preserve dates and changing shares; original registers and transfers remain necessary.
Alpha ownership and transferVessel register / transfer leads1806–1815 leadsATTRIBUTEDEarlier reconstruction reports 268 tons and a later John James connection. WHS ships and voyages pages disagree internally (268 versus 258 tons). Earlier $6,500 transfer is not supported by an inspected paid receipt here. A sale agreement or consideration is not automatically cash received.
Traveller ownership and mastersVessel register / logbook leads1806/1807–1817ATTRIBUTEDEarlier research reports 109 tons and sole Cuffe ownership by 1809; WHS summaries use different construction/ownership dates and one 69-ton entry. Reconcile original certificates rather than silently selecting a date. Some listed masters were white; the 1811 Black crew claim does not describe every voyage. Do not confuse Cuffe's brig with the British 1804 namesake.
Unnamed Cuffe–Job Gifford vesselVessel identity research leadOctober 4, 1816 sale leadATTRIBUTEDWHS chronology and prior research mention a 45-ton vessel built with Job Gifford and offered for sale. Vessel name and completed sale are unestablished. Do not rename it, merge it with Traveller or add its tonnage to a verified fleet total.
Poughkeepsie buyers and processingRetrospective study / original targets1816–1817 leadsATTRIBUTEDSherwood's 1923 account names Peleg Howland & Sons and Swift & Barnes. Prior targets include Beriah Swift letter November 6, 1816, a February 1, 1817 dye-wood rasping patent, and Barnes & Willoughby advertising. These do not establish Cuffe as patentee, identify every Barnes, or prove a final sale price. The $100/ton purchase-versus-sale conflict remains open.
Will of Paul Cuffe — published transcriptionPrimary will through later transcriptionApril 18, 1817; approved October 7, 1817ATTRIBUTEDJournal of Negro History VIII (1923), pp.230–232, prints a will credited to Taunton Probate Office. Read provisions for Alice's use rights, Traveller fractions, land and executor guardianship, salt works with Joseph Tripp, and Rotch/Wing executors. Printed text repeats a Ruth Cottell $50 bequest and has an internally inconsistent one-half/one-eighth allocation passage. Do not repair silently or compute a verified distribution/net worth. Will is not inventory or final settlement.
Forten correspondence / colonization debateCorrespondence lead / presentation discrepancyJanuary 1817ATTRIBUTEDPBS discussion describes Forten's January 25 letter and opposition voiced at the Philadelphia meeting. Its linked page 3h484t.html instead transcribes Richmond's January 24 resolution. Treat that mismatch explicitly; do not cite Richmond text as Forten's letter. Recover the original January 25 letter and distinguish voluntary emigration from ACS policy or unanimous Black support.
EVIDENCE CLASSIFICATIONS:VERIFIEDATTRIBUTEDDISPUTEDINSTITUTE ANALYSIS

No verified records are currently published in this category.

Scroll to Top