Burritt, Ann W. (fl. 1830) Mrs. Burritt's defence of her husband; first published in the Southern recorder, Milledgeville, Geo. August 14, 1830.
High-resolution images are available to schools and libraries via subscription to American History, 1493-1943. Check to see if your school or library already has a subscription. Or click here for more information. You may also order a pdf of the image from us here.
Gilder Lehrman Collection #: GLC00246.03 Author/Creator: Burritt, Ann W. (fl. 1830) Place Written: Milledgeville, Georgia Type: Broadside Date: 14 August 1830 Pagination: 1 broadside ; 43.1 x 35 cm. Order a Copy
Elijah Burritt's former partner, John G. Polhill, had charged that Burritt had distributed incendiary pamphlets written by African-American abolitionist David Walker. In this open letter to the editors, his wife states that her husband only sold the abolitionist pamphlets privately to known slaveholders, accompanying his sale with suitable cautions. She adds that he fled Millidgeville because his defense was not being heard in the heat of passion aroused by Polhill, who was stating that the case would not be bailable. The editors of the paper were Seaton Grantland and Richard M. Orme.
For further account of the affair see Bonner, J.C. Milledgeville, 1978, p. 60.
Citation Guidelines for Online Resources
The copyright law of the United States (title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specific conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law.