Patience Copp’s Signature on her Nephew, Charles Short’s Guardian Bond^[1]

In the spring of 1722, in Boston, Massachusetts, Patience Copp, the widow of David Copp, became the legal guardian of her niece and nephew. Patience curved the “p” in her name, dotted her “i” with purpose. She inscribed her name in a way that was uniquely Patience. Three years earlier, however, Patience’s hand trembled as she signed:

Patience Copp’s Signature on her Petition to the Suffolk County Court^[2]

In March of 1720, Patience petitioned a Boston court pleading for the debts owed to her late husband to be paid to her. Patience scratched her name on the page; the “p” she etched, drastically different from the “p” written two years later; the last two letters wobbly, confused, and without confidence. Something as small as a signature reveals a tremendous amount about the evolution of an individual. From shy to assertive, from wife to taverner, from aunt to guardian, this is the story of Patience Copp.

Widowhood was a common experience for women in early America. Historians, however, have uncovered how early American widows used their “marital status, wealth, and a gendered cultural ideology” to gain agency within a society that categorized them as weak and marginal.^[3] In Vivian Bruce Conger’s The Widows’ Might: Widowhood and Gender in Early British America she challenges these ideas, claiming that widows were not marginal; but instead, prominent. These women give voice to the complex family and economic dynamics of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Conger’s analysis, based only on widows who left behind wills, leaves out an entire group of women that warrant the historian’s attention: those that left little behind; Patience Copp is one of these widows and her story will not go untold.

The story of Patience Copp gives voice to the intricate dynamics in a society where widowhood offered women, perhaps counterintuitively, an opportunity to define their involvement in and influence on the world around them. By telling the story of a widow without a will, we gain a deeper understanding of how widows used their status to assert influence. Widowhood situated women as vocal heads of household. That status allowed some to lean into motherly archetypes which they could use toward their advantage in a society that marginalized them.

“The Perplexity of the Widow compels her to ask, What shall I do?”^[4]

In February 1718, Cotton Mather, a Puritan clergyman, wrote “Marah spoken to. A brief essay to do good unto the widow,” in which he perhaps unknowingly defined eighteenth century New England widowhood. When a woman’s husband died, in the early American middle to upper class household, she faced a series of “what shall I do” questions. Throughout Patience’s widowhood, she was asked, and thereafter answered, a variety of “what shall I do” questions. Below I track three decisions that defined Patience’s widowhood: David’s naming of Patience as an executor of his estate; Patience collecting her debts and attempting to sell her property after David’s death; and her eventual reopening of her tavern. By tracking these decisions, just like the two signatures, it is evident that Patience’s widowhood was accompanied by a new sense of independence, agency, and respect. The widow faced many “what shall I do” questions during her widowhood. These questions allowed widows like Patience to gain legal agency and economic freedom in a male dominated society.

Conversation and Approach

This essay places itself at the intersection between a micro-, gender, legal, and taverner’s history. I largely engage in conversation with Vivian Bruce Conger, as well as David W. Conroy, Gloria Main, Sharron Salinger, and Marylynn Salmon. Conroy’s In Public Houses: Drink and the Revolution of Authority in Colonial Massachusetts provides an important framework for measuring the size and success of Boston’s taverns.^[5] Main’s “Probate Records as a Source for Early American History,” encourages the reader to turn to legal and administrative documents for answers to questions regarding Early American history. She asks the reader to consider a series of questions when looking at these records. One, for example, asks whether the husband entrusted his estate to the care of his widow even when an adult son survived him. Other questions include how his children would be cared for.^[6] Salinger’s Taverns and Drinking in Early America draws an association between the widowed taverner and her ability to exercise the law to her advantage.^[7] Lastly, Salmon’s Women and the Law of Property in Early America helps piece together the kinds of choices widow’s encountered when endowed with their husband’s property.

County probate records are a key source of evidence for my writing. Probate records are a series of legal documents, compiled by the court, to settle the estate of a deceased person. They often include the deceased’s will, petitions, court orders, inventories of assets, lists of debts, and any other relevant paperwork related to the administration of the estate. These records provide a comprehensive view of how the deceased’s affairs were handled and how their assets were distributed among beneficiaries or heirs. From the seventeenth to eighteenth century, probate records can also provide the historian with a list of creditors and debtors. These lists often indicate potential financial difficulties the deceased’s family might endure after their death, or whom the deceased relied upon for support. Wills, as Main recognizes, “yield many insights into the relationships between people.”^[8] The white space in these wills is just as important as the writing. In other words, if the testator fails to mention a certain relative in their will, it might indicate to the historian the nature of the relationship between the individual and the excluded family member or members. Petitions to the court are useful for the historian because they effectively offer an insight into why and how the individual positions themselves before the law for potential assistance. Finally, inventories paint the physical picture of an individual’s earnings, socio-economic status, and life-style.

To write Patience’s story involved the use of county probate records, vital records, Boston News-Letter advertisements, the Journal of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, and Massachusetts land records, among other things. While this essay found no personal correspondence or diaries of Patience or her immediate family members, probate records provide helpful information to attest to her household and family circumstances. While probate records have their strengths, they also have their failures. They help us understand the way the individual might have used the law, or the setting of the court, to their advantage; and they provide a window into the way the court viewed them. These records are valuable, but they are not exhaustive. The men in charge of record keeping often left out important details for the sake of time or laziness; deciding what events or details would be worthy of space on their documents. For example, the court records do not capture the exact words Patience spoke, nor do they include observations about her appearance or the documents she presented. However, these records provide insight into how a woman like Patience Copp was perceived by Boston's middle and upper-class white community — those who served in the court. They also highlight how women may have positioned themselves before such a group, a topic to be explored further

Other primary sources, such as Boston News-Letter advertisements, proved particularly useful because the writers often stated an individual’s title or occupation along with the advertisement. These advertisements not only outlined an individual’s status, but they also hint at how resourceful or strategic the eighteenth century advertisee might have been – if there were other names listed, adjectives used etc. Lastly, land records help situate the individual physically and within the context of their family. They include maps with plots and often the names of the plot’s owner. These aid in determining who owned the property and who was in charge.

In a male-dominated society, widows did not shy away from answering challenging “what shall I do” questions. Their answers demonstrate the capacity of the widow to redefine herself, uplift others, and advance her community. Patience’s story serves as a window through which we can better understand the status, struggles, and successes of the early American widow. Her story is delicate and a testament to the powerful nature of primary sources in the study of history. Throughout my research and writing I have wholeheartedly committed myself to the sources, the art of history, and Patience herself.

Figure 1: John Bonner’s 1722 the town of Boston in New England.^[9]

Getting Started: How Patience and David Forged their Tavern

            In the North End of Boston in December of 1694, Patience Short, the daughter of a farmer, married David Copp, the son of a shoemaker and elder.^[10] When the two married, they were both thirty-one years old.^[11] Before she married, Patience lived just outside the city of Boston with her mother, father, her brother Thomas, and two sisters Marcy and Rachel.^[12] When Patience and David married, Patience was absorbed into David’s family, as was the custom and indeed, effectively, the law. The Copp’s owned three small-sized properties at the North end of Prince Street in Boston.^[13] David’s father, known to many as Elder Copp, was ordained in Cotton Mather’s Church — a block or two away from Elder Copp’s home.^[14] Cotton Mather forged a close relationship with another prominent Bostonian Puritan Samuel Sewall, the councilor and justice of the Suffolk Superior Court.^[15]

David Jr., the oldest in the family, and his five brothers, including his brother-in-law, probably lived in houses next door to one another which they inherited from their father.^[16] David Jr. worked as a barber. Two of his brothers operated shops – haircutting to shoemaking – while the other two were mariners on the waterfront.^[17]

Figure 2: Samuel C. Clough Map of the Town of Boston in 1676.^[18]

Figure 3: John Bonner’s 1722 the town of Boston in New England: North End of Prince Street.^[19]

On the Waterfront

During the eighteenth century, Boston’s North End served as a trade port and shipyard. Figure 2, Clough’s Map of the Town of Boston in 1676, depicts three plots of land labeled “D. COPP,” “COPP,” and “COPP.” In combination with Bonner’s 1722 map, with Joshua Gee’s Shipyard and the Charleston ferry, it is reasonable to conclude that shipbuilders, repairmen, merchants, and those traveling to and from Charlestown were likely the Copp’s main customers. Boston’s waterfront flourished during the early eighteenth century. Joshua Gee, the famous shipbuilder, acquired the land of Thomas Broughton following his death which was situated right next to the Copp’s land. Surrounding the Copp’s stood shipyards and warehouses. The family bore witness to the changing landscape and centralization of shipbuilding to Boston’s economy. Depending on the ability of waterfront tradesmen and merchants to forge agreements to outfit and crew vessels. The Copp’s land not only situated them at the center of the activity on the waterfront, but also placed them at an ideal location for the selling of their merchandise and offering their services. The Copp family most likely belonged to the emerging middle merchant class. Thanks to Elder Copp’s steadfast commitment to Puritanism, the Copp name held prominence in the area, leading to the eventual naming of Copp’s Hill.

By 1713, the brothers faced the death of their father. Mather and Sewall attended Elder Copp’s funeral.^[20] At the funeral, David came face to face with the legacy and connections his father left behind — Elder Copp managed to successfully run a shoe making business while gaining the respect of his community through demonstrating his commitment to Puritanism. As the oldest of the brothers, David certainly felt that weight on his shoulders. In fact, it was time for a change. He and his brothers were missing out on a potential money-maker. After a long day out at sea, or trading on the docks, what could a man want more than a cold beer?

David probably knew he could take advantage of his father’s connections. At minimum he certainly had an idea that if he wanted to open a tavern, he would need to get some form of legal approval. David applied for a license to open his own tavern in their double house. Due to his strong reputation and connections in the North End with Sewall, David solidified his status as a taverner and opened the Plume and Feathers by the end of 1714.^[21] Not only did the two now have a business to manage, but by that year Patience gave birth to her sixth child.

What Kind of Tavern?

Patience and David’s tavern, next to their home, was not the kind of establishment for Boston’s elite. The customers of the Plume and Feathers were fishermen, ship builders, and those either on their way to or coming from Charlestown. The Plume and Feathers probably had little clientele from the heart of Boston, as taverns on King Street, a more central Boston street, took on more popularity and a greater income from local Bostonians.^[22]

The tavern sold only two drinks: beer and cider. A decision strategic for two reasons: In 1712, the General Assembly of Boston enacted the “Act Against Intemperance Immorality, and Profaneness, and for Reformation of Manners,” which banned the sale of distilled liquors in taverns.^[23] The act encouraged “all justices, sheriffs, grand-jurors, tithingmen, constables, or other officers whom it doth concern” to keep taverners in check. While the Assembly attempted to encourage law officers to keep the peace, the majority of taverners continued to serve rum and hard liquor as the benefit of selling rum and brandy was greater than the rare instance of being caught. Evidently David held no interest in jeopardizing his newly granted license or his connections with the Church. Nevertheless, David likely had only enough money to sell cider and beer.

Even the alcohol David and Patience sold was minimal. Innkeepers in Boston during the late 1710s held around if not upwards of two hundred gallons of cider. Thomas Gilbert, a taverner in the North End, held 735 gallons of cider in his cellar in 1719.^[24] David’s cider possession paled in comparison to Gilbert’s — David owned roughly 105 gallons of cider in 1718.^[25]

In addition to his cider possession, the number of tables, chairs, and candlesticks can help us understand the size of a tavern. In David’s tavern, the number of tables and chairs indicates the Plume and Feathers was of comparatively small size, well behind high end establishments. The Plume and Feathers had two tables — one large oval table and one small oval table.^[26] In total, their tavern had six older black chairs and eight newer black chairs.^[27] Between 1709 and 1737, of the fifteen other taverns in Boston, Conroy writes, “all had more than twenty [chairs]; eight had thirty or more; and five had more than fifty.”^[28] Gilbert’s tavern had more than twenty-three chairs on his ground floor.^[29] Thus, the Plume and Feathers was certainly smaller than your average 1700s Boston tavern. These details indicate the tavern was likely not a sit back and relax kind of establishment. Instead, the Copp’s tavern had more of a stand and drink kind of vibe. The kind of place merchants and tradesmen went to to discuss their business dealings.

The number of candlesticks in the Plume and Feathers is yet another important piece of information. As late as the 1790s, a majority of households in central Massachusetts had only one or two candlesticks.^[30] During the 1720s, the most popular taverns in Boston had seventeen candlesticks. David and Patience owned four brass candlesticks which is far from nothing.^[31] The number of David’s candlesticks indicates that there must have been a tavern in that double house. However, the small number of candlesticks highlights the tavern was not your highest end of establishments. Instead, it functioned as a middle class bar — some pleasant dim lighting and a drink or two or three before going home for the evening.

David’s Decision

While we know the tavern was on the smaller side from looking at these items, I have yet to touch on the dynamic between David and Patience as co-proprietors of the tavern. Unfortunately, David and Patience did not write, or at least keep, any personal accounts like diaries or letters. However, in December 1718, David, bed-ridden with what was likely smallpox, wrote his will. That document provides a window into David and Patience’s marriage and business partnership. In it, David wrote: “I give, and bequeath to Patience my dearly beloved Wife my whole Estate both zeal, and personally to be at her managerment, and improvement.”^[32] Here, David places his estate in the hands of his wife. He gives her the power to make decisions regarding the development of his property and the state of their business. This decision is noteworthy because traditionally, a man like David would only give a portion of his estate to his wife, typically one-third of his property, to survive after his death. However, he gave Patience his “whole Estate.” If David’s children were old enough at the time of his death, he might have left them with the majority of his property. We might assume that this lack of suitable heirs left David with no choice but to leave his estate to Patience, though that would be a false assumption. David had the choice to give his land to one of his brothers, his wife, or a mix of the two. And he chose to give all of his estate to Patience. Perhaps Patience ran the tavern alongside David, or at the very least David taught her the ins and outs of tavern ownership up until his death. Perhaps David knew his wife could capably handle the inner workings and the future of the Plume and Feathers. Only time would tell.

While he entrusted his estate to his wife, David also outlined the following: “I do constitute make, and ordain my to Wife my Executrix and Capt. John Charnock Executor.”^[33] David went a step further to name his wife his executor, while also backing her with the credibility of an authority figure in the community. Naming an executor meant that the deceased individual trusted that person to probate their estate and present a “true inventory of all the known lands, goods, & debts” within a specific time frame.^[34] The executor was responsible for repaying the deceased’s debts immediately and meeting the deadline for the inventory for probate. This was no small task. One had to be well-versed in the law, the estate of the deceased, and how to interact with the court. David’s decision to make his wife his executor is notable because it suggests that his trust in Patience went beyond the management of the Plume and Feathers.

David had the foresight to name a man as his executor as well. John Charnock served as a Selectman (a representative on the governing body of Boston) from 1715 to 1718. Selectmen had considerable wealth, respect, connections, and authority within the community. By naming Charnock as one of his executors, David likely advanced Patience’s respect and credibility both in the community and before the law; Charnock might have also acted as an advisor to Patience. Evidence suggests that widowed executors, in the eyes of the eighteenth-century Bostonian, were more credible when individuals like Charnock accompanied them to the courts.^[35] Another possibility is that David named Charnock simply because he believed Charnock would be best for the job. As mentioned earlier the role of executor was no small task, so it makes sense that David named someone as knowledgeable as Charnock to deal with the courts. However, David chose Patience as the individual to “manage” and “improve” his estate, instead of Charnock. David’s selection of Patience was likely intended to make his wife an independent manager in charge of their family, their estate, and their business after David’s death.

The “What shall I do’s” Begin

When her husband died in December 1718, Patience was tasked to pay off her husband’s debts. David named a total of thirty-six people in his “List of Debts” and “Creditor Claims.”^[36] A working woman such as Patience probably did not have the time to knock on each of the thirty-six debtors’ and creditors’ doors. Instead, Patience knew a better way to deal with the payments — one that acknowledged the particular position of widows in 1700s Boston.

When collecting payments from her deceased husband’s debtors and creditors, Patience understood how to use the support system around her and capitalize on its resources. With Charnock’s assistance, Patience published an advertisement in the Boston News-Letter to contact all of her husband’s debtors. She hoped to settle the debts without leaving her house^[37] Patience listed Charnock’s name alongside her own in the advertisement which can be viewed as a strategic move. By citing Charnock, Patience’s credibility increased and her debts more urgently called for due payment. This decision indicates the possibility that Patience knew how to leverage others, the social context of her widowhood; or perhaps she knew the particular privileges of her new legal status.

However, we must not rule out the possibility that it was Charnock who published the advertisement instead of Patience. If he had indeed published it, then this would mean Patience largely depended on Charnock to settle her husband’s debts. Between these two possible interpretations, however, the first seems more likely because this is the only time Charnock’s name appeared on any public advertisement or record.

Patience Before the Law

Figure 4: Patience Copp’s Signature on her Petition to the Suffolk County Court^[38]

While Patience did her best to collect all of her late husband’s credit, by 1720, she found herself in a precarious situation after failing to pay off all of David’s debts. While Patience worked hard to make money, selling her chairs as well as her brass candlesticks, her efforts nonetheless fell short.^[39] As a result, the widow faced yet another “what shall I do?” question.^[40]

“What shall I do” about the debts I cannot pay? One possible solution was to claim her dower, the portion of her husband’s estate to which she was entitled. In early 18th-century Boston, widows were legally entitled to one-third of their husband's estate.^[41] In addition, the widow had the ability to make decisions regarding her husband’s inheritance. Only after extensive investigation by the court, if a widow’s late husband’s estate proved insolvent, could she “claim dower even though they had accepted the terms of their husbands’ wills.”^[42] In the context of Patience’s story, since she was unable to pay her husband’s debts, she could have either continued to ask the court for help or immediately requested her dower.

Suffolk County probate records from March 1720 indicate that Patience, alone, petitioned the court for her late husband’s creditors to pay. From this petition, Patience tells the court about her insolvency: I “humbly pray[ed] that your honor would be pleased to Appoint [a] Commissioner to Receive and Examine the Claims of the Creditors.”^[43] Here Patience asks the court to appoint an official to finish the collection of her credit, so she can pay her late husband’s debts. Patience clearly knew she could effectively petition the court for help — she knew she could assert her status as a widow and capitalize on the resource that was the law, which, in fact, worked in her favor. Patience “humbly prays,” perhaps situating herself in Cotton Mather’s prescription for the white man to “do good unto the widow.” Patience came before the court without Charnock. She was independent. Perhaps Charnock would not go with Patience to court. Perhaps she truly was alone. Or by appearing alone, perhaps she situated herself, even more than before, as a woman deserving of the “peculiar obligation” that was to give grace and help the early American widow. If so, Patience was capable of being her own advocate and intelligent enough to situate her status in this way.

Patience’s petition before the court serves as yet another fascinating insight into early American widowhood. Widows held a unique motherly and now “Fatherly” status. This status allowed them to lean into one identity or the other in order to achieve their desired outcome. Before the law, widows like Patience often exercised their need for assistance, portraying themselves as struggling women in a society run by men who now held a “peculiar obligation” to “do good unto the widow.”^[44]

March 1720 to March 1723 was probably one of the most difficult times for Patience. She continued to try to pay off her husband’s debts, but had no license to continue operating the tavern. When a taverner died in the eighteenth century, their spouse or family could not simply assume possession of their license; rather, they had to reapply for a license. Therefore, since Patience did not have a license, she likely had no source of reliable income for her and her six children. During these years, Patience’s three eldest sons — Thomas, Samuel, and William, aged twenty-three, twenty, and seventeen — likely worked as barbers in their shop to put food on the table.^[45] Like their late father, the boys might have shaved a beard or cut a head of hair to make ends meet.

In 1722, tragedy struck Patience yet again. Her brother Thomas passed away, leaving his two children Charles, aged ten, and Kathrine, aged twelve. With a deceased mother, the children had no one to take care of them. Before the passing of their father, Charles and Kathrine lived in New London Connecticut. When their father died, with no will or record of his cause of death, the children evidently needed a home. The pair could go to either their Aunt Rachel, or Aunt Patience (their Aunt Marcy died in 1712).^[46] Unfortunately little record of Rachel exists. From what we know, Rachel and her husband Micah owned a shop in Marblehead, Massachusetts and the couple had no children. Thus, it made sense to both her brother and the court for the children to go to their Aunt Patience, a woman with childcare experience and good character. As a result, in 1722, Patience became the legal guardian of Charles and Kathrine. This gesture indicates two important insights relevant to the issue of early American widowhood. First, Patience assumed a strong, protective role, capable of caring for her own children as well as two others, suggesting that she had successfully stepped into the more “Fatherly” status of the widow. Here, we see the malleability of the widow’s status, as Patience was able to take advantage of her widowhood status for the betterment of those around her. Second, the fact that Patience was able to take on the care of two children, in addition to the six children and the business she ran, indicates that Patience managed to maintain a certain level of social and economical status.

At a Loss

In April of 1723, Patience’s life was at an all time low. Patience, likely still deep in debt, struggled to maintain her double house on Prince Street. As a result, Patience advertised the following in the Boston News-Letter:

To be Sold; A Very Convenient Double House and Land, three Rooms on a Floor, with a Shop and small Kitchen, a very good Well, a fine Vault, a pleasant Garden and a Stable, Soituate in Prince-Street, Boston; The Front Measures 72 Feet Northerly. 67 Feet Northwest; Southwest 72, Eafterly 57, the Houfe 38 Feet long and 20 Feet wide; Inquire of Mrs. Patience Copp at the Sign of Plume and Feathers, and know further.^[47]

In this description of her property is the “Sign of Plume and Feathers.” With this sign still up in front of her double house, it seems plausible that Patience and her eldest children ran a shop, most likely a barber shop, in the years after her husband’s death. However, as this advertisement reveals, Patience had no other choice but to try to sell her estate. While this does not tell us anything about her reverting to her dower instead of her husband’s will, it does reaffirm that Patience’s widowhood brought years of financial struggle for her and her family. In addition, adopting Charles and Kathrine probably added on to that burden.

Patience knew how to market her property. Not only did she publicize her house to possible buyers, but she described and made her home look ever-so appealing in the advertisement she promulgated, describing the various fixtures of her house as “very convenient,” “very good,” and “pleasant.”^[48] These positive descriptions were likely chosen to catch the attention of potential buyers and make the property seem more desirable.

Respect

Patience’s independence when it came to the selling land did not stop there. While we have no record that her property was actually sold, we have a record of Patience “praying for Liberty to Sell a Part of some Upland and Flatts at the South End of Boston, belonging to Minors.”^[49] This land, different from the double house on Prince Street, rightfully belonged to Charles and Kathrine. The land, which belonged to Patience’s grandfather Thomas Munt, and father Clement Short, was passed down to the four grandchildren: Thomas, Marcy, Rachel, and Patience. As a result of Thomas and Marcy’s death, those with a claim to Thomas Munt’s land were the following: John Marshall (Marcy’s husband), Charles Short, Kathrine Short, Patience Short, and Rachel Short. When Patience became the guardian to Charles and Kathrine, both John and Rachel renounced their claim to the land and made Patience “true sufficient and lawful attorney.”^[50] As their attorney, and the guardian of Charles and Kathrine, Patience had the power to make decisions regarding what to do with the land of her grandfather. She, yet again, stepped into the “Fatherly” role. Her status allowed her to assert her authority and answer the question: “What shall I do” with this land?

The land in Patience’s possession lays bare a possible indication of the kind of relationships she had with her birth family. Perhaps they respected her for taking care of eight children single handedly. Perhaps they believed Patience was the most suitable and knowledgeable to deal with the land, and felt no need to appoint a male or a male attorney to deal with the estate. Perhaps Patience, with the substantial success she had had in managing the challenge of widowhood, was the answer. In May of 1723, Patience decided to sell the family’s land.^[51] And when it came to this courtroom appearance, Patience asserted her independence before the law by entering a petition to sell the minor’s lands without an attorney. Her petition and the court’s subsequent approval of that decision to sell the land is an affirmation of the widow’s agency. She held the legal knowledge to successfully use the law to her advantage. By the following year, Patience sold the two children’s land and received thirty-five pounds to help support the care of her niece and nephew.^[52]

Trust

Following her victory before the court, Patience made one of the most astonishing decisions of her widowhood. She, alone yet again, petitioned the court for a license to reopen the Plume and Feathers as a tavern.

During this period, and in keeping with Cotton Mather’s “Marah spoken to. A brief essay to do good unto the widow,” the court issued tavern licenses to three groups of people: poor men, men with connections to the governing body, and widows such as Patience. During the 1700s, an increasing number of Bostonians needed relief at some point in their lives due to illness, widowhood, or unemployment. That need was accompanied by the idea that rulers could give a license to sell drinks as a charitable gift to distressed inhabitants.^[53] These licenses, just as Mather encouraged to “do good unto the widow,” became an extension of charity to the needy. Thus, widows were a primary and popular demographic for tavern licenses, many in desperate need of the law’s assistance. At the turn of the eighteenth century, from 1690-1718, women made up 41.2 percent of licensees.^[54] This number seems rather large, but can be easily explained:

“it made good economic sense. The license provided them [widows] with the means to support themselves so they would be less likely to require public support. The selectmen may also have been genuinely moved by the predicament in which these folks were mired and believed that as civic leaders they had a moral obligation to provide assistance.”^[55]

Salinger’s insight gives us a framework to evaluate whether or not a widow was, in fact, worthy of a license to operate a tavern. They needed a way, almost desperately, to make a steady income, and were of morally good character to keep their tavern in order.

In 1724, Patience told the court that she “had been favour’d with a License for some time to keep an Inn or Tavern in Boston… but by reason of Sickness she was prevented of giving Recognizance in Time.”^[56] Normally, this would mean that Patience did not post a bond as a guarantee of good behavior in the time the court allotted her. In other words, Patience failed to fulfill the court's requirement for providing assurance of her compliance within the allotted time due to a “sickness,” potentially jeopardizing the court’s allowance of her to operate her tavern. Patience, again, knew what she was doing. She admitted that she did not make her bond in time, though she politely asks for the court’s forgiveness. The court, perhaps after seeing this woman’s battle through a difficult widowhood and her business savviness along the way, granted her a license to run a tavern. Patience reminded them that she “had been favor’d with a License for some time” but could not get the license because she was sick. By this point in her widowhood, it is not outlandish to make the claim that Patience knew how to situate herself in a male-dominated society as a widow in need of help in order to achieve her goals. The court saw it fit to give Patience — a struggling widow — a license because they knew she could use it, and they knew she could use it responsibility because of her previous appearances and demonstrations of competency. The court’s decision here tells us that while some men might have viewed the widow in dire need of their help, they could trust a widow with the authority to keep things orderly and contribute to the community.

Although the court granted Patience her tavern license, there is only one record indicating that she reopened the tavern. In 1725, the general court cited Patience on their list of Boston’s licensed innholders.^[57] However, Patience was not cited as an innholder from that date forward until her death. It is unclear whether she continued to operate her tavern or if she stopped. What is clear, however, is that in 1727 Patience’s oldest son, Thomas, purchased the double house from her.^[58] This moment is seemingly odd; a son is buying the land of his mother. However, it seems that Thomas likely bought his mother’s property because it allowed Patience to die without having to write a will. As mentioned previously, Patience did not leave a will. If she had, however, as Conger explains in The Widows’ Might: Widowhood and Gender in Early British America, it might have been possible to gain insight into how long Patience continued to run her tavern, whether it was successful, who she lived with, or what the final few years of her life were like. In its absence, however, Patience’s story ends quite abruptly on April 4, 1736.^[59] Like their mother, none of Patience’s immediate children left wills. Thomas, Patience’s son who bought her double house in 1727, took over his mother’s tavern and reverted it back to a barber shop. That same year, however, Thomas sold one of the two houses to a different widow—Charnock’s widow. Perhaps it was a favor David or Patience owed Charnock for his assistance. Perhaps the couple had an agreement that when Charnock died his wife would receive something of her own. Or perhaps it was Charnock’s widow receiving her owed third, her dower.

Aftermath

Patience outlived her husband by almost two decades. By the age of sixty Patience had experienced life as a daughter, a sister, a wife, a mother, and a widow. In the last twenty years of her life she lived with a newfound independence. She became a real estate agent, an attorney, a taverner, and a well-respected figure in her community. She became the intelligent, strategic, and confident woman that her 1723 signature reveals:

Figure 5: Patience Copp’s Signature on her Nephew, Charles Short’s Guardian Bond^[60]

Despite the hardships she encountered, Patience demonstrated a remarkable ability to not only deal with but thrive in the face of adversity. During her widowhood, Patience gained personal independence and public respect. From her husband trusting her to be in charge of his estate to her decision to petition the court for a license to operate her tavern, Patience demonstrated an extraordinary determination to provide for her family. She was a strategic and intelligent woman who people could rely on. The court’s granting of Patience’s tavern license in 1723 is an illustration of how widows strategically stepped into fatherly and motherly roles to decide their own fates and advance in their community in early America.

The widow stuck to and challenged the prescribed gender roles of her society. Despite her existence before the founding of our nation, the early American widow’s progress laid the groundwork for the fight for women’s rights in 20th and 21st century America. When suffragists fought for the right to vote, they leaned into their role as mothers. Their most effective claim was that women needed suffrage to protect their home and their children. When the United States Women’s National Team fought for equal pay in 2022, they challenged gender norms and became agents for change. The widow’s fight, her trials and tribulations, her ability to define herself and her authority transcends time. Patience’s story offers an inspiring reminder that the fight for equality, justice, and autonomy is both historical and ongoing. We must continue to challenge, to look back at history, and, in the spirit of Patience Copp, confidently answer life’s “what shall I do” questions.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

1. Acts and Resolves Passed by the General Court. Vol. 1. Boston: Secretary of the Commonwealth, 1869.
2. “Advertisement.” Boston News-Letter. No. 791 edition. June 15, 1719,
3. “Advertisement.” Boston News-Letter. No. 1001 edition. April 3, 1723.
4. Bolton, Ethel Stanwood. Clement Topliff and His Descendants in Boston. Boston: The University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1906.
5. Bonner, John. The Town of Boston in New England, 1723 - 1733. Norman B. Leventhal Map & Education Center, Boston Public Library, Boston, MA.
6. Clough, Samuel Chester. Map of the Town of Boston 1676. 1920. Samuel Chester Clough research materials towards a topographical history of Boston, Massachusetts Historical Society.
7. “Innholders in Boston in 1714.” New England Historic Genealogical Society 43 (1889): 1-510. New England Historical and Genealogical Register, AmericanAncestors.org Online Database.
8. Mather, Cotton and Increase Mather. Marah Spoken to. A Brief Essay to Do Good unto the Widow; Dispensing Those Lessons of Piety, Which Are, the Portion Assigned for the Widow, in the House and Word of God. By One of the Ministers in Boston. With a Preface of Dr. Increase Mather. Boston: Printed by T. Crump, 1718.
9. Kuhn, Rachel. Here Liye Body of David the Son of David and Patience Aged 14 Died 24 of Febr 1712. Photo, 2024.
10. Massachusetts General Court. “Journals of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts v.5 1723-1724.” Massachusetts Historical Society (1723-24).
11. “Mercy Short Marshall.” Find a Grave. Accessed May 11, 2024.
12. “Patience Short Copp.” Find a Grave. Accessed March 11, 2024.
13. “Record | American Ancestors: Old Cemeteries of Boston, 1649-1920.” 2007. AmericanAncestors.org Online Database.
14. “Record | American Ancestors: Suffolk County, MA: Probate File Papers Court, Land and Probate Records.” 1722. Collection 4591: Image 1-3, AmericanAncestors.org Online Database.
15. Sewall, Samuel. Image 310-311, 1720 & 1719, III. Letterbook, 1686–1737. Samuel Sewall Papers, 1672-1815, Massachusetts Historical Society Digitized Collections.
16. Suffolk County. “Record | American Ancestors: Suffolk County, MA: Probate File Papers 3927.” 1717-1720. AmericanAncestors.org Online Database.
17. Thwing, Annie. The Crooked & Narrow Streets of the Town of Boston 1630-1822. Boston: Marshall Jones Company, 1920.
18. Thwing, Annie. “Record | American Ancestors: Boston, MA: Inhabitants and Estates of the Town of Boston, 1630-1822 p.5798-5799.” England Historic Genealogical Society, 2001. Thwing Collection, American Ancestors.

Secondary Sources

1. Bly, Antonio T. “The City-State of Boston: The Rise and Fall of an Atlantic Power, 1630–1865 by Mark Peterson (Review).” Eighteenth-Century Studies 56, no. 2 (2023): 321–23.
2. Brooke, John L. Review of Review of The City–State of Boston: The Rise and Fall of an Atlantic Power, 1630–1865, by Mark Peterson. Journal of the Early Republic 40, no. 2 (2020): 345–50.
3. Conger, Vivian Bruce. The Widows’ Might: Widowhood and Gender in Early British America. New York: New York University Press, 2009.
4. Conroy, David W. In Public Houses: Drink and the Revolution of Authority in Colonial Massachusetts. 1st edition. Williamsburg; Chapel Hill: Omohundro Institute and University of North Carolina Press, 2019.
5. Main, Gloria L. “Probate Records as a Source for Early American History.” The William and Mary Quarterly 32, no. 1 (1975): 89–99.

Footnotes

^[1] “Record | American Ancestors: Suffolk County, MA: Probate File Papers Court, Land and Probate Records,” 1722. Collection 4591: Image 3, AmericanAncestors.org Online Database.

^[2] Suffolk County, “Record | American Ancestors: Suffolk County, MA: Probate File Papers 3927,” March 20, 1720, American Ancestors by New England Historic Genealogical Society, Image 14.

^[3] Vivian Bruce Conger, The Widows’ Might: Widowhood and Gender in Early British America (New York: New York University Press, 2009), 6.

^[4] Cotton Mather and Increase Mather, Marah Spoken to. A Brief Essay to Do Good unto the Widow; Dispensing Those Lessons of Piety, Which Are, the Portion Assigned for the Widow, in the House and Word of God. By One of the Ministers in Boston. With a Preface of Dr. Increase Mather (Boston: Printed by T. Crump, 1718), 7.

^[5] David W. Conroy, In Public Houses: Drink and the Revolution of Authority in Colonial Massachusetts, 1st ed. (Williamsburg; Chapel Hill: Omohundro Institute & University of North Carolina Press, 2019).

^[6] Gloria L. Main, “Probate Records as a Source for Early American History,” The William and Mary Quarterly 32, no. 1 (1975): 89–99.

^[7] Sharon V. Salinger, Taverns and Drinking in Early America (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2004).

^[8] Main, “Probate Records as a Source for Early American History,” 90.

^[9] John Bonner, The Town of Boston in New England, 1723 - 1733, Norman B. Leventhal Map & Education Center, Boston Public Library, Boston, MA.

^[10] Annie Haven Thwing, The Crooked & Narrow Streets of the Town of Boston 1630-1822 (Boston: Marshall Jones Company, 1920).

^[11] Annie Thwing, “Record | American Ancestors: Boston, MA: Inhabitants and Estates of the Town of Boston, 1630-1822 p.5798-5799,” England Historic Genealogical Society, 2001, Thwing Collection, American Ancestors; Rachel Kuhn, Here Liye Body of David the Son of David and Patience Aged 14 Died 24 of Febr 1712, photo, 2024.

^[12] City of Boston: Consolidated Index of Marriages 1649 to 1799 Inclusive, 1705, Film Number 007011046, Massachusetts, Town Clerk, Vital and Town Records, 1626-2001, FamilySearch.

^[13] See Figure 2.

^[14] Ethel Stanwood Bolton, Clement Topliff and His Descendants in Boston (Boston: The University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1906), 7.

^[15] Conroy, In Public Houses, 70.

^[16] Suffolk County, “Record | American Ancestors: Suffolk County, MA: Probate File Papers 3927,” March 20, 1720, American Ancestors by New England Historic Genealogical Society, Image 3. AmericanAncestors.org Online Database

^[17] Thwing, “Record | American Ancestors: Boston, MA: Inhabitants and Estates of the Town of Boston, 1630-1822 p.5798-5799.”

^[18] Samuel Chester Clough, Map of the Town of Boston 1676, 1920, Samuel Chester Clough research materials towards a topographical history of Boston, Massachusetts Historical Society.

^[19]Bonner, The Town of Boston in New England.

^[20] Stanwood Bolton, “Clement Topliff and His Descendants in Boston, by Ethel Stanwood Bolton,” 7.

^[21] “Innholders in Boston in 1714,” New England Historic Genealogical Society 43 (1889): 59, New England Historical and Genealogical Register; “Advertisement,” Boston News-Letter, no. 1001 ed., April 3, 1723.

^[22] “Innholders in Boston in 1714.”

^[23] Acts and Resolves Passed by the General Court Vol. 1 (Boston: Secretary of the Commonwealth, 1869), 678.

^[24] Conroy, In Public Houses, 73.

^[25] Conroy, In Public Houses, 73; County Court Files, 1719-1725, Film Number 007942981, Court records, 1702-1780, FamilySearch, 301.

^[26] “Record | American Ancestors: Suffolk County, MA: Probate File Papers 3927,” January 13, 1717, Image 6.

^[27] Image 6.

^[28] Conroy, In Public Houses, 87.

^[29] Conroy, 88.

^[30] Conroy, In Public Houses, 88.

^[31] “Record | American Ancestors:Suffolk County, MA: Probate File Papers 3927,” Image 6.

^[32] Image 3.

^[33] Image 3.

^[34] Conger, The Widows’ Might, 101.

^[35] Conger, 51.

^[36] “Record | American Ancestors:Suffolk County, MA: Probate File Papers 3927,” Image 7-12.

^[37] “Advertisement,” Boston News-Letter, no 791 ed., June 15, 1719.

^[38] “Record | American Ancestors: Suffolk County, MA: Probate File Papers 3927,” Image 14.

^[39] Samuel Sewall, Image 310-311, 1720 & 1719, III. Letterbook, 1686–1737, Samuel Sewall Papers, 1672-1815, Massachusetts Historical Society Digitized Collections.

^[40] Mather and Mather, Marah Spoken to. A Brief Essay to Do Good unto the Widow.

^[41] Marylynn Salmon, Women and the Law of Property in Early America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2016), 141.

^[42] Salmon, Women and the Law, 144.

^[43] “Record | American Ancestors:Suffolk County, MA: Probate File Papers 3927,” Image 14.

^[44]Mather and Mather, Marah Spoken to. A Brief Essay to Do Good unto the Widow.

^[45] “Patience Short Copp,” Find a Grave, Accessed March 11, 2024.

^[46] “Mercy Short Marshall,” Find a Grave, Accessed May 11, 2024.

^[47] “Advertisement,” April 3, 1723.

^[48] “Advertisement.”

^[49] Massachusetts General Court, “Journals of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts v.5 1723-1724,” Massachusetts Historical Society (1723-24): 9.

^[50] “Journals of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts,” 134.

^[51] “Journals of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts.”

^[52] “Journals of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts.”

^[53] Conroy, In Public Houses, 100.

^[54] Salinger, Taverns and Drinking in Early America, 163.

^[55] Salinger, 165.

^[56] Massachusetts General Court, Journals of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts, 134.

^[57] Massachusetts General Court, Journals of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts, 134.

^[58] Thwing, The Crooked & Narrow Streets of the Town of Boston 1630-1822.

^[59] “Record | American Ancestors: Old Cemeteries of Boston, 1649-1920,” 2007, AmericanAncestors.org Online Database.

^[60] “Record | American Ancestors: Suffolk County, MA: Probate File Papers Court, Land and Probate Records,” 1722. Collection 4591: Image 3.