Profile №7 BEHI-P007-TLJ

Thomas L. Jennings

c. 1791–1859

Inventor, Tailor, Clothier, Abolitionist

ERA: Colonial and Antebellum America (1619–1865)
PRIMARY INDUSTRIES: Tailoring & garment care
LIFE: c. 1791 · New York City (reported) · February 11, 1859 · New York City (contemporary obituary)
GEOGRAPHIC REACH: New York City, United States

Myths & Disputes

TAKEAWAY: Jennings’s record contains date conflicts and unsupported extensions of documented facts. An unresolved claim is neither established nor disproved by missing evidence alone.

MYTHS & DISPUTES

This section identifies specific overstatements, date conflicts and unresolved claims. It does not replace a questionable claim with a different unsupported certainty.

A claim-correction chart

Patent dateMarch 3, 1821 is confirmed by the federal list; the lost specification is a separate question.DOCUMENTED
Death yearThe inspected March 1859 obituary reports February 11 death; the older 1856 year is rejected.DOCUMENTED
The Cox disputeEarlier transcription describes trespass involving destroyed signs. Do not convert that lead into patent-infringement income.OPEN
Family freedomPopular accounts describe freedom purchased with proceeds. Legal instruments and payments remain to be recovered.OPEN

Sources: federal report and contemporary obituary; earlier Cox transcription; MIT Lemelson biography. The color labels identify documentary status, not a certainty score. An unresolved claim is neither established nor disproved merely because the needed original has not been acquired.

myths & disputes at a Glance
●
Death year:
1859, not 1856
●
Cox case:
Trespass lead
●
Proceeds:
Unresolved

COMMON SOURCES OF CONFUSION

Death-date conflict

The contemporary obituary supports February 11, 1859.

Patent lawsuit claim

Earlier transcription describes destruction of signs, not patent infringement.

Family-freedom claim

Original manumission and payment records remain necessary.

THE RECORD & ITS LIMITS

1
“He died in 1856”

Disputed: the inspected obituary’s masthead is March 1859 and its death report says February 11.

2
“The $50 award proves patent earnings”

Disputed: the older research transcription characterizes Jennings v. Cox as trespass involving signs. Recover the original and court file; do not call the award a royalty.

3
“Patent proceeds purchased his family’s freedom”

Attributed popular account; not verified by an inspected transaction or legal instrument.

4
“Hotel property proves his fortune”

Unresolved: operating an establishment, living at an address and owning real property are separate claims.

5
“Congress passed a Jennings resolution in 2014”

The inspected H.Res. 514 text was introduced and referred to committee; passage is not established here.

6
“A named image is an authenticated portrait”

No portrait is published until sitter identification and rights are verified.

WHY THIS MATTERS
CORRECTIONS REMAIN REVIEWABLE
Death-date conflict

The contemporary obituary supports February 11, 1859.

Patent lawsuit claim

Earlier transcription describes destruction of signs, not patent infringement.

Family-freedom claim

Original manumission and payment records remain necessary.

BEHI ANALYSIS

New original documents may revise the classification. Preserve citation, image, transcription and interpretation as separate parts of the evidence trail.

EVIDENCE & CONTEXT

SOURCEDESCRIPTIONDATEEVIDENCE CLASSIFICATIONNOTES
Douglass’ Monthly · Thomas L. Jennings obituaryInspected contemporary newspaper scanMarch 1859 · p. 36VERIFIEDPrinted masthead is March 1859, despite the supplied filename saying 1869. Reports death in New York on February 11. Retrospective business and civic accounts remain attributed.
New-York American · Jennings v. CoxEarlier newspaper transcriptionReported December 6, 1821ATTRIBUTEDPrior research describes trespass for destroying signs and $50 damages, with the patent produced in evidence. Recover the supplied scan and reconcile the masthead; do not describe this as patent infringement.
MIT LemelsonInstitutional interpretationModern institutional biographyATTRIBUTEDRecognition and biographical context. Priority, family emancipation and proceeds claims require distinct documentary support.
H.Res. 514 · introduced textInspected congressional documentMarch 12, 2014VERIFIEDIntroduced and referred to committee. This is a proposal for recognition, not proof that a resolution passed; historical recitals remain attributed.
Property / mortgage instrumentsUnresolved acquisition1841–1849 leadsATTRIBUTED157/167 Church Street and Scott–Smith / Jinnings–Scott leads require deeds, legal descriptions and mortgage recitals. No consideration or debt amount verified.
EVIDENCE CLASSIFICATIONS:VERIFIEDATTRIBUTEDDISPUTEDINSTITUTE ANALYSIS

Claim Review & Corrections

CLAIM / ASSERTION HISTORICAL CLARIFICATION & CORRECTION CLAIM STATUS RECEIPT
◆
Jennings №7 — Death year and obituary date
“The contemporary obituary reports Jennings’s death in New York on February 11, 1859.”

The inspected issue is Douglass’ Monthly, March 1859, p. 36. The supplied filename says 1869; that filename is incorrect. The older 1856 death year is not retained.

Verified
◆
Jennings №7 — Dry-scouring patent date and identifier
“The scanned federal patent list confirms Jennings’s dry-scouring patent was issued March 3, 1821.”

Printed page 6 of the 1822 report visually confirms date, inventor, invention and New York residence. NIHF supplies identifier 3306X. The original specification, royalties and earnings remain unverified.

Receipts → Documents: Federal patent list, 1822 — preview, full file, citation, evidence classification and rights. Read the document’s limits before applying it to this claim.

Attributed
◆
Jennings №7 — Cox case was not patent-income evidence
“The reported Cox damages establish a patent-infringement victory or royalty income.”

Recover the New-York American scan and reconcile its reported December 6, 1821 masthead. Do not characterize the case as patent infringement, or the award as royalties, from this transcription.

Disputed
◆
Jennings №7 — Patent proceeds and family emancipation
“Popular histories connect Jennings’s proceeds with family emancipation.”

No inspected manumission, payment or royalty record verifies the claimed transaction. Retain as an attributed account and an open research question.

Attributed
◆
Jennings №7 — Property, hotel operations and wealth
“Earlier sources associate family members with Church Street and later hotels.”

Deeds, mortgages, estate accounts, operating records and identity checks remain necessary. Addresses or advertisements do not establish ownership, profit or net worth; post-1859 business is not a living founder operation.

Attributed
◆
Jennings №7 — 2014 congressional proposal
“H.Res. 514 was introduced on March 12, 2014 and referred to the Judiciary Committee.”

The inspected introduced text establishes the proposal, not passage. Its historical recitals are attributed and not independent verification of 1821 finances.

Verified
◆
Jennings №7 — Research-chain claim: Thompson estate special master’s sale, 1899
“A March 1, 1899 newspaper advertisement documents a New Jersey Chancery-ordered special master’s sale of Joseph I. Thompson estate real estate, including a farm near Atlantic Highlands described as about 180 acres with contiguous salt meadow, with David S. Crater acting as Special Master.”

The advertisement does not identify the complainant or case caption, the successful purchaser, final price, resulting deed, or any direct connection to Thomas L. Jennings. It is contextual research-chain evidence, not proof of a Jennings ownership interest.

Verified
Scroll to Top