Uncategorized

The 270th Anniversary of Baltimore Town’s First Recorded Fire

Today, err rather tonight, marks an important anniversary in the timeline of Baltimore — and it is one that is not often remembered. On the night of Thursday, March 16^th 1749, occurred the first recorded fire in Baltimore Town. At least, according to The Maryland Gazette, which printed an account of the conflagration six days later in its Wednesday, March 22^nd 1749 issue:

“On Thurſday Night laſt a terrible Accident happened in Baltimore Town, at the Houſe of Mr. Greenbury Dorſey ; which in the dead Time of the Night took Fire, and burnt down to the Ground, with all the Furniture, and ſix Perſons in it ; viz. one Man, four Children, and a Negro Girl. Mr. Dorſey happened to be from home ; and it was with great Difficulty that any Persons were ſaved ; Mrs. Dorſey, who lay up Stairs, preſerved herſelf and two Children, by firſt throwing one out of the Window, and afterwards jumping out herſelf with another in her Arms ; tho’ they are very much hurt. This melancholy Scene is ſuppoſed to be the Effect of the horrid Malice and diabolical Revenge of a Servant Man of Mr. Dorſey’s, who it ſeems had threaten’d ſuch a Thing, and was out of the Houſe himſelf, with ſome things belonging to him, when it happened ; and at the firſt Diſcovery, the Houſe was obſerved to be on Fire below in ſeveral Places at once. On theſe, and other dark Circumſtances, the Servant is apprehended and committed to Jayl.”¹

For an event that demanded a whole paragraph’s worth of attention in The Maryland Gazette, it seems rather curious that there was no follow-up story during the rest of March, or all of April. Especially considering that there was a reasonable suspicion of arson. The “Greenbury Dorſey” [sic] in question was undoubtedly Greenberry Dorsey (1710-1782), who was a resident of Baltimore County. Following the death of William Fell in 1746, Dorsey married Fell’s widow, the former Sarah Bond. Thus, it seems most likely that the fire referenced in this article took place somewhere in the area of town known as Fell’s Point… Perhaps even in the dwelling-house that was formerly occupied by William Fell and Sarah Bond? [Will have to research this further…]

Footnotes.
1. The Maryland Gazette, Containing the freſheſt Advices, Foreign and Domestic., Wednesday, 22nd March 1749, p. 3, col. 1.

Happy 29th of July! The Day that Baltimore Read Aloud the Declaration of Independency

Huh? You may be wondering: the declaration of—ɪɴᴅᴇᴘᴇɴᴅᴇɴᴄʏ? Well, mass standardization of the English language had not quite yet taken hold by the 1770s, and believe it or not, Baltimoreans referred to their country’s de facto birth certificate as such.

Back in 1776, news traveled much slower than it does today. Though Continental Congress actually declared “ɪɴᴅᴇᴘᴇɴᴅᴇɴᴄᴇ” from Great Britain on July 2^nd 1776—which is the day that John Adams (1735-1826) thought future Americans would celebrate—the document listing Americans’ grievances with Kɪɴɢ Gᴇᴏʀɢᴇ III (1738-1820) and their reasons for declaring independence, was dated July 4^th 1776. Word of Congress’s decision rippled outward from Philadelphia, with the central point of dissemination being the Pennsylvania State House, now justly known by a different name: ɪɴᴅᴇᴘᴇɴᴅᴇɴᴄᴇ ʜᴀʟʟ. Several days later, on Monday, July 8^th 1776, the president of Continental Congress—John Hancock (1737-1793)—wrote a letter to the Maryland Council of Safety in Annapolis, informing Marylanders of the congressional action:

Philadelphia July 8^th 1776.

Gentlemen.

Altho’ it is not possible to foresee the consequences of Human Action, yet it is nevertheless a duty we owe ourselves & Posterity in all our Public Councils, to decide in the best manner we are able, and to trust the Event to that Being, who controuls both Causes and Events, so as to bring about his own determinations.
Impressed with this Sentiment, and at the same time fully convinced that our affairs may take a more favourable turn, the Congress have judged it necessary to dissolve all connection between Great Britain and the American Colonies, and to declare them free and Independent States, as you will perceive by the enclosed Declaration, which I am directed by Congress to transmit to you, and to request you will have it proclaimed in your Colony in the way you shall think most proper.
The important consequences to the American States from this Declaration of Independence, considered as the ground & foundation of a future Government will naturally suggest the propriety of proclaiming it in such a manner as that the People may be universally informed of it.

I have the Honour to be Gentlemen
Your most obed^t and very hbl Sev^t
John Hancock Pres^t

to the MarylandCouncil of Safety

The next day, Tuesday, July 9^th 1776, the Declaration of Independence was published in full on page two of Dunlap’s Maryland Gazette; or the Baltimore General Advertiſer, in columns two and three. The document having been voted on, but not signed [ᴛʜᴇ ᴀᴄᴛᴜᴀʟ ᴅᴏᴄᴜᴍᴇɴᴛ ᴡᴀsɴ’ᴛ sɪɢɴᴇᴅ ᴜɴᴛɪʟ ᴀᴜɢᴜsᴛ 2ɴᴅ], the Gazette listed John Hancock as the lone signatory. While Hancock’s letter to the Maryland Council of Safety included an official copy of the Declaration as an enclosure, it is clear that John Dunlap (1747-1812) decided to publish the Declaration independently of Hancock’s correspondence. This is because Dunlap’s paper ran the Declaration under the following header: “P H I L A D E L P H I A, July 6.” In other words, Dunlap’s source for the information was two days older than Hancock’s letter. The notion that Dunlap could have gotten the news out so quickly is not surprising. After all, in addition to his printing office on Market-street in Baltimore Town, he had another office that was in Philadelphia [ᴄᴏɪɴᴄɪᴅᴇɴᴛᴀʟʟʏ, ᴀʟsᴏ ᴏɴ ᴍᴀʀᴋᴇᴛ-sᴛʀᴇᴇᴛ], where he published his senior newspaper—Dunlap’s Pennſylvania Packet; or the General Advertiſer, which (founded in 1771) predated his Maryland Gazette (founded in 1775) by four years.

The Dunlap Broadside that belongs to the Library of Congress.

Dunlap was well established in Philadelphia, having gone there as a ten-year-old boy in 1757 to apprentice with his printer uncle, William Dunlap. By 1766, Uncle William had left the business in his hands—making the nephew a full-fledged printer at nineteen. Ten years later, with Continental Congress in session at the soon-to-be-called Independence Hall, Dunlap’s star rose even higher as he obtained the lucrative printing contract for the fledgling U.S. Government. With the congressional contract in hand, Dunlap’s sources regarding news streaming out of Congress were impeccable. Case in point: on the night of July 4^th 1776, word of the Declaration came straight from John Hancock himself. He ordered Dunlap to print about 200 copies of the document on broadside—ɴᴏᴡ ᴋɴᴏᴡɴ ᴀs ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴜɴʟᴀᴘ ʙʀᴏᴀᴅsɪᴅᴇ. This was the first time the Declaration was ever committed to type, and of that original run, only twenty-six copies are known to exist. It was undoubtedly a Dunlap Broadside copy of the Declaration that Hancock enclosed with his letter addressed to the Maryland Council of Safety. So, knowing that Dunlap got word of the Declaration of Independence from Hancock, and on July 4^th 1776 no less … when he ran the document in his Baltimore newspaper on July 9^th 1776, his header could just as easily have read: “ʜᴀɴᴄᴏᴄᴋ ᴛᴏʟᴅ ᴍᴇ ᴛʜᴇ ɴᴇᴡs!”

That Dunlap was actively engaged as a printer in Baltimore Town while simultaneously maintaining operations in Philadelphia was no secret. The colophon at the bottom of page four in Dunlap’s Maryland Gazette even advertised the fact that he also published a Pennsylvanian newspaper: “B A L T I M O R E: Printed by JOHN DUNLAP at his Printing-Office in Mᴀʀᴋᴇᴛ-Sᴛʀᴇᴇᴛ, where Subſcriptions at Tᴇɴ Sʜɪʟʟɪɴɢs per Annum, Advertiſements, &c. are received for this Paper; alſo for the Pennſylvania Packet, and all manner of Printing Work done with the utmoſt Expedition.” The corresponding colophon on the bottom of the Pennſylvania Packet‘s fourth page noted that the physical printing of that paper was farmed out to the office of the Saturday Evening Mirror, at 23 S. Seventh-street in Philadelphia. This would suggest that Dunlap’s business in Philly had grown to such an extent that he was contracting at least some of his newspaper work out to other area printers.

— PROCLAIMING IT IN PUBLICK —

George Washington ordered that the Declaration of Independence [ᴀ ᴅᴜɴʟᴀᴘ ʙʀᴏᴀᴅsɪᴅᴇ!] be read aloud to the Continental Army in Manhattan on Tuesday, July 9^th 1776. Baltimoreans learned of that event one week later, in the Tuesday, July 16^th 1776 edition of Dunlap’s Maryland Gazette, on the first column of page two—an excerpt of which appears here:

N E W – Y O R K, July 11.

On Tueſday laſt, the Congreſs’s Declaration of the Independence of the United States of America, was read at the head of ſeveral Brigades in this city, with acclamations of Joy ; and, ’tis expected, will be declared in form by order of the Provincial Congreſs, in a few days.
Same day, in the evening, the ſtatue of King George the Third, on horſeback, in the Bowling Green, was taken down, broken into pieces, and its honour levelled with the daſt.

In the adjacent column, on the same page, news from Easton, Pennsylvania described their having received the Declaration, and publicly proclaimed it:

EASTON (Northampton county) July 8. This day the DECLARATION of INDEPENDANCY was received here, and proclaimed in the following order : The Colonel and all other field officers of the firſt battalion repaired to the court-houſe, the Light Infantry company marching their with drums beating, fifes playing, and the Standard (the device for which is the thirteen United Colonies) which was ordered to be diſplayed, and after that the Declaration was read aloud to a great number of ſpectators, who gave their hearty aſſent with three loud huzzas [ᴘʀᴏɴᴏᴜɴᴄᴇᴅ “ʜᴜᴢᴢᴀʏ”], and cried out Mᴀʏ Gᴏᴅ Lᴏɴɢ Pʀᴇsᴇʀᴠᴇ and ᴜɴɪᴛᴇ the Fʀᴇᴇ and Iɴᴅᴇᴘᴇɴᴅᴀɴᴛ Sᴛᴀᴛᴇs of Aᴍᴇʀɪᴄᴀ.

From the wording in that excerpt, it would seem as if Easton had a public reading of the document on the exact same day that it received it. Baltimoreans learning about the news from New-York and Easton may well have been asking themselves: ᴡᴀɪᴛ, ᴡʜᴇɴ ɪs ᴏᴜʀ ᴘᴜʙʟɪᴄ ʀᴇᴀᴅɪɴɢ? Oddly enough, despite receiving the Declaration and disseminating it via newspaper on July 9^th 1776—Baltimore Town did not hold a public reading of the document until nearly three weeks later. The much-anticipated event took place on Monday, July 29^th 1776, at the Baltimore County Courthouse.

The old Baltimore County Courthouse, which was erected in 1768 when Baltimore Town replaced Joppa Town as the County Seat of Government. It stood at the point where Calvert-Street dead-ended into the cliff that gave way to a roughly sixty-foot-straight drop to Jones’s Falls.

An account of the proceedings was published the following day in Dunlap’s Gazette, in the second column on page three:

B A L T I M O R E.

Yeſterday, by order of the Committee of this Town, the DECLARATION of the INDEPENDENCY of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA was read aloud at the Court-Houſe to a numerous and reſpectable body of Militia and the company of Artillery, and other principal inhabitants of this town and county, which was received with general applauſe and heart felt ſatisfaction : And at night the town was illuminated, and, at ſame time, the Effigy of our late King was carted through the town and committed to the flames amidſt the acclamations of many hundreds.—The juſt reward of a Tyrant.

Another account appeared a day later, Wednesday, July 31^st 1776, in a rival paper: the Maryland Journal, and the Baltimore Advertiſer, on page two, column number one:

B A L T I M O R E.

On Monday laſt, at 12 o’Clock, the Dᴇᴄʟᴀʀᴀᴛɪᴏɴ of INDEPENDENCY was proclaimed at the Court Houſe in this Town, at the Head of the Independent and Artillery Companies, and the ſeveral Companies of Militia, to the great Joy and Satisfaction of the Audience, with a Diſcharge of Cannon, &c. and univerſal Acclamations for the Proſperity of the Fʀᴇᴇ Uɴɪᴛᴇᴅ STATES………In the Evening the Effigy, repreſenting the King of Great-Britain, was carted through the Town, to the no ſmall Mirth of the numerous Spectators, afterwards thrown into a Fire made for that Purpoſe. Thus may it fate with all Tyrants.

The wording in both of these accounts differs slightly, and both offer unique versions of the day’s proceedings. The array of militia & regular units under arms for the reading must have stood in the public square immediately to the south of the courthouse—near the intersection of Calvert-street and East-street [ᴍᴏᴅᴇʀɴ-ᴅᴀʏ Fᴀʏᴇᴛᴛᴇ-sᴛʀᴇᴇᴛ]—as the document was read from the steps. Exactly what kind of cannon was used for the “diſcharge” is anyone’s guess, but it likely belonged to Captain Nathaniel Smith’s Company of Matrosses out of Fort Whetstone [ɴᴏᴡ ᴋɴᴏᴡɴ ᴀs Fᴏʀᴛ MᴄHᴇɴʀʏ]. And the fire that consumed the effigy of Kɪɴɢ Gᴇᴏʀɢᴇ III most likely occurred in the same public square where the document was read, as it was spacious enough to accommodate such things.

The building marked ‘J’ is the old Baltimore County Courthouse—the present-day location of which is occupied by the War of 1812 Battle Monument. [From A.P. Folie’s 1792 Map of Baltimore Town, LOC]

Newspapers did not provide the only written documentation of the event. A review of the minutes of the Baltimore County Committee of Observation offers an additional insight into the political climate of Baltimore Town, circa July of 1776:

BALTIMORE COMMITTEE.

At a Meeting of the Committee
July 29, 1776

PRESENT: SAM^ʟ PURVIANCE, (Cʜᴀɪʀᴍᴀɴ,) W^ᴍ LUX, (Vɪᴄᴇ-Cʜᴀɪʀᴍᴀɴ,) AND^ᴡ BUCHANAN, Dʀ. JN^ᴏ CRADOCK, THO^s GIST, THO^s SOLLERS, W^ᴍ WILKINSON, WALTER TOLLY Jᴜɴɪᴏʀ, DARBY LUX, THO^s RUTTER, JN^ᴏ MERRYMAN, JA^s CALHOUN, DAN^ʟ SHAW, EDW^ᴅ TALBOT, CHA^s RIDGELY of Wɪʟʟɪᴀᴍ, JA^s GITTINGS, JN^ᴏ SMITH.

This day, agreeable to the resolve of this Committee of the 22d instant, the Declaration of Independency was proclaimed at the Court-House by Mr. William Aisquith, (Mr. Christie being out of Town:) Captain Nathaniel Smith’s Company of Matrosses, Captain John Sterrett’s Company of Independents, Captain John Smith’s, Captain James Cox’s, Captain George Wells’s, and Captain William Richardson’s Companies being drawn up under arms on occasion.

Though it may seem rather innocuous on the surface, the “ᴍʀ. ᴄʜʀɪsᴛɪᴇ ʙᴇɪɴɢ ᴏᴜᴛᴛᴀ ᴛᴏᴡɴ” line subtly hints at a more sinister subtext. John Thomas Scharf sheds light on page 147 of his 1874 history of the city, The Chronicles of Baltimore:

Mr. Robert Christie, Jr., who, as sheriff of the county, it had been supposed was the proper person to read the Declaration of Independence to the people at the court-house, refused to appear there for such a purpose. In consequence of this refusal on his part, threats had been made against him, which he deemed it prudent not to brave, and therefore he withdrew from the town.

The Committee of Observation was not happy with the tension that these threats of violence induced, and feared that inaction on its part would lead to public mayhem. So the next day, it passed a resolution that clearly stated its position—as elaborated in the minutes:

BALTIMORE COMMITTEE.

At a Meeting of the Committee
July 30, 1776

PRESENT: W^ᴍ LUX, (Vɪᴄᴇ-Cʜᴀɪʀᴍᴀɴ,) JN^ᴏ MERRYMAN, BENJ^ᴀ GRIFFITH, JERE^ʜ TOWNLEY CHASE, W^ᴍ AISQUITH, JA^s CALHOUN, JN^ᴏ COCKEY, JN^ᴏ BOYD.

The Chairman being informed by Mr. Robert Christie, Sheriff of this County, that he had reason to be apprehensive of violence being offered to him, the said Sheriff, on account of his not attending to read the Declaration of Independence on Monday last, agreeable to the desire of the Committee; and that from these apprehensions, he would be under the disagreeable necessity of retiring to the country, and withdrawing himself from the publick service; whereupon,
Resolved, That the Committee do declare their utter disapprobation of all threats and violence being offered to any persons whatsoever, as contrary to the Resolves of Congress, and the sense of the Convention of this Province; that they conceive themselves bound to protect (as far as is in their power) the Civil Officers in the discharge of their duty; that they do expect of, and call upon every good citizen and friend to his country to assist them in their endeavors to preserve the peace and good order of society, and to prevent all riots and tumults, and personal abuse or violence to individuals; that the good people of Baltimore, having hitherto been so respectfully attentive to the Resolves of this Committee on all occasions, they flatter themselves that due regard will be paid to this recommendation.

Attest: Geo. Lux, Secretary.

Were William Aisquith standing today on the spot from which he read the Declaration of Independence to the citizens of Baltimore Town in 1776, this is more or less what he would see: the view looking south on Calvert-street from the location of the War of 1812 Battle Monument. [Photograph taken by the author of this article, on August 20th, 2013.]

William Aisquith not only took Christie’s place at the reading, but he took his public office as well. Christie had served as the Sheriff of Baltimore Country from 1774 to 1776, but Aisquith became Sheriff in 1777. Though they never came to pass, the threats aimed at Robert Christie Jun^r eerily foreshadowed a problem that tormented Baltimore all throughout the nineteenth century, and one that still haunts it to this day: the riotous, mob mentality, which caused later generations of Americans to defame Baltimore with its most shameful moniker, “ᴍᴏʙᴛᴏᴡɴ.”

— A REVOLUTION ON PAPER —

While the Revolution occurred through spoken word for the unlettered masses of America, the educated classes also bore witness to a Revolution on paper. In this respect, John Dunlap led the charge on the front lines of Baltimore Town. In the same issue of his Gazette that described the public reading of the Declaration, he included a couple of well-placed adverts on the fourth page, just above the colophon. The first, was for a map of New-York that he was readying for the press:

In a few days will be ready for Sale by the Printer hereof (abſolutely neceſſary for every Officer under Marching orders for New-York.)
A ᴍᴀᴘ of New-York, Staten-Island, part of Long-Island, and New-Jerſey, in which will be delineated, the ſituation of the Britiſh Forces now on Staten-Island, alſo the different Batteries thrown up for the defence of Continental troops in thoſe parts. The Utility of ſuch a Map muſt appear obvious to every Officer who underſtands the nature of Actual Service.

The second was a plea to the local citizenry of Baltimore Town, for clean rags to keep a steady supply of paper on hand for his printing press:

L I N E N R A G S.

Tʜᴇ higheſt price is given for clean Linen Rags, by Jᴏʜɴ Dᴜɴʟᴀᴘ, in Market Street, Baltimore. Who begs leave to inform the Public in general, and the good people of this town in particular, that the Paper Mills are idle for want of Rags; and of Conſequence, the Preſſes, the important vehicles of inſtruction and amuſement, muſt ſoon be reduced to the ſame unhappy ſituation.—We therefore flatter ourſelves, that this intimation of the languiſhing ſtate of ſo intereſting a manufacture will be ſufficient to prevail upon all careful Houſekeepers to ſave their RAGS and ſend them for ſale to

JOHN DUNLAP.

Both of these adverts paired nicely with a notice on the first page, which featured a plea of a different sort:

July 23d, 1776.

W A N T E D

As an Apprentice for the Printing Busineſs, a Lad about 14 or 15 years of age, who can be well recommended—Enquire of the printer.

Just as the militia and regular forces needed recruits, printers did too. And just as the militia and regular forces needed supplies and ammunition, printers did too. This is how they fought their Revolution.

So if you are wondering how to celebrate this 29^th of July, and how best to honor those who gave us the freedoms that we now enjoy, allow me to suggest this:

Do something … ɪɴᴅᴇᴘᴇɴᴅᴇɴᴄʏ!

Baltimore History, War of 1812

Earned by Virtue: Observing the 200th Anniversary of the Aquila Randall Monument

At 10.00 A.M. this morning, a small but sturdy crowd of people gathered in the grassy area on the northeast side of North Point Road, just above its intersection with Battle Grove. There, amid a suitable amount of pomp and circumstance, the Maryland National Guard and the Society of the War of 1812 in Maryland observed the bicentennial and rededication of the Aquila Randall Monument—one of the Monumental City’s greatest treasures—hidden in a small residential area known as the Wells M^cComas community, on the eastern neck of Dundalk between Bear Creek and the Back River. The monument, which is a white obelisk on a base, altogether extends about 6½ feet above ground level. It was erected on Monday, July 21^st 1817 by the surviving members of the First Mechanical Volunteers—a company which was commanded by Captain Benjamin Chew Howard (1791-1872), and attached to the 5^th Regiment, Maryland Militia during the Defense of Baltimore. The monument commemorates two things relating to the Battle of North Point: 1) the memory of Aquila Randall (c1790-1814), a 24-year-old private in Benjamin Chew Howard’s company, who was killed in action defending his homeland, and 2) the slaying of Major-General Robert Ross (1766-1814), commander of the British forces, which occurred—not far from where the monument currently sits—in a pre-battle skirmish between an advanced party of Americans under a detachment commanded by Major Richard Key Heath (1770-1822) of the 5^th Regiment, Maryland Militia, and the British column on its march up Patapsco Neck.

The well-constructed monument, which is simple yet handsome, reads as follows. On the side which faces the northeast (the American left flank):

SACRED
To the memory of
AQUILA RANDALL,
who died in bravely defending
his Country and his Home,
on the memorable
12^th of September, 1814.
Aged 24 years.

On the side which faces the southeast (the British line):

In the skirmish which occurred
at this spot,
between the advanced party,
under Major RICH^ᴅ K. HEATH
of the 5^th Reg^t M. M.
and the front of the British column
Major General ROSS,
the commander of the British force,
received his mortal wound.

On the side which faces the northwest (the American line):

The First Mechanical Volunteers
commanded by
Captⁿ BENJ^ɴ C. HOWARD
of the 5^th Reg^t M. M.
have erected this Monument
as a tribute of their respect
for the memory of
Their Gallant Brother in arms

On the side which faces the southwest (the American right flank):

How beautiful is Death
when earned by
Virtue.

One of the coolest parts of this morning’s bicentennial observance was a recitation of the events which took place at the initial ceremony in 1817. The particular account that today’s bicentennial referenced appeared a week after the event, in the Monday, July 28^th 1817 edition of the Baltimore Patriot & Mercantile Advertiser, on page two, in columns two and three:

FROM THE AMERICAN.

“Dulci et decorum est pro Patria mori.”

On Monday last, “THE FIRST MECHANICAL VOLUNTEERS,” one of the companies attached to the Fifth Regiment, erected on the spot where the advanced party under Major HEATH was engaged with the British forces, a Monument to the Memory of AQUILLA RANDALL, one of the members, who fell in that skirmish. The company, headed by their commander, Capt. B. C. HOWARD, marched from town at an early hour; and having been joined on the ground at 11 o’clock by Col. HEATH, Lt Col. BARRY, Major STEUART, and several other officers of the regiment, this ceremony of putting up the Monument was then commenced, and in a very short time completed, under the direction of Mr. TOWSON, (Lieut. of the company.)—Indeed, much commenda- tion is due to this gentleman (and no less to Col. SMALL, who assisted in the design) for the style and good taste in which the Monument is executed. He has aimed at simplicity and neatness, and he has not been disappointed.
The Monument is a pyramid of white stone, about four feet high, resting on a well proportioned pedestal, which bears the following inscriptions:

[On the side facing the road,]
HOW BEAUTIFUL IS DEATH, WHEN
EARNED BY VIRTUE.
[On the opposite side,]
SACRED TO THE MEMORY OF
AQUILLA RANDALL,
WHO DIED, IN BRAVELY DEFENDING HIS COUNTRY
AND HIS HOME,
On the Memorable 12th of September,
1814,
Aged 24 years.
[On the side up the road,]
THE FIRST MECHANICAL VOLUNTEERS,
Commanded by Capt. B. C. Howard,
In the 5th Regiment M. M.
HAVE ERECTED THIS MONUMENT,
AS A TRIBUTE OF THEIR RESPECT FOR
THE MEMORY OF
THEIR GALLANT BROTHER IN ARMS.
[On the side down the road,]
IN THE SKIRMISH
WHICH OCCURRED AT THIS SPOT,
Between the advanced party under
Major Rɪᴄʜᴀʀᴅ K. Hᴇᴀᴛʜ,
Of the Fifth Regiment, M. M.
AND THE FRONT OF THE BRITISH COLUMN,
MAJOR GENERAL ROSS,
COMMANDER OF THE BRITISH FORCES,
RECEIVED HIS MORTAL WOUND.

Having completed the necessary labors of the undertaking, the company was then drawn up in front of the Monument. The officers of the regiment, attending by invitation, were posted in front of the company, and Capt. HOWARD delivered, in a modest, but impressive manner, the Address, an imperfect sketch of which is published in this day’s paper.
The address was remarkably appropriate—It is indeed to be regretted, that in yielding to the request for publication, Capt. HOWARD has not been able to collect from a failing memory, the whole address as he delivered it. But there is enough left to challenge praise; not only for the judicious selection of topics, but also for the beauty and putity of his language.
After firing three vollies over the Monument, the company was dismissed to partake of a handsome collation.

SKETCH OF CAPTAIN HOWARD’S ADDRESS.

My Friends and Fellow Soldiers,
We are assembled on this day for the purpose of completing a design that we have long entertained. It is to perform one of these duties that can happen but seldom in the course of an individual’s life, for wars, thank Heaven, in our country, are not so frequent as to call upon us often to honor the memories of those who fall in her defence. But when it does occur, it is a duty for the performance of which we are bound by more than ordinary ties.—We owe something to those who are dead—something to those who are yet unborn. So strongly do I feel this, that my imagination at this moment flies forward to the future, and my memory back to the past. I can picture to myself the sensations of those who in far distant days will contemplate this monument, while busy memory brings before me the scene which was exhibited here and the melancholy event which has caused our assemblage at this spot. Let us turn our attention for a moment to the year 1814, when a black and portentous cloud seemed threatening to burst upon our country; when it had been vauntingly declared that all assailable places were to be laid waste, and our city, rich with gifts of commerce, and strong with the sinews of war, stood high on the list of proscription—But the spirit of the nation was roused, and the torch of military enthusiasm was lit at the flame of the consuming Capitol. There the list of proscription stopped. With the points of our swords, we erased from it the name of Baltimore, and Baltimore was saved. And whom had we to oppose? not a miserable rabble fighting for their rations alone; not an irregular and undisciplined enemy, but troops that had scattered the armies of France to the right and to the left in their march through Spain; troops inured to carnage and war, and flushed with thinking they had tamed the American pride at that ill-fated, unfortunate Bladensburg—Can we look back upon this contest with any less feeling than pride? Was there any thing in our conduct that should make us avoid recurring to that period? No—Thank Heaven, there was not—here we stood, and here we acted our parts—Here we all shared one common danger, and though the ball that bore the message of death as it sang through the air, took only one from amongst us; yet who is there that might not have shared the same fate? who is there that might not have been that one? it well becomes us therefore to join heart and hand in placing some durable memorial on a spot so consecrated as this. This monument which we are now erecting, will stand as a solemn expression of the feelings of us all, as a solemn determination, that though the life of Randall, was rudely and untimely destroyed, his name shall not perish from the face of the earth.
Our city, I am proud to say, has evinced no backwardness, no cold reluctance, to honor the memories of those who fell in her defence. She has placed in her bosom an ornament to her beauty, and a monument of her gratitude. She has erected in the midst of her busy streets an edifice whose towering column is destined to bear the names of those whose lives were offered up to save her from the hostile tread and the midnight terrors of an exasperated and ungovernable foe. Not a traveller can pass without stopping to admire the gratitude of Baltimore to her defenders. But I regret that the spot, which is made classic by the effusion of blood, the spot where the long line stood unappalled by the system and advances of an experienced and disciplined foe, has been suffered to remain unnoticed. It is here where her citizens stood arrayed in soldiers’ garb, that honors to a soldier’s memory should have been paid. To mark the spot be then our care. Let our monument arise, in humility proportioned to our number, compared with the collected mass. Let the name of Randall be recorded on imperishable stone, on the spot where his life-blood streamed upon the ground I scruple not to say, that though the lofty column does not rise above the tops of the neighboring trees; though plain an unadorned with magnificent and expensive sculpture, the monument which we have this day erected is a proud, a noble, a splendid tribute to his memory. Who is there here, whose heart would not beat faster, whose pulse would not throb quicker, at the prospect of such a monument as this. For myself, I could almost change places with him; I do believe that his death atoned for many a sin, if many a sin he had committed. To defend our country has ever been considered one of the highest, holiest duties that man has to perform. Religious bigotry may tell us, that war is unlawful and a crime; but the honest unperversed feelings of the human heart will always refuse to believe it. What—Has Providence blessed us with a noble country, enriched with all the blessings of civilization and enlightened by the animating principles of liberty, only to surrender it up to the first invader? Shall we not keep what God has given us? He who suffers the fiery death of the warrior, whose soul has burst, and crept forth from its tenement of clay in such a cause as that, has well performed his part in life. The lamp of life, if it be not suddenly extinguished, will waste slowly away; better to be extinguished in the midst of its brightness and leave the memory of its brilliancy behind it, than glimmer for years in the socket.
Near this spot another monument was earned, though ten thousand swords would leap from the scabbards to prevent it from being placed there. It was here that the haughty General who declared he did not care if it rained Militia, atoned with his life for his rash opinion. It was here that they rained such a tempest upon his head as beat him to the ground. There let his memory rest for us. If his Government have done, what it is said they have, they have not only insulted the feelings of the American Nation, but imprinted a foul and shameful spot on the memory of him they wished to honor. To assert that Ross was slain at Washington is as monstrous and inexcusable as to engraft upon his coat of arms the broken flag of the United States. How different is it with us. Truth, simple as the stone and pure as the color that glitters in the day, breathes in every word and action. The honors we pay are those we think due. No more. With that sublime attribute of Heaven, truth, engrafted upon them, they can be looked upon with more pride by those who give them and the friends of him on whom they are bestowed, than the most pompous and lordly testimonials, framed to feed national unity at the expense of history and fact.
My friends—I have done it—We commit this Monument to Destiny and Time.

The inconsistencies found in the above-quoted article are curious. It not only misspells Aquila Randall’s name by giving it a superfluous ‘l’ (i.e., “Aquilla”), but it gives an imperfect transcription of the text on the monument. If these inconsistencies are present in the part of the article that describes the basic facts relating to the monument, it does cause one to wonder how accurate the sketch of Benjamin Chew Howard’s speech really is, and whether or not any parts of it were invented out of whole cloth by the newspaper reporter who covered the proceedings. The bit about Captain Howard being unable to reproduce his speech in full for publication, due to a “failing memory,” is especially interesting. Howard was not an old man, by any means, at the time of the dedication; in July of 1817, he was only 25 years old—just one year older than Randall had been at the time of the battle. So Howard probably couldn’t reproduce his speech because he had never even fully written it down in the first place. Whatever the case, it is a remarkable example of his oratorical skill, and was undoubtedly delivered with masterful elocution. Even 200 years later, in 2017, the words are quite stirring, and hearing them read aloud at the bicentennial rededication was quite a treat.

In all likelihood, this will be the last of the War of 1812 Bicentennial events. What a privilege it was to take part in it. Over the past five years, commemorating the 200^thanniversary of America’s Second War for Independence has given many people in the Greater Baltimore Metro Area a lot of joy, and it has certainly provided us with a renewed sense of community and patriotism as we look toward the future. May the Monumental City’s spirit continue to endure, infused with the memory of people like Aquila Randall and his comrades in arms, who gave everything—their lives included—for Baltimore City.

Our city.

Our debt to them truly is, ᴍᴏɴᴜᴍᴇɴᴛᴀʟ.

Baltimore History, War of 1812

The Battle of Baltimore: An Eyewitness Account by Joseph Townsend (1756-1841)

What follows is my attempt to provide a faithful transcription of the four loose front-and-back diary pages, written by Joseph Townsend, describing the Battle of Baltimore in September of 1814. Townsend’s account is not aided by page numbers, so the order of the loose pages is somewhat difficult to discern. This difficulty is further compounded by the fact that some of the pages are missing pieces, along with the words, of course, that go on those pieces! Despite these hazards that have been thrown in my way, I’ve decided to trudge onward, with my transcription hat planted firmly and snugly on my head. Much to my surprise, I found that this account seems to mirror, at least somewhat, the structure of Townsend’s much more famous eyewitness account: that of the Battle of Brandywine, which he witnessed as a 21-year-old in September of 1777—an account which was published five years after his death, by the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, in 1846. Below is my transcription of Townsend’s recollection of Baltimore in 1814, complete with original spellings (and some minor corrections):

In the year 1814 [title from page five]
When information was received that the Troops / had left ^{the City of}Washington & got on board the Fleet / near the mouth of the Potowmac—various were / ~~rumors~~ ^{the conjectures}& Ideas entertained respecting their de- / stiny & further depredations, but the general / opinion was, that an attempt to capture Bal- / timore would take place—It therefore became / the duty of the Military department to be / prepared to meet the expected attack— / The Militia belonging to the City who / had marched for ^thedefence of Washington & / had taken an active part in the engagement / at Bladensburg had returned & were kept / in readineſs for the defence of their own / City—& numerous Companies of Militia / from different parts were daily coming / in not only from the State of Maryland but / from the western part of Pennsylvania— / the rumour was generally spread [along the?] whole [begin page two] on the line of Encampment next to Town to / keep~~ing~~ up the fires that were in blast for Cooking / during the past day—that it might not appear / that they were on the Retreat—When the / morning arrived, the ground on which they / had encamped was cleared, & not a person / belonging to their Army to be discovered— // It appeared that there was an understanding / between the Generals on land & the Command- / ers on board the Fleet that if they effected a / landing above ~~the~~ Fort M^cHenry a sign / was to be given by their firing a rockett tow- / ards or over the City in order to notify the Ge- / nerals on land to rush into it with all their / forces to meet with those that might land from / on board the Veſsels—but if otherwise the Rock- / ett was to be thrown down the River, which / being done the whole Army was in motion / on the water, & progreſsing down ^tothe Fleet at / [?] —being disgraced in the Attempt [begin page three] [The] country appeared to be aroused, & disposed to aſ- / sist in the defence of their Commercial Ci- / ty—Great unanimity was evident on this / interesting occasion— // The British Fleet ^{after receiving the Troops}was discovered to be / [in] the bay & appeared to be bound up, which / confirmed the opinion sustained respecting / their object—Fortifications & Batteries Co- / ^{nsidered neceſsary}were hastily prepared & Canon mounted / Whereon—a considerable number of Veſsels / were sunk acroſs the channel of the river near / Fort M^cHenry—& Tar barrels were placed / along the public road to be set on fire in / case of their attempting to march into the / City in the course of the night— // As is customary on such occasions of alarm / the Citizens had ^generallyremoved their families to the / Country to be out of the way ^ofdanger, which / [was] now to be dreaded, & the military had / surrounded them most of whom were encamped [begin page four] round the Eastern section of the City, but / Intercourse which was kept up with them, / in other respects, it appeared that the place was alive with the bustle & stir that neceſsa- / rily took place— // My family ~~had~~ retired to the Country ~~near~~ [?] ^on / ~~after the scene of the wounded men~~ [?] ^{the afternoon of the memorable 12th after various ac-}/ counts had come in that the march of the Brits / was hastening toward the City—a number of / the wounded men had come in, & that the probability / was that the whole of the British Army would / have poſseſsion of the City before the next morn- / ing—I believed it right to remain at home & to / subject to what might occur—the night passed on / without anything extraordinary taking place— // There was considerable stir amongst the Milita- / ry the numbers collected from different parts / were very considerable & were encamped inside / the breast work, that had been ^hastilythrown up ^bythe [men?] / [along?] the Eastern part of the City—being at a [g-] / [eneral?] view of their Enemy, who were encamped / [indecipherable, bottom of page mutilated] [begin page five] After the destruction at Washington city / the British Troops—they returned & embarked / on board the Fleet which lay in the Chesa- / peak bay & in some of the Rivers emptying / into it, & when collected they proceeded up / the bay to North Point ~~at which place~~ ^wherethey / effected their landing, having in view the ob- / struction of Baltimore ~~as their next object~~ ^{in the next place} / ~~at this place~~ their force was estimated at / about ⁶⁰⁰⁰regular Troops ^{and a company of blacks}—exclusive of those who / manned the Bound Veſsels & Barges—these / Veſsels were sent up the Patapsco River to / attack ~~the~~ Fort M^cHenry, & the Troops w^[ch?] / were landed at North Point were ~~conduct~~ ^under/ ~~ed up Patapsco neck by~~ ^{the command of}their Generals Roſs / Cockburn & Brooke— ~~until~~ whose object / was to conduct them up Patapsco neck /^{the east part of the city}to be in readineſs to enter part of it as soon [begin page six] [as] a Bomb Veſsel had conquered the Fort / as they marched up on the morning after they had effected Men landing, they were / met with by the American Militia under / the command of Generals Stricker, Stans- / bury &c—who had marched down the / preceding afternoon & were in readineſs / to check their March of the British as they / progreſsed up—the Engagement commenced about noon & a brisk fire was kept up / between them for some, in which General / Roſs received his death wound—as they were / conducting him back to the Fleet on a Litter / they made a halt under the large Poplar tree / opposite to the entrance of Gorsuch’s lane, where / he died—After he fell the British Troops / were conducted by the surviving Generals & the / engagement being over, & night drawing on, they [begin page seven] encamped on the battle ground a little south / of the Methodist meeting house—they next / morning after their wounded soldiers were / sent in barges to the Fleet they marched up / in sight of Town & encamped on / orange f[ields?] & fields adjoining—at this place they remained / during the remainder of the day waiting for / succeſs of the Bomb Veſsels &c to silence Fort / M^cHenry, having commenced their opera- / tions for that purpose about 8 O Clock in the / morning—they ~~continued~~ ^{kept up a} continual fire / & Bombardment during the day without suc- / ceeding & did not decline their exertions / when night came on—about one or two O / Clock in some of their Veſsels & barges paſsed / the Fort in a secret manner & entered the / River with a view to effect a landing on the Peninsula between Boat & the basin—but / [in] this they were [most] grievously disobedient [?] [begin page eight] as ~~their not knowing~~ ^{they had not knowledge}of Fort Coventry [Covington] & a six / Gun Battery being prepared to receive them / & which was opened upon them unexpectedly / with a most tremendous fire—the British find- / ing themselves ^{likely to be}shattered to pieces & their Veſsels / sinking ~~they~~ there was a most terrifying uproar / amongst them & they hurried out of the River & / paſsed the Fort in greater haste than they did / when she went up—This circumstance with / some others in which they had been engaged through / the course of the day, proving unsucceſsful put / a final end to the expedition & daring attempt / notwithstanding they kept up the appearance of / the engagement until near 8 O Clock the next / morning, which proved to be for the expreſs purpose / of affording time for the land forces to retreat / on board the Veſsels laying at North Point—as they / had commenced their march for the purpose / about [9?] O Clock in the morning, leaving t[hen.] [?]

This is an amazing insight into the defense of the City of Baltimore—penned by one of its most respected residents. Joseph Townsend moved to Baltimore during the fall of 1783, after having spent a year teaching in a school along the Gunpowder. Once a resident of Baltimore Town, in 1784, Townsend founded the school now known as the Friends School of Baltimore. Ten years later, in 1794, he founded Baltimore Equitable Insurance. Friends School and Equitable still exist, and both institutions are thriving. This account just adds another chapter to an already robust historical legacy. What a wonderful gift you’ve given us, Mr. Townsend!

Geography, Indigenous People, Maryland History, Towsontown

Of Interest, Perhaps, to the Natives, Inhabitants, & Scholars of Terræ Mariæ.

About a month ago, I came across the following article hiding on the second page of the July 7^th 1866 edition of The Baltimore County Union—the local weekly newspaper that was printed every Saturday morning in Towsontown, out of the office of the Longnecker B^ros. (John Barr “J.B.” & Henry Clay “H.C.” Longnecker), from 1865 to 1909.

Neither before, nor after running across this excerpt, have I discovered anything as concise and informative, relating to the history, geography, and nomenclature of the State of Maryland. What makes this article such a gem is the fact that it pays equal attention to not only the settlers, but the region’s indigenous peoples as well—the inhabitants of the pre-European-contact Chesapeake region—thus giving voice to a demographic that is all-too-often marginalized, or silenced entirely.

That many of these names are still in use makes this a worthwhile read. However, while this article is inclusive of indigenous culture, it would be a mistake to think that all marginalized communities are equally represented. The population data from the 1860 U.S. Census can hardly be accurate, considering that it most likely only accounts for the state’s free and white population. So it is important to remember that there are enslaved African Americans who are missing from these numbers. In addition to the missing people, there are also a couple of missing counties—because two of them were created after 1866 (the year that this article was published): 1) Wicomico County, created from parts of Somerset & Worcester Counties in 1867, named after the Wicomico River (the derivation of which is included below); and 2) Garrett County, created from part of Allegany County in 1872, named after the president of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, John Work Garrett.

So, without further ado, the article:

☞ We have been shown a “Geography of the State of Maryland,” designed to accompany “Cornell’s Grammar School Geography.”—It was got up, we believe, at the suggestion, of Rev. L. Van Bokkelen, of our county, the able State Superintendent of Public Instruction.—From it we extract the following valuable information concerning the origin of the names of the counties of our State, with the date of their formation, population in 1860, &c. Our readers will do well to cut it out and preserve it:

ST. MARY’S, the earliest ; called in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary ; formed in 1634 ;—character of the surface, undulating ; Geological formations, tertiary and post tertiary ; area, 300 square miles ; population, 15,213.

ANNE ARUNDEL, after the Lady Anne Arundel, wife of Cæcilius 2d Lord Baltimore ; formed in 1650 ; character of surface, hilly ; Geological formation, metamorphic, jurassic, cretaceous, tertiary ; area, 360 square miles ; population, 23,900.

KENT, after the English county of that name, by settlers from said county ; formed in 1650 ; character of the surface, gently rolling ; Geological formations, cretaceous and tertiary ;—area, 240 square miles ; population, 13,267.

CALVERT, after the family name of the Proprietary ; formed in 1654 ; character of surface, undulating ; Geological formations, tertiary ; area, 250 square miles ; population, 10,447.

CHARLES, after Charles Lord Baltimore ; formed in 1658 ; character of surface, rolling ; Geological formations, tertiary ; area, 450 square miles ; population, 16,517.

BALTIMORE, from the Proprietary’s Irish barony (Celtic bailte-mor, i. e., the large town ;)—formed in 1659 ; character of surface, hilly ; Geological formations, metamorphic and jurassic ; area, 600 square miles ; population, Baltimore city, 212,418 ; Baltimore county, 54,135.

TALBOT, after Lord Talbot, uncle of Lady Baltimore ; formed in 1660 ; character of surface, level ; Geological formations, tertiary ; area, 280 square miles ; population, 14,795.

DORCHESTER, after Earl Dorset, a family friend of the Calverts ; formed in 1666 ; character of surface, level ; in part marshy ; Geological formations, tertiary and post tertiary ; area, 600 square miles ; population, 20,461.

SOMERSET, after Edward Somerset, husband of Maria Calvert, daughter of Lord Baltimore ; formed in 1666; character of surface, level ;—Geological formations, tertiary and post tertiary ; area, 500 square miles ; population, 24,992.

CECIL, after the forename of the 2d Lord Baltimore ; formed in 1673 ; character of surface, hilly and undulating ; Geological formations, metamorphic, jurassic, and cretaceous, area, 350 square miles ; population, 22,862.

PRINCE GEORGE’S, from Prince George of Denmark ; formed in 1695 ; character of surface, moderately hilly ; Geological formations, jurassic, cretaceous, and tertiary ; area, 400 square miles ; population, 23,327.

QUEEN ANNE’S, after the reigning Sovereign of Great Britain ; formed in 1706 ; character of surface, gently rolling ; Geological formations, tertiary ; area, 400 square miles ; population, 15,961.

WORCESTER, in commemoration of the Stuart proclivities of the Palatine’s family ; formed in 1742 ; character of surface, level ; Geological formations, post tertiary ; area, 560 square miles ; population, 20,661.

FREDERICK, after Frederick, Prince of Wales ; formed in 1748 ; character of surface, undulating, and in part mountainous ; Geological formations, metamorphic, silurian, and triassic ; area, 580 square miles ; population, 46,591.

MONTGOMERY, after General Montgomery, who was killed at Quebec ; formed in 1766 ; character of surface, moderately hilly ; Geological formations, metamorphic and jurassic ; area, 425 square miles ; population, 18,322.

CAROLINE, after Caroline Harford, a niece of the Proprietary ; formed in 1773 ; character of surface, level ; Geological formations, tertiary ; area, 270 miles ; population, 11,129.

HARFORD, after Henry Harford, a nephew of the Palatine, and Governor of the Province ;—formed in 1773 ; character of surface, in the north, hilly ; in the south-east, level ; Geological formations, metamorphic and jurassic ; area, 400 square miles ; population, 23,415.

WASHINGTON, after General Washington ;—formed in 1776; character of surface, mountainous except in the Great Valley ; Geological formations, silurian and devonian ; area, 525 square miles ; population, 31,417.

ALLEGANY, after the great Indian tribe of the Alligewi ; formed in 1789 ; character of surface, mountainous and glade lands ; Geological formations, carboniferous, devonean, and silurian ; area, 1,100 square miles ; population, 28,347.

CARROLL, after Carroll of C., the signer of the Declaration of Independence ; formed in 1836 ; character of surface, hilly ; Geological formations, metamorphic and triassic ; area, 425 square miles ; population, 24,533.

HOWARD, after Colonel John Eager Howard, the elder ; formed in 1850 ; character of surface, hilly ; Geological formations, metamorphic ; area, 240 square miles ; population, 13,388.

SIGNIFICATION OF THE INDIAN NAMES OF THE GEOGRAPHY OF MARYLAND.

Al-le-ga-ny—Corrupted from Al-le-ge-wi, i.e. the old settlers.
An-ne-mess-ex—The creek where are logs for building.
An-ti-e-tam—The swift current.
A-qua-keek or A-ka-keek—The thicket ; or the place for pic-nics.
A-quas-co—Grassy.
A-qui-a—Passing between two headlands.
Cat-oc-tin—The place of many deer.
Chap-o-wan-sie—The red beech.
Chap-tic-o—Deep water.
Ches-a-peake—The great salt reservoir or bay.
Chic-a-hom-i-ny—Turkey lick, resort of turkeys.
Chic-a-mim-om-i-co—Where turkeys are plenty.
Chick-a-max-en—Turkey stone, where turkeys brood.
Ching-o-teague—Where pike is caught ; or, poor land.
Chop-tank—Where there is a bend, or turn-off.
Co-an, or Cow-an—The creek of pines.
Con-o-co-cheague—Very long.
Co-nol-o-wa—Having deep holes.
Co-ra-pe-chen—A fine running stream.
Cur-ri-o-man—Having much extent.
Gun-sen—Where we were called at or spoken to.
Lo-na-co-ning—The great right-hand opening or stream.
Ma-cho-dic—Big water.
Mag-o-thy—Little meadows.
Man-o-kin—The place of scalping, or the fort.
Mat-ta-po-ny—Where we had no bread.
Mat-ta-wo-man—Where we found nothing.
Mo-nic, Mo-ny—The place of assembling.
Mon-oc-a-cy—Having many large bends.
Nan-je-moy—The haunt of raccoons.
Nan-ti-coke—The first or head tribe.
Nas-e-ong-o, Nas-sa-wing-o—Where we killed deer ; or, black water.
Ne-ap-sco—Near foam or breakers.
Oc-co-quan—The boiling pots, i.e. the cooking ground.
Pam-un-key—The place of sweating-ovens or vapor-baths.
Tasp-o-tans-a, Pas-qua-hans-a—Where we go for boating.
Pat-ap-sco—Having white-capped waves.
Pat-ux-ent—Winding among loose stones.
Pec-at-on—Open water.
Pic-a-wax-en—Where our moccasins were torn.
Pis-cat-a-wa—Having dark-colored or shaded banks.
Po-co-moke—Having shell-fish.
Port To-bacc-o—Corrupted from Po-ta-phac-o, the crook between two hills.
Po-to-mac—Among black-walnuts ; or, the river highway.
Quant-i-co—The dancing-place.
Que-pong-o—The burnt pines.
Sen-e-ca—Stony.
Sin-e-pux-ent—Having many oyster-beds.
Sus-que-han-na—The stream with rapids.
Tuck-a-ho—Where deer are shy.
Wic-om-i-co—Where houses are built.
Wit-ip-kin—The place of buried skulls and bones.
Yoh-a-ga-ny, (first syllable pronounced yock,)—Running the contrary way ; all other streams joining the Chesapeake, while this goes into the Ohio.

Three other river names, Linganore, Octarara, and Tuscarora, are probably Iroquois terms, and were unintelligible to the Lenni-Lenape or Delawares.

As to the veracity of all of the facts recited above, well, I cannot personally vouch for them. But they were deemed good enough for promulgation to the youth of Maryland in 1866, and they certainly provide a fascinating insight into what people thought was important at the time. I suppose that we can thank the Rev. Dr. Libertus V^an Bokkelen (1815-1889) for compiling this information, as he was then Maryland’s superintendent of public instruction. V^an Bokkelen (as the keenly observant readers of this page may have already guessed) was not a native of Maryland, but rather a native of New York City—the grandson of an eighteenth-century Dutch immigrant, a Protestant-Episcopal clergyman, and an all-around interesting character in his own right (who may well merit a future article on The Monumental City). He seems to have been a rather inquisitive fellow, and ’tis possible that he compiled this information as much for himself, as he did for the children in Maryland’s public school system. Whatever the case, he evidently thought that this information was worth knowing.

And you know what?

He was right.

A lot of this information is still worth knowing.

Eastern Shore History, Revolutionary War, War of 1812

The Amazing Lifespan of John Mitchell Senʳ (1710-1816)

“AT THE VERY ADVANCED AGE OF…”

While today’s post has nothing to do with Baltimore City in particular, it does reference a small notice that ran in a Baltimore newspaper, nearly two centuries ago. As printed in the June 17^th 1816 edition of the American & Commercial Daily Advertiser: “Died on the 3d inst. at his residence in Dorchester County, E.S. Md. Mr. JOHN MITCHELL, at the very advanced age of one hundred and five years and nine months.”¹

This short notice, and the news that necessitated it, provides an interesting window into how news spread, organically, during the beginning of the nineteenth century.

James Mitchell Bigwood posing next to the grave of his fifth-great grandfather, John Mitchell Sen’r (1710-1816).

Truth be told, there is much confusion surrounding the date of death for John Mitchell Sen^r. His tombstone says, rather vaguely, that he “departed this life in 1815,” but this cannot be correct. Every single newspaper that reported his death, did so during the year 1816, and with someone who lived to be as old as John Mitchell Sen^r did, there is no way that newspapers would have delayed reporting that news for an entire year! The June 3^rd 1816 date, referenced in the above newspaper notice, is also incorrect, for reasons that we will detail below. Based on the interpretation of the earliest known primary source, it seems clear that he actually died on May 20^th 1816 … two hundred years ago, today!

We know May 20^th to be his proper death date, because his death notice first appeared in a newspaper on the Eastern Shore—the Republican Star or General Advertiser in Easton, to be exact—on Tuesday Morning, May 28^th 1816. It reads as follows: “DIED—On Monday last, at his residence in Dorchester county, E. S. Md. Mr. JOHN MITCHELL, at the very advanced age of one hundred and five years and nine months.”² Had he died on Monday May 27^th, the notice probably would have said “yesterday,” instead of “On Monday last.” So it is reasonable to assume that “Monday last” refers to the 20^th day of the month.

The June 3^rd vs. May 20^th confusion is likely due to a bit of laziness at the Daily National Intelligencer in Washington, D.C., which appears to have been the first Capital-area newspaper to echo the news.³ It did so on Thursday June 6^th, and assuming that it was referencing the above-mentioned Republican Star or General Advertiser report of May 28^th, which said “Monday last,” it is possible that the editor at the Daily National Intelligencer, absentmindedly read it and thought it referred to the Monday of the week that he was already in, which would have been Monday June 3^rd … thus beginning a snowball effect of misinformation, as many newspapers in major cities were more likely to have subscribed to a Washington, D.C. newspaper than to an Easton, Md. newspaper. Proof that lazy journalism is not just a byproduct of modernity—it stretches all the way back to the early 19^thcentury, at the very least!

— A HOUSEHOLD NAME —

John Mitchell Sen^r has long been an interest of mine. Partially because he happens to be my great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather, but also because 18^th& 19^th-century centenarians were mighty uncommon. Consequently, the elder John Mitchell’s story is quite unusual for its time.

It is not the actual death itself that was newsworthy, but rather the fact that he had lived as long as he had. News of his longevity spread like wildfire up and down the east coast. This was 30 years before the Associated Press (AP) formed, so newswires—and telegraphy, for that matter—did not yet exist. There was, however, a method by which newspapers transmitted news to one another during the 1810s, which I alluded to above: newspapers subscribed to other newspapers. Sort of a pre-newswire wire service, shall we say. When the out-of-town newspapers would arrive at a newspaper office, editors or reporters would skim for the best little nuggets and bits of out-of-town news to include in their own papers.

The thought of a man living to be 105 years old is intriguing even now, during the 21^st century, so it must have seemed doubly so to someone living during the early 19^th century, when the infant mortality rate was much higher and the average lifespan much shorter. Accordingly, the death notice for John Mitchell Sen^r was picked up by newspapers as far afield as Charleston to the south, and Boston to the north. Each editor must have thought something along the lines of, “Whoa! John Mitchell on the Eastern Shore of Maryland lived to be 105 years old! That’s the kind of news that people want to read. I’ve GOT to include that one.”

Some of the newspapers that picked up the death notice for John Mitchell Sen’r.

Though the full list of newspapers which ran his notice remains unknown, it made it into at least the following editions: the aforementioned Republican Star or General Advertiser (Easton, Md.) on May 28^thand the Daily National Intelligencer (Washington, D.C.) on June 6^th, the Washington City Weekly Gazette (Washington, D.C.)⁴ on June 8^th, The Columbian (New York City)⁵ on June 10^th, The Albany Daily Advertiser (Albany, N.Y.)⁶ on June 12^th, the City Gazette and Commercial Daily Advertiser (Charleston, S.C.)⁷ on June 13^th, the Commercial Advertiser (New York City)⁸ on June 13^th, The Albany Advertiser (Albany, N.Y.)⁹ on June 15^th, the New-York Spectator (New York City)¹⁰ on June 15^th, the aforementioned American & Commercial Daily Advertiser (Baltimore, Md.) on June 17^th, the Independent Chronicle (Boston, Mass.)¹¹ on June 20^th, the Columbian Centinel (Boston, Mass.)¹² on June 21^st, the Newburyport Herald, and Commercial Gazette (Newburyport, Mass.)¹³ on June 21^st, the Salem Gazette (Salem, Mass.)¹⁴ on June 21^st, the American Watchman (Wilmington, Del.)¹⁵ on June 26^th, The Recorder (Boston, Mass.)¹⁶ on June 26^th, the Hampshire Gazette & Publick Advertiser (Northampton, Mass.)¹⁷ on June 26^th, the New-Jersey Journal (Elizabeth-Town, N.J.)¹⁸ on July 2^nd, and lastly, the Camden Gazette (Camden, S.C.)¹⁹ on July 4^th.

Not bad for an unlettered farmer from rural Maryland, huh?

Part of Mitchell’s Garden, the farm owned by John Mitchell Sen’r (1710-1816). This photo is looking toward the direction of the family burial ground.

In life, John Mitchell Sen^r may never have even traveled outside of the 20-mile radius surrounding his farm. But in death, he … quite literally … became a household name.

— A MAN OF HIS WORD —

This was not just a case of someone claiming to be old. He was consistent when reporting his age, and when one looks at his story with a critical eye, the story checks out.

On July 21^st 1764, the following appeared in Dorchester County land records:²⁰

The Deposition of John Mitchel of s^d County aged fifty four years or thereabouts deposeth & saith that about seventeen years agoe he was present when Thomas Mackeel & William Byus met as commiſsioners to take Dipositions conscerning the Bounds of the Land formerly calld Indian Quarter now called Thomas Chance when John Soward swore that his Father John Soward told him that at the place where he now shews was a pine as well as he remembers which was the first bounder of Indian Quarter & farther saith not.

John (his ᵻ marke) Mitchel

Sworn to y^e 21^st Day of 7^br. 1764 before
Rob^t. Hon & Hugh Spedden,
Commiſsioners

The fact that he deposed to be 54 years old or thereabouts, and then proceeded to recite the particulars of an event that he had witnessed relating to a boundary dispute, some 17 years prior—roughly around the year 1747 or so—lends a good deal of credence to his claim.

He would have had no reason to lie. And his claiming to be 54 years old in July of ’64 would place his birth date sometime around July of 1710, give or take a few months—which lines up beautifully with someone who would have been pushing 106 in May of 1816!

— MITCHELL ORIGINS —

Whence these Mitchells came is not exactly certain. The family lore has it that one William Mitchell and his wife, Elizabeth Gibbs, immigrated from Edinburgh, Scotland to Bermuda in 1612. Supposedly William and Elizabeth had a son named William Jun^r in Southampton Parish, Bermuda, in 1623, and this younger William is alleged to have fathered a son named John Mitchell. As the story goes, it was these Mitchells who immigrated to the Province of Maryland and settled in Dorchester County in 1684, where the John Mitchell (son of William Jun^r), supposedly fathered the John Mitchell Sen^r (1710-1816) who is the subject of this article.

This Scotland-to-Bermuda-to-Maryland story is one that has always piqued my interest. But does it match up with the historical record? I decided to do some digging to see if I could either confirm, or deny, its veracity. This proved to be a tricky task, though, since the Dorchester County Courthouse burned down in 1851 (thanks, apparently, to some maleficent arsonists). The county register’s office went up in flames, and 1777-1851 probate records are nonexistent. However, by some miracle, the clerk’s office records were salvaged from the fire, and county land records stretch all the way back to the year of its founding: 1669.

So, while the lack of probate records is a definite handicap, one can use land (and other) records to piece together whatever fragments of information remain, and with a little luck, further analysis of those fragments can form a story. In the specific case of John Mitchell Sen^r, there is also a very visual component to this analysis. He was an unlettered man, so he made his ‘mark’ on documents, instead of providing a signature. While it would be easy to write him off as being an ignorant, uneducated man, the type of mark that he made actually suggests that—while he may not have been able to read, or write in full sentences—he did possess a base level understanding of the alphabet. This is because, instead of the more traditional ‘x’ mark that is so often seen on old documents, John Mitchell Sen^r wrote a capital ‘I’ with serifs and a slash through the middle. “Why did he write an ‘I’?” you may be asking. Well, up until the 17th century, the letters ‘I’ and ‘J’ were interchangeable in the English language—especially in Latin texts. For instance, people named John often wrote their name as ‘Iohn’. Since John Mitchell Sen^r was born in 1710 (and raised by parents who were born in the 17th century!), it makes sense that he would have used the ‘I’ in this fashion. So, essentially, when he made his mark, he was writing the first letter of his given name. He may not have known all 26 letters, but he knew his letter! And his letter was ‘I’. [In order to properly convey the visual effect of his mark, I have chosen to display it as a ‘ᵻ’ glyph, as that is how it looks on most documents.]

Like tracing a name, one can follow John Mitchell’s glyph backwards in time—it is a trail of sorts. Wherever, and more importantly, whenever John Mitchell Sen^rappeared, to make his mark, we are able to anchor him to a specific time and place.

The ‘marke’ of John Mitchell Sen’r (1710-1816)

The earliest such instance of John Mitchell making his distinctive ‘ᵻ’ mark on a document, as far as I know, is a Dorchester County land deed from August 20^th 1732. John Mitchell (who had not yet acquired the Sen^rsuffix) witnessed a land transaction between Joseph Thomas and his son, John Thomas. Since John Mitchell was witnessing a legal document, he must have, therefore, been of legal age by August of 1732, which suggests that he was at least eighteen years old by that point … meaning that the very latest that he could have been born was August of 1714. Though this does not prove that he was born in 1710, conversely, it does not disprove it. At the very least, it verifies and cements his claim that he was a legitimate centenarian by the time of his death in May of 1816!

The crucial ‘link’ which proves the placement of John Mitchell Sen^r within the Mitchell family is a land deed from June 15^th 1801:²¹

This Indenture made the 15^th day of June in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and one between John Mitchell Sen^r of Dorchester County and State of Maryland planter of the one part and Richard Mitchell and Levin Mitchell of the said County and State aforesaid planters of the other part. Witneſseth that for and in Consideration of the love and ~~and~~ Affection which the said John Mitchell Sen^r hath and do bear unto his son Richard Mitchell aforesaid and his Grand Son Levin Mitchell aforesaid and also in Consideration of the Sum of Ten Shillings Current Money to me the said John Mitchell Sen^r in hand paid by the said Richard Mitchell and Levin Mitchell at or upon the Sealing and delivery of these Presents the receipt whereof I the said John Mitchell Sen^r do hereby Acknowledge hath given granted, aliened enfeoffed Confirmed and Conveyed, and by these presents doth give Grant, alien enfoeff convey and Confirm unto the said Richard Mitchell for and during his natural life and after his deceaſe unto the aforesaid Levin Mitchell and his heirs forever, All that part of two Tracts of Land lying and being in Dorchester County and State of Maryland affs^d called Mitchells Garden and Johns Garden excepting that part of the Mill Point where the old Mill now Stand until the said Mill shall be mov^d off the said Mill Point, now in the occupation tenure and Poſseſsion of the ſaid Richard Mitchell and Levin Mitchell after the Decease of the said Richard and to Levin Mitchell and his heirs forever as aforesaid together with all and singular the houses outhouses Gardens trees, fences liberties advantages Emoluments hereditaments and appurtenances to the same belonging or any ways Appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents and Services iſsues and profits of all and singular the Lands and Premises hereby released and Confirmed or mentioned or intended so to be and all the Estate right, title, Interest property claim and demand whatsoever in Law or Equity of him the said John Mitchell Sen^r of in and to the Premises or any part or parcel thereof with the and every of the Appurtenance. To Have and To Hold the said Lands and Premises hereby Granted and Confirmed or mentioned or intended so to be with the Appurtenances to the only proper uses benefit and behalf of the said Richard Mitchell during his natural life as aforesaid and after his decease to his son Levin Mitchell and his heirs forever. And the said John Mitchell Sen^r for himself and his heirs executors and Administrators doth Covenant grant and agree to and with the said Richard Mitchell and Levin Mitchell afs^d by these Presents that the said Richard Mitchell and Levin Mitchell shall and may lawfully from time to time and at all times hereafter Peaceably have hold use occupy Poſseſs and enjoy the said Lands and Premises hereby Granted and Conveyed with all and Every of the appurtenances free clear and fully discharged or will and Sufficiently save and keep harmleſs and indemnify from and against all former and other Gifts grants and bargain according to the true intent and meaning of these Presents. In Witneſs whereof the said John Mitchell Sen^r to these Presents have hereunto set his hand and ſeal the day and year first above Written, Signed, Sealed & Delivered

John (his ᵻ mark) Mitchell Sen^r {seal}

In the presence of…
Jn^o Stevens
Levin Woolford

Richard Wesley Mitchell’s house at Kilmaurie Farm.

In the above deed, John Mitchell Sen^r is giving a portion of his farm, Mitchell’s Garden, to his son, Richard Mitchell, and his grandson (the son of Richard), Levin Mitchell Sen^r. This farm—owned by Richard Mitchell—now bears the name Kilmaurie, and because it was originally part of the Mitchell’s Garden tract, sits directly adjacent to Mitchell’s Garden. It has a family burial ground on the property which contains not only Richard Mitchell (c.1740-1824), but his son, Levin Mitchell Sen^r (1768-1849), his grandson, Levin Mitchell Jun^r (1799-1846), and his great-grandson, Richard Wesley Mitchell (1827-1900)—the respective 5th-, 4th-, 3rd-, and 2nd-great grandfathers of yours truly—all of which corresponds with the entries in the Mitchell family bible.

The Mitchell Family Graveyard at Kilmaurie.

Since John Mitchell’s grave is located in the burial ground at Mitchell’s Garden, adjacent to Kilmaurie, and his mark in the 1801 land deed corresponds with the mark in the 1764 deposition, we may reasonably conclude the John Mitchells from the land records and the one buried at Mitchell’s Garden are the same person. But we can do even better than that!

“JN^ᴏ: TO HAVE Y^ᴇ FIRST CHOYCE…”

Following the chain of title backwards in time for Mitchell’s Garden, we find that before the land fell into Mitchell hands, it was originally called John’s Garden, and it was owned by a fellow named Richard Owen (sometimes listed as Richard Owing). Richard Owen purchased the property for 5,700 ℔ of Tobacco from James Williams on January 6^th 1673/4, and maintained it until his death in 1713. A look at Owen’s Last Will & Testament provides some VERY interesting clues:

In the Name of God amen I Rich^d. Owing of Dorchester Co:^ty being sick & weak but in perfitt sence & memory am minded to ~ settle my temporall affairs in a Christian Like manner first I bequeath my Soul to almighty God that I am aſsured of Pardon for my Sin’s don in this Life & this to be my Last will & Testamn^t: making voyd all other wills & Testam^t: here before made I appoint my Lo: wife Jane my whole & Sole Ex^tx: of this my last will & Testam^t: & of all & singular my Goods & Chattles & that my Grand=ſon Rich^d. Michall I joyne w^th: y^e afore Jane in y^e Execut^r-ſhip afs^d: the y^e s^d. Jane to have y^e sole authority dureing her naturall Life & to pay all my just debts out of my Estate I likewiſe give unto y^e afs^d. Rich^d. Michall all my two Tracts of Land y^e one called John’s Guarding y^e other called Owings adventure during his naturall Life & after his deceaſe to his two ſon’s Rich^d. & Jn^o: to be equally divided between them Jn^o: to have y^e first Choyce & after y^e deceaſe of y^e s^d. Jn^o: Michal & y^e s^d. Rich^d. I give y^e s^d. Land to y^e male heirs of their body’s ~ Lawfully begotten for evermore & for want of heirs then to y^e next & nearest of blood to y^e s^d. Rich^d. Owing I likewiſe ord^r. what is due from Jn^o: Brānock to me be left in his hands to be of Council for my wife Jane in her Capacity & likewiſe for my Grand=ſon Rich^d. Michal in his Capacity that I may be buried in Christian Like manner Sealed & delivered in the P^rsence of us this tenth day of Septemb^r: 1713 //

Rich^d: Owing {seal}

Tet.
Jn^o: Brannock
Jos: (his T marke) Thomas
Jn^o: Moriſon //

And on y^e back was Endorsed //

Decemb^r: y^e 3^d. 1713 //

Came before Jn^o: Brannock & Jos: Thomas two of y^e w^th: in Evidences & made oath on y^e holly Evangelist that they saw Rich^d: Owing ſingn ſeal publish & declare y^e w^th: in written will to be his last will & Testamt: & that he was at ye same time of a Perfect & sound mind & memory to y^e best of their knowledge Juratt Corum Mee Rog^r. Woolford Dep^ty. Com^ry. ~

Dorchester County // M^r: Rog^r. Woollford whereas my deceaſed husband Rich^d. Owing by his last will & Testam^t. made me y^e Ex^rx. of his ſaid will w^th: my Grandſon Rich^d. Michel but for as much I am very ancient & weake I pray that you would be pleaſed to grant L^rs. of Adm^racon unto him y^e s^d. Rich^d: wholly in his name for I have Riſigned my Right unto him as witneſs my hand & ſeal this ſeaventh day of Decemb^r. 1713 //

Jean Oen {seal}

Test Jn^o: Brannock

Wow! So John’s Garden (which was eventually resurveyed and renamed Mitchell’s Garden) was passed down to a ‘Richard Mitchell’ by his grandfather, Richard Owen! And the document further tells us that Richard Mitchell, grandson of Richard Owen, had two sons: one named ‘Richard’ and one named ‘John’.

The signature of Richard Mitchell the Elder, and the mark of Richard Mitchell the Younger.

By Richard Owens’s specification that John should have the first choice of lands, it would seem that John was the older of the two Mitchell brothers. And, sure enough, when our John Mitchell acquired John’s Garden on June 13^th 1744, he did so from a ‘Richard Mitchell’ and a ‘Richard Mitchell the Younger’—which we can presume was his father and his brother. A telling detail that would be easy to overlook on this land deed is the area where both Richard Mitchells (the elder & the younger) affixed their signatures and seals, confirming the validity of the transaction. Richard Mitchell signed the document in full, Rich^d Michell, while Richard Mitchell the Younger made his mark—a large capital R at that. So the elder Richard was lettered, while the younger Richard was not … just like John Mitchell! And, the younger Richard made his mark by writing the first letter of his given name … just like John Mitchell! Is anyone seeing a pattern here…? It seems that, not only were John Mitchell Sen^r and Richard Mitchell the Younger nearly identical in age, but they both had the exact same level of education, which further entrenches them as, not only close contemporaries, but brothers as well. Given the specifics laid out by Richard Owen in his Last Will & Testament, and the manner in which John’s Garden was transferred from one party to another, we may correctly conclude that Richard Mitchell the Younger, and John Mitchell Sen^r, are the same Mitchells mentioned in Owen’s will and, thus, his great-grandchildren!

By 1744, the year that John’s Garden transferred into the possession of John Mitchell Sen^r, both John and his brother were in their mid-thirties, likely well into raising families of their own. Their father was evidently still alive, but he was probably in his mid-fifties—not incredibly old for the time, but certainly not young either. Since Richard Owen deposed that he was “aged fifty six” in November of 1700, he was probably born in the year 1644, which would mean that any grandson of his, who would have been old enough to have had a child by the year 1710, (Richard Mitchell the Elder) was probably born sometime during the late 1680s or early 1690s—roughly around 1692, let’s say. This gets the Mitchells almost back to their supposed 1684 date of arrival. But I have my doubts as to whether or not they actually settled in Maryland in 1684, because the records would seem to suggest that they were actually here earlier than that.

There are two Mitchell brothers—Abraham & Mark—who lived in Dorchester County during this time frame. Abraham died in 1723, and Mark died in 1734, suggesting that they were likely both relatively old by that point. And there was a ‘Mark Mitchell’ from Dorchester County who was paid 300 ℔ of Tobacco by the Upper & Lower Houses of the Maryland General Assembly for military services rendered during the punitive expedition against the Nanticoke (a.k.a., the “Nanticoke Indian War”) of 1678. This, most likely, is the Mark who died in 1734. Assuming that he was at least 18 years of age during his military service (placing his birth year around 1660), he would have been around 74 years old at the time of his death—which would certainly explain the general shakiness of the ‘marke’ on his Last Will & Testament. In fact, neither Abe, nor Mark, were lettered, and both made their respective signs—an A and an M—on official documents. And Richard Mitchell the Elder (the lettered one) appears to have been closely associated with both! When Abraham’s Will went to probate, Richard appeared before the court and testified that he had actually written Abe’s will for him by hand, and then read it out loud to him before Abe agreed to its terms and wrote his giant, capital A next to the seal. And in Mark Mitchell’s Personal Inventory from 1734, “a (sic) old Gun & Augur” is listed among his property … might this be the very gun that he used during the 1678 expedition against the Nanticoke?! Further solidifying a relationship, the following signatures—Rich^d Michell, and the R mark of Richard Mitchell the Younger—are shown as “kindred” of the deceased. So, it seems clear that Richard Mitchell the Elder & Richard Mitchell the Younger were both close blood relations of Mark & Abraham Mitchell. What that blood relationship was, exactly, remains unclear. They may have been a son and grandson. In 1734, Richard the Elder would have been in his mid-forties, and Richard the Younger in his early-to-mid twenties; the younger Richard was certainly old enough to sign a legal document like the Inventory for his grandfather.

The working hypothesis is that Richard the Elder & Richard the Younger were direct descendants of Mark Mitchell. Mark seems like the most likely candidate based, in part, on an interpretation of the land records surrounding a tract of land called Paradice. This tract—which lay on the south side of Fishing Creek, off of the Little Choptank River in Dorchester County—was deeded from Thomas Vickers & Elizabeth his wife, of Dorchester County, to Abraham Mitchell of Dorchester County on March 15^th 1720. In Abraham Mitchell’s aforementioned Last Will & Testament, made just a little under two years later on January 24^th 1722, he left all of his land to Anne Vickers, the daughter of Thomas Vickers. Yet he did so with the following caveat: “if it please God the said Anne Vickers Dyd w^thout iſſue then the Land ſhall fall to Mark Mitchell and the heirs of his body Lawfully begotten.” Anne Vickers must have died without issue, because twelve years later on April 30^th 1734 when Mark Mitchell made his Last Will & Testament, he left a tract of land called Paradice to his four daughters—to them and their heirs forever. This means that at some point, the tract of land “fell” from Abraham Mitchell to his brother Mark Mitchell. None of Mark’s daughters are named in his Will, and there is no mention whatsoever of a possible son. But just because there is no mention of a son does not mean that a son did not exist. By the time that Mark Mitchell wrote his Last Will & Testament in 1734, Richard Mitchell the Elder would have already been adequately taken care of in terms of inheritance. Remember that Richard the Elder had been named in the Will of his grandfather, Richard Owen, 21 years before. So, perhaps, knowing that his father-in-law had made his son a legatee, Mark saw no need to add onto his son’s already fairly lucrative inheritance. Especially when Mark had four other children to provide for—his four daughters. Regardless, whether it was an outcome that Mark Mitchell had intended or not, after his death, somehow, Paradice mysteriously wound up in the possession of Richard Mitchell the Elder and his son, Richard Mitchell the Younger. Mark was dead by June 12^th 1734—the date that his Last Will & Testament was admitted to probate—and yet just over one year later, on June 14^th 1735, Richard the Elder & Richard the Younger, in tandem, deeded Paradice to Thomas Vickers. So, since it wound up in Richard’s hands after Mark’s death, going off of Abraham’s aforementioned caveat that the land should pass from Mark to the “heirs of his body Lawfully begotten,” we may reasonably conclude that Richard Mitchell the Elder was … one of the “heirs” that was “Lawfully begotten” from Mark Mitchell’s “body” … a.k.a. Mark Mitchell’s son!

Mitchell bloodline aside, it also seems clear that there was a very, very close relationship between the Mitchell and the Vickers families. The way that both intertwine just in terms of the chain of title for Paradice, is pretty ridiculous: the tract passed from Vickers, to Mitchell, to Vickers, to Mitchell … to Mitchell, and then back into Vickers hands! It would not be in the least bit surprising if one, or more of these Mitchells, was married to a Vickers bride.

They may all have been married to Vickers women.

And Elizabeth Vickers, the wife of Thomas?

She may have even been a Mitchell.

Footnotes:
1. The American & Commercial Daily Advertiser. 17 June 1816. p. 2, col. 5. [link]
2. The Republican Star or General Advertiser. 28 May 1816. p. 3, col. 3. [link]
3. The Daily National Intelligencer. 6 June 1816. p. 3, col. 4. [link]
4. The Washington City Weekly Gazette. 8 June 1816. p. 232, col. 3. [link]
5. The Columbian. 10 June 1816. p. 2, col. 5 -to- p. 3, col. 1. [link]
6. The Albany Daily Advertiser. 12 June 1816. p. 3, col. 1. [link]
7. The City Gazette and Commercial Daily Advertiser. 13 June 1816. p. 2, col. 3. [link]
8. The Commercial Advertiser. 13 June 1816. p. 2, col. 5. [link]
9. The Albany Advertiser. 15 June 1816. p. 1, col. 3. [link]
10. The New-York Spectator. 15 June 1816. p. 2, col. 5. [link]
11. The Independent Chronicle. 20 June 1816. p. 3, col. 2. [link]
12. The Columbian Centinel. 21 June 1816. p. 2, col. 4. [link]
13. The Newburyport Herald, and Commercial Gazette. 21 June 1816. p. 3, col. 3. [link]
14. The Salem Gazette. 21 June 1816. p. 3, col. 3. [link]
15. The American Watchman. 26 June 1816. p. 3, col. 3. [link]
16. The Recorder. 26 June 1816. p. 104, col. 4. [link]
17. The Hampshire Gazette & Publick Advertiser. 26 June 1816. p. 3, col. 3. [link]
18. The New-Jersey Journal. 2 July 1816. p. 3, col. 1. [link]
19. The Camden Gazette. 4 July 1816. p. 4, col. 2. [link]
20. Dorchester Co., L.R. Liber Old 19, folio 429-432. [link]
21. Dorchester Co., L.R. Liber H.D. 17, folio 231-235. [link]

Annapolis History, Baltimore History, War of 1812

St. John’s College: The Convergence of Walter Farnandis & Francis Scott Key

Well, folks, today’s entry was a rather spur-of-the-moment one. It all stems from a newspaper notice that was printed, on this day, 215 years ago—November 24^th1800.

When last we spoke, we used Walter Farnandis as a test subject for our 1815 Baltimore City map exercise. Today, let us return—however briefly—to Mr. Farnandis’s story.

As a veteran of the War of 1812, and one of Baltimore’s gallant ‘Old Defenders’ who came to the aid of the city during its darkest hour, Walter is already what we historians would refer to as a “person of interest”… But recently, a juicy new tidbit came to light, and it has ratcheted up his interest level—considerably so!

Walter Farnandis was born in Charles County, Maryland, on May 9^th 1782, the son of Capt. James Farnandis—one of the famous ‘Maryland 400’—and Ann Elizabeth Wallace Farnandis, his wife.^[1] On February 20^th 1790, James explicitly stated in his last will and testament: “its my will and deſire that my two ſons Samuel & Walter Fernandis [sic] get proper Education then to be bound out at Walter Stones discretion either to a trade or to any kind of buſineſs that the ſaid Walter Stone thinks proper.”^[2] After he died that spring, his young sons Samuel and Walter likely continued their schooling. But Walter Stone’s death in 1791 and his complete omission of the brothers Farnandis from his will almost assures that they were never bound out by him to any kind of trade or business, which leaves quite a gap in their respective life stories.^[3] And as if their omission in Walter Stone’s will weren’t already strange enough, they went completely unmentioned in the will of their stepmother, Chloe M^cPherson Farnandis, as well.^[4] By the time that Chloe’s will had been proved on May 2^nd 1796, 13-year-old Walter was essentially an orphan, and whatever happened to him between Stone’s death and his arrival in Baltimore City during the early 19^th century has long been a mystery. That is … until now!

Late one night, while combing through the far reaches of the internet on a research binge, I turned up the following nugget of information: Walter Farnandis, apparently, graduated from St. John’s College in Annapolis. Wow! It proves that, even if we don’t know how he was able to do it, he managed to extend his education all the way through to the collegiate level. An uncommon distinction for most 18^th-century Americans, much less an orphan! It places him in some rather exclusive company, probably due to the generosity of an unknown benefactor. St. John’s was—and still is—one of the best institutions of higher learning in the state.

According to a college register published in 1856 (coincidentally the year of Walter’s death), his classmates in the Class of 1799 included: Thomas Beale Dorsey, Thomas Rodgers, James S. Grant, Robert C. Stone, Dennis Claude, Philip W. Thomas, James Shaw, George Washington Parke Custis, Philip I. Thomas, Matthias Hammond, Beale M. Worthington, Kensey Harrison, and James Cheston.^[5]

Plus, aside from the relationships that he likely cultivated within his own class, his presence at St. John’s during the 1790s raises the possibility for all sorts of other fantastic connections. Since he later fought in the Battle of Baltimore during the War of 1812, perhaps nothing is more exciting than the possibility that he may have known, or at least crossed paths with, Francis Scott Key—a member of the Class of 1796.^[6] I need not detail Key’s historical significance here… I feel certain that readers of The Monumental City require no introduction to him and his exploits. But since 18^th-century American colleges were small, fairly exclusive, tight-knit communities, Key and Farnandis almost certainly knew one another… Or, at least, knew of one another.

As luck would have it, my question (as to whether or not the two crossed paths) was answered nearly as quickly as it was asked. From the aforementioned November 24^th 1800 edition of The Telegraphe and Daily Advertiſer:^[7]

ANNAPOLIS, November 20.

On Wedneſday the 12th inſtant, a commencement for conferring degrees in St. John’s college, was held in the college hall, before a very large and reſpectable audience, conſiſting of the honorable the legiſlature of the ſtate, and the gentlemen and ladies of the city. The vice principal opened the buſineſs of the day with a ſolemn prayer to the Supreme Being, after which the candidates proceeded with the public exerciſes in the following manner: 1. A latin ſalutatory oration, by Mr. Richard Brown, of Virginia. 2. An oration on the character of a good citizen, by Mr. C. Stone, of Maryland. 3. An oration on the modern philoſophy, by Mr. Walter Fernandes, of Maryland. 4. An oration on the advantages to be derived from the ſtudy of hiſtory, by Mr. James Boyle, of Maryland. 5. An oration on ridicule, as the teſt of truth, by Mr. John Sanders, of Maryland. 6. An oration on party ſpirit, by Mr. Philip Thomas, of Maryland. The degree of bachelor of arts was then conferred by the principal of Meſſrs. Richard Brown, Robert C. Stone, Walter Fernandes, James Boyle, John Sanders, Philip Thomas, and Thomas Rogers—Meſſrs. James S. Grant and Thomas Dorſey, who were prevented from attending the commencement with their claſs, were alſo admitted to the ſame degree. At the ſame time, Meſſrs. Charles Alexander, Thomas Chaſe, John B. Ducket, John C. Herbert, John J. Tſchudy, Richard Harwood, William Cooke, Robert H. Goldſborough, Francis Key, Daniel Murray, John Shaw and Carliſle Whiling, alumni of St. John’s college were admitted to the degree of maſter of arts. 7. Valedictory oration by Mr. Thomas Rogers, of Maryland. The principal then cloſed the buſineſs of the commencement with a ſhort addreſs to the graduates reſpecting their future conduct in life, and concluded by commending them to the care of the Almighty Governor of the Univerſe.

Amazing! It’s interesting that the college register says that he graduated in the Class of 1799, while the newspaper account of his commencement ceremony makes it rather clear that he was actually in the Class of 1800. And of course his name is spelled incorrectly in the paper… An all-too-typical error. Regardless, we now know for a fact that—at the very least—Francis Scott Key both saw and heard Walter Farnandis speak! And likely vice versa. Not only that, but Key received his A.M. from St. John’s on the same day when, and at the same ceremony where, Walter Farnandis received his A.B.!

Of additional interest is the fact that the college register lists Jesse Eichelberger as a member of the Class of 1800.^[8] Though not in the commencement article from November of that year, Eichelberger was most definitely a student at St. John’s College; his pertinence here being the fact that he served as a first lieutenant in the Baltimore Fencibles—the same unit in which Walter Farnandis served as a private during the Battle of Baltimore.^[9] Thus, Walter undoubtedly saw and took orders from his former St. John’s classmate at Fort M^cHenry during the bombardment on September 13^th & 14^th1814. Eichelberger’s post as the second in command in the Baltimore Fencibles may have even been the reason why Walter chose to join that particular unit—maybe he fancied the idea of serving in the same outfit with an old college buddy.

So, the $64,000 question, of course, is: did Walter Farnandis & Francis Scott Key ever talk about the Battle of Baltimore, after the fact? Perhaps at a St. John’s College reunion in Annapolis? Maybe Key even had dinner at Walter’s house, No. 48 Hanover street, years later, and regaled the Farnandis family with his recollection of watching the bombardment from his truce vessel among the Royal Navy’s fleet in the harbor… Followed, of course, by Walter giving his recollection of the same event, from the exact opposite point of view. These two actually saw the rockets’ red glare—the bombs bursting in air. How incredible it would have been to listen in on their hypothetical conversation!

Unless someone turns up a letter, journal, or diary entry which recounts an interaction like the one imagined above, it will have to remain a hypothetical situation for now.

But a huge part of being an historian is using one’s imagination in conjunction with the facts at hand. And in this particular case, the facts at hand spark the imagination quite a bit!

Footnotes:
1. For year of birth, see Walter’s tombstone in Green Mount Cemetery. The day & month are from family records. James Farnandis’s biography at the Maryland State Archives details his placement in the Maryland 400.
2. Charles County Will Book, 1788-1791, pp. 386-7. [link]
3. Charles County Will Book, 1791-1801, pp. 47-52. [link]
4. Charles County Will Book, 1791-1801, pp. 333-5. [link] Curiously, Chloe provides for her young stepdaughters, Amilla & Ann, but not her stepsons, Samuel & Walter.
5. Proud, John G., Jr., A.M., Register of St. John’s College, MDCCCLVI, Annapolis, St. John’s College [printed by Robert F. Bonsall], 1856, p. 4. [link]
6. Proud, op. cit., p. 3. [link]
7. The Telegraphe and Daily Advertiſer. 24 November 1800. p. 3, col. 1-2. [link]
8. Proud, op. cit., p. 4.
9. Saffell, Charles C. The Citizen Soldiers at North Point and Fort M^cHenry, September 12 & 13, 1814. Resolves of the Citizens in Town Meeting, Particulars Relating to the Battle, Official Correspondence and Honorable Discharge of the Troops. Also, Celebration of the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary, 1889. Reprint., Baltimore, Self Published, 1889, p. 12. [link]

Baltimore History, Reviews, War of 1812

Exploring Baltimore City in 1815: Finding Your Bearings

Anyone who knows me is well aware of the fact that I love to bridge the past with the present. And few things accomplish this better than the University of Maryland, Baltimore County’s BEARINGS map, which depicts Baltimore City as it might have appeared during the year 1815.

BEARINGS, of course, is an acronym: Bird’s Eye Annotated Representational Image / Navigable Gigapixel Scene. A bit of a mouthful, isn’t it? I remember hearing about this project sometime in late 2013 / early 2014, when I was working for the Baltimore City Archives. My boss mentioned it to me one morning and the two of us talked about what a neat idea it was. It reminded me of my time as an undergraduate at Washington College, working on the Chestertown 3D & Pluckemin projects in the school’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) laboratory, making digital, 3-D models of historic buildings for placement into Google Earth. At WAC, our program of choice was Google Sketchup. Admittedly, I don’t know much about UMBC’s Image Research Center, but it sounds like the UMBC equivalent of WAC’s GIS lab, and I’d be willing to bet that Sketchup is a familiar program to the folks who created the BEARINGS map, if not the exact program that they used.

Initially, BEARINGS was supposed to be a visual supplement to the Maryland Historical Society’s In Full Glory Reflected: Maryland during the War of 1812 exhibition. The first iteration of the map went live at MDHS in June of 2014. I stopped by not long afterward to give it a look. I was impressed with what I saw, and even more so when I was told that this would be an on-going project—that as improvements were made, the most current, up-to-date version of the map would be uploaded into the exhibit, effectively hitting the *refresh* button and giving museum patrons the most accurate view of 1815 Baltimore that modern scholarship could provide. It was billed as being an interactive map, and to some extent, it is. But not fully. One of its drawbacks is the fact that it’s frozen in a viewpoint looking southeast. While I can understand that it might be a bit of a data or memory hog were it fully navigable, if it’s permanently fixed and the viewer can never orient the map to look in the opposite (northwest) direction—or any other direction for that matter—what’s the point of going to the trouble to make the buildings 3-D? It defeats the purpose if the viewer can’t view every structure in 360º. Aside from the directional component, however, my initial impressions of the BEARINGS map were overwhelmingly positive.

Okay, now that I’ve supplied you with my base observation, let’s perform a few experiments. Don’t worry, nothing too rigorous… We’re just going to attempt to see how well the BEARINGS project stacks up to its potential. BEARINGS is nothing short of a mammoth undertaking, so, with that in mind, how much accuracy and detail can we really expect? We’ll divide our inquiry into three separate categories: 1) buildings that were around in 1815 that still exist today, 2) buildings that were around in 1815 that no longer exist, but were photographed before they were demolished, and 3) buildings that were around in 1815, that no longer exist, and are not known to have been documented by photography—or any other method of visual documentation—before they were destroyed. This ought to provide us with a reasonable rubric for determining the success of BEARINGS thus far. We could use stars in our rating system, but I would prefer to go with something a little more Baltimore themed: like, say, the Battle Monument. An appropriate choice for the Monumental City, don’t you think? Each category will be assigned a number of Battle Monuments on a scale from one to five, and at the end, we’ll tally them for a final score.

Category No. 1: I’ll start with an institution that I know quite well: Friends School of Baltimore. As an active member of the Alumni Board, I consider myself to be the ‘keeper of the flame’ when it comes to the school’s historical identity and I think that, if prompted, any member of the current administration at Friends would affirm this notion. Since it is Baltimore’s oldest school (it was founded in 1784), common sense suggests that we should be able to find it on a map of circa-1815 Baltimore. And sure enough, it’s there! Or, at least … sort of—the only extant part of the original campus.

The Aisquith Street Meeting House, circa 1815.

On January 29^th 1784, a group of Quakers congregated in the Aisquith Street Meeting House to discuss the founding of a school. Among those present were Elisha Tyson (1749-1824)—the famous abolitionist—and George Matthews (1729-1811), the nail factory owner who had built the Aisquith Street Meeting House in 1781. To provide a bit of a context: Matthews was born the year that Baltimore Town was founded. While he lived to be a relatively old man, at the age of 82, bear in mind that Baltimore Town did not even attain its status as a ‘City’ until 1797, when Matthews was 68. So he was already pushing 70 years old when Baltimore City was brand new! I think that he would probably be pleased to know that, as of my typing this in July of 2015, his Meeting House is still standing at the corner of Aisquith and Fayette streets—a conceptual realization to him, and a relic of the 18^thcentury to us. Though no longer in use as a house of worship, it is the city’s oldest religious structure, predating Old Otterbein Church (1785) by four years.

The Aisquith Street Meeting House as it looks today.

Now, when I say that the school is “sort of” shown on the BEARINGS map, what I really mean to say is that it’s partially there. For the first 16 years of its life as an academic institution, Friends held its classes in the meeting house—the structural centerpiece of the Quaker tract of land. But, around the year 1800, when it became clear that the Meeting House was no longer a suitable location for that purpose, a schoolhouse was built on the southeast corner of the property. For the next 30-some odd years, Friends School occupied that schoolhouse, which stood roughly near the intersection of present-day East Baltimore Street & Central Avenue. That is where the school would have been during the time that the BEARINGS map (circa 1815) is supposed to visually represent. Which means that this map shows the circa-1815 Friends School campus, but neglects to include the most important part—the actual schoolhouse! I’ll cut the BEARINGS team some slack on this, though. Since the structure was torn down long ago *, the Meeting House is the only part of that Friends School campus that still exists, and because most people are unaware that a separate schoolhouse ever stood on the southeast corner of the property, I can’t really fault the UMBC folks for neglecting to include something that they probably didn’t even know existed in the first place. Plus, the digital representation of the Meeting House is a spitting image of its current self. (Overall rating: 5 / 5 Battle Monuments)

* or maybe not? Another blog post forthcoming!

Category No. 2: This category was decidedly harder than the first. I wouldn’t even begin to know how many buildings existed in 1815 Baltimore that were photographed at some point during the 19^th or 20^th centuries, before they were demolished. Barring any huge disasters like the Baltimore Fires of 1873 and 1904, the fact that we even need this category is a shame! At least, that’s what we historic-preservationist types think… Granted, not every building that was standing in 1815 Baltimore was worthy of saving, but I can think of at least a dozen or so off the top of my head that deserved a longer lifespan than they got (and for each specific one that I can think of, there were probably at least five or ten more of equal cultural value). Anyway, while scouring the BEARINGS map, I came across a great example for this category—old St. Peter’s Episcopal Church, which stood on the east side of Sharp Street, roughly near the southeast corner of the present-day Baltimore Arena (or if you prefer its newest moniker, Royal Farms Arena, a.k.a. “The Chicken Box”).

St. Peter’s Episcopal Church, circa 1815.

Not only is the original building from St. Peter’s Episcopal Church gone, but the parish is too; it merged with Grace Church to form Grace & St. Peter’s Church in the mid-19^th century. The origins of St. Peter’s are sort of curious, really. It was founded by a small group of Baltimoreans in 1802. The organizational charter was drawn up by a Kentish—as in, Kent County, Maryland—lawyer, John Scott IV (the patriarch of the Baltimore branch of the Scott family), who had moved to town just three years before, in 1799. Evidently, he and a handful of others decided to break away from the more well-established St. Paul’s Episcopal Church. By that time, Old St. Paul’s was already—old, having been founded 110 years earlier in 1692 as one of the original 30 Anglican parishes in the Province of Maryland. Though I have not delved into the parish records of either church to see what might have initiated this particular schism, I’d be willing to bet that there’s an untold story in there somewhere…

Old St. Peter’s Episcopal Church, sometime during the 1800s. This is a great shot, but if the Henry Fite House was still standing when this was taken, I can’t help but think that the photographer should have turned around and pointed the camera in the opposite direction!

As we can see from this 19^th-century photograph of St. Peter’s, the BEARINGS group did a remarkable job of creating an accurate version of the building, based on the descriptive materials (i.e. photographs) that it had at its disposal. Well done. The truly astounding part about seeing St. Peter’s visualized on a 3-D map, however, is noticing just how close it was to the Henry Fite House, a.k.a. “Congress Hall,” where Continental Congress met from December 20^th 1776 through February 27^th 1777, when Baltimore Town was the Capital of the fledgling United States of America and the Fite House was its capitol. An all-too-unknown fact, if you ask me—and one that puts Baltimore in some rather exclusive company.

Here it is... The plaque that no one reads.

While, yes, this is a start—is this really the best that we can do as a city?

Only two places served as the nation’s capital during that pivotal year of 1776. Everyone knows about Philadelphia … but what about Baltimore?! Almost no one knows that our city (née town) shared the same honor. We, as a city, ought to make a bigger deal out of that, because aside from a small plaque which sits at the bottom of a ramp on the 1^st-level concourse of the Baltimore Arena (that barely anyone bothers to stop and read), I can’t think of another way in which that momentous fact is celebrated. We simply must figure out a way to make that common knowledge! It would boost the level of civic pride tenfold. (Overall rating: 5 / 5 Battle Monuments)

Category No. 3: This category was the toughest. Where does one even begin? It’s almost a case of “you’ll never know what, or how much, you don’t know…” Perhaps this is where we can flex our research muscles, though. Alright, first thing’s first—we need to look up an address. Or maybe two. Since this map is rooted in the War of 1812 era, I think a veteran of the Battle of Baltimore would suffice. Thus, I’ll choose my favorite: Walter Farnandis (1782-1856), who served as a private in the Baltimore Fencibles—a militia artillery company commanded by captain Joseph Hopper Nicholson (1770-1817). Walter was at Fort McHenry during the famous bombardment, and he was among the troops cheering on the ramparts as the genuine Star-Spangled Banner was raised at 9 A. M. on September 14^th 1814, as the dejected and defeated British Royal Navy sailed out of Baltimore’s Harbor, having failed in its primary objective to capture the fort and Baltimore City. While the 30’ x 42’ garrison flag made its way up the flagstaff, on a truce vessel anchored several miles out, a dashing Georgetown lawyer named Francis Scott Key witnessed the spectacle through his spyglass and, well—you know the rest. So, what was Walter Farnandis’s personal address in 1815…? Heck, while we’re at it, we might as well look up the address for Walter’s older brother, Samuel Farnandis (1779-1854), who also participated in the heroic defense of Baltimore. Thanks to James Lakin’s 1814-’15 City Directory—and despite his misspelling of their surname!—we now have an address for both:

Not surprising to see their names spelled incorrectly.

I know that spelling wasn’t standardized for most of recorded history. But, seriously… Can anyone spell the ‘FARNANDIS’ name correctly?

When studying early 19^th-century Baltimore, it is impossible to really understand both the town’s social and physical layout without consulting a city directory. In those days, city directories served as a de facto Yellow Pages or White Pages—sans telephone numbers, of course. Everyone had a city directory. Everyone needed a city directory. Since they were so ubiquitous, making them was a profitable venture! The compilers of these directories were known as ‘directors’, and being the City Director was a sought-after position among the enterprising bunch. While many of these 19^th-century directories are available online for research purposes, they don’t make much sense unless you actually know what you’re looking at. In the 1814-’15 edition, we see that A) Samuel Farnandis is listed at 113 Baltimore Street, and B) his brother Walter is at 129 ditto.

Great! But there’s one problem: these addresses don’t mean anything without the knowledge of what the layout of the city was like in 1814-’15, and because Baltimore has gone through at least two major street-numbering overhauls since then, sorting it all out is no easy task. The most recent overhaul took place during the autumn of 1886 (e.g. the residents who lived at 222 N. Calvert Street went to bed one night and woke up the next morning to find that their house’s address had changed to 912 N. Calvert Street), and if I recall correctly an earlier switch had taken place during the 1840s. But since we’re dealing with the beginning of the 19^th century, we need something that corresponds with the very first street-numbering system. Enter James Robinson’s 1804 Baltimore City Directory.

Robinson’s street descriptions are most helpful. His hard work needs to be rewarded somehow… Can we retroactively give him a Key to the City? Is there a precedent for that…? Hmm. There ought to be!

Robinson’s directory is truly the ‘Rosetta Stone’ for understanding the layout of early 19^th-century Baltimore. Unlike John Mullin, Cornelius William Stafford, James M‘Henry, William Fry, Charles Keenan, James Lakin, or Edward Matchett (who all organized their directories in alphabetical order), Robinson decided to organize his in geographical order, giving a name index at the front with corresponding page and line numbers, methodically tackling the city’s grid one street at a time. If he had not gone to the trouble to go “against the grain” and present his directory in this fashion, we would be at a total and complete loss for ever knowing how to interpret the other city directories that came before or after that point. And even though it’s nothing more than a list of names and addresses, Robinson’s directory actually makes for a fascinating read, as you can literally follow along as he’s walking the street, noting the inconsistencies and irregularities of a city in transition.

As we can see from the order, Samuel Farnandis’s dry goods store would have been two doorways east of South Calvert-Street and Walter’s would have been one doorway west of Public-Alley. Boom!

In many ways, the Baltimore City of 1804 was very much still the 18^th-century Baltimore ~~Town~~, with the word ‘City’ crudely scribbled over top of that second word. And 1815 Baltimore wasn’t much different, either. Robinson’s 1804 directory notes the rather nebulous nature of the then-current street-numbering system. The word “system” here is used very loosely. Many addresses had a ½ on the end to denote a building that had been erected between two others with already-established street numbers. And some had no street numbers at all! The word ‘next’ denotes structures that fall into this category. It’s pretty straightforward, really. This is a perfect snapshot of a rather imperfect Baltimore City as it existed in 1804, through Joseph Robinson’s eyes. In order to translate this snapshot into the present—or, in this case, 1815—modern scholars can use his street descriptions in conjunction with the fold-out Baltimore City Map that was attached inside the front cover of his directory.

The Farnandis Bros. dry goods establishments on Market Street, circa 1815.

The Farnandis Bros. dry goods establishments on Baltimore (née Market) Street, circa 1815. A) Samuel Farnandis’s store at 113 Baltimore Street, and B) Walter Farnandis’s store at 129 ditto.

So, with our Rosetta Stone in hand, we can see that the brothers Farnandis lived on the south side of Baltimore Street in 1814-’15—Samuel two doorways east of South Calvert-Street and Walter one doorway west of Public-Alley. And, voilà! Both buildings are present on the BEARINGS map! Sensational. Now, do we really know that this what these buildings looked like in 1815? Probably not. (And if the answer to that question is yes, then I would love to see what sources were used to make that determination.) Regardless of whether or not this is actually how these buildings would have looked in 1815, the important part is being able to visualize how they might have looked, and this map certainly accomplishes that goal through and through. Fantastic work, UMBC. My only deduction here is for the simple fact that the 1804 City Directory shows that seven structures stood on the south side of Baltimore Street, between South Calvert Street and Public Alley. The BEARINGS map only shows three. Had those other four buildings been torn down by 1815? According to Lakin’s 1814-’15 City Directory, the answer is no. They were all still standing—some even with the same inhabitants, ten years later. (Overall rating: 4.5 / 5 Battle Monuments)

The Final Tally: While it’s great that this map includes various contemporary landmarks at the bottom of the page that, when clicked on, will fly the viewer to those specific points on the map (and give the viewer a short written description for each one), I think the overall product is greatly limited by the fact that the viewer can’t manipulate the map to show a different orientation. So, in terms of the interactive nature of the user interface, I think it’s probably a 3 / 5 Battle Monument rating. Which gives us the following: (Total rating: 17.5 / 20 Battle Monuments)

Multiplied out to a 100-point scale, that gives the BEARINGS project thus far a rating of 87.5 / 100—a B+ for everyone who’s keeping score at home. That seems like a fair grade. With a little bit of tweaking, it could easily move up into the A- range—or higher!

The ambition of this project is magnificent, and it is by far one of the best educational tools that I have ever seen. My hope is that it will continue to inspire other history buffs as much as it has inspired me.

Even if you’re not sure whether or not you like history, or for one reason or another are confident that you don’t, I encourage you to give it a go—play around with this map for a little while.

Who knows…

In the process of finding your bearings in 1815 Baltimore, you might just find out that this whole history thing is pretty cool after all.

Baltimore History, The Civil War

The Scott Family of Baltimore City: Zeligs of the Civil War

I can remember sitting in George Benson’s fifth-grade classroom at the Friends School of Baltimore, learning about the Civil War. No one could weave a story the way Mr. Benson could, and one of his favorite stories was that of Wilmer McLean—a rather unlucky fellow, whose life was forever altered by the events of that conflict.

“The war started in his front yard and ended in his front parlor,” Mr. Benson told us. And, in a sense it did.

It’s a famous phrase among Civil War enthusiasts—supposedly uttered first by McLean, himself. But is it true…? Did the war really start in his front yard and end in his front parlor?

To answer in short: no.

Or, at least, not exactly…

McLean is a great talking point in classroom discussion because his story proves that even the most ordinary of people can have a large impact on history. But to reinforce the veracity of McLean’s famous claim is to ignore an awful lot of other historical events; to suggest that they didn’t really matter. A foolish mistake that would be!

So, if McLean and his family didn’t really witness the beginning or the end of the war and the Confederacy, then whose did? Well, perhaps no such family—not even Wilmer McLean’s—bookended the American Civil War better than the Scotts of Baltimore City.

The Scotts were an unusually ubiquitous bunch: there was a Scott involved in the very beginning, the middle, and the end of the war. All three of these individuals—a father and his two sons—witnessed extraordinary events, and lived to tell the tale. (Sometimes, even cheating death a time or two along the way.)

This is their story…

A Spark in Harper’s Ferry

During the 1850s, as the country was suffering through the aches and pains of antebellum political discourse—or lack thereof—Thomas Parkin Scott’s eldest son, Henry Chatard (pronounced shuh-TARD) was in the process of studying to become a doctor. A member of one of Baltimore’s staunchest Catholic families, he had attended both St. Mary’s College in Baltimore City and Mount St. Mary’s University in the far-off mountains of Emmitsburg. But, opting not to enter the family law practice, he chose the other profession that seemed to come naturally to the Scotts: medicine.

His paternal great-grandfather, Dr. John Scott, had graduated from the University of Edinburgh in 1747, and served as a surgeon in the Continental Army’s hospital at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, during the Revolutionary War. Family lore even has it that Dr. John inoculated 500 soldiers against small pox as the army was passing through Chestertown, and it is possible that he did. The story contends that his patriotism was so vigorous that he would “take no fee for his services” … though perhaps this is a convenient way of skirting the fact that not a single scrap of documentary evidence exists.

Whatever the case, H.C. flourished under the tutelage of Nathan Ryno Smith at the University of Maryland, and upon graduation in 1855, began a private practice in his hometown. Like his great-grandfather, he even became the surgeon in a local militia unit called the Baltimore City Guard. A rakish young man, one can only presume that Henry Chatard Scott cut quite a dashing figure in uniform.

Dr. Henry Chatard Scott (courtesy of Margaret Scott)

Dr. Henry Chatard Scott, circa 1850s (Courtesy of Margaret Scott)

Throughout the decade, political tensions across the country escalated: the Fugitive Slave Act, the Compromise of 1850, Bleeding Kansas, the caning of Charles Sumner on the Senate floor, the Dred Scott decision. Each of these events pushed the country toward an inevitable breaking point. Heading into 1860 and the upcoming presidential election, the atmosphere was so unstable that it seemed as if a single spark could ignite the nation in warfare.

In Harpers Ferry, (not-yet-West) Virginia—then spelled with an apostrophe, Harper’s Ferry—an abolitionist named John Brown, who had been a rabid anti-slavery “Jayhawker” during Bleeding Kansas, organized a small group of white allies and free blacks. His plan was to raid the federal armory in town and start a national uprising. On Sunday, October 16^th 1859, after months of waiting, Brown and his band of raiders made their move. President Buchanan sent a detachment of US Marines, soldiers, and local militia companies from Maryland and Virginia in to stifle Brown and his plans. This detachment, commanded by Brevet Colonel Robert E. Lee of the 2^nd US Cavalry, included Dr. Henry Chatard Scott’s outfit, the Baltimore City Guard. The casualties from the raid included one killed Marine, one wounded, six killed civilians, nine wounded, 10 killed abolitionist insurgents, seven captured, and five escaped. Perhaps the most important of all, however, was John Brown himself. Badly wounded, it was Scott—the 31-year-old surgeon of the Baltimore City Guard—who was called on to dress the raider’s wounds before his execution.

After being tried and convicted, Brown was hanged on Friday, December 2^nd 1859, in nearby Charles Town. Though the raid might not have gone as planned, John Brown became a martyr for the northern abolitionist movement in the ensuing months, and his death did much to hasten the onslaught of war.

First Blood

Lincoln’s victory in the 1860 presidential election turned the country on its side, and by April of ’61, all Hell had broken loose. P. G. T. Beauregard’s rebel troops bombarded Robert Anderson’s federals in Fort Sumter on the 12^th, and while the fort was surrendered without any casualties, it had become clear that it would only be a matter of time before the first blood was drawn.

On the morning of the 18^th, a Baltimore town meeting was called to order in Taylor’s Hall on Fayette Street to discuss secession. By that point, seven states had already left the Union, and with Virginia voting to secede the day before (pending a May 23^rd referendum), that number would soon rise to eight. If Maryland were to follow, that would leave Washington City surrounded and would have effectively marked the end of the war right then and there. Keeping Maryland in the fold was a crucial step in what had already become an uphill battle to save the country.

Presiding over the meeting in Taylor’s Hall, Thomas Parkin Scott—just one day shy of his 57^th birthday—tried to keep things from getting out of hand. According to an account in George William Brown’s Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April 1861—A Study of the Civil War (pages 38-39), a series of speakers, including William Byrne, stood up before the packed room and made speeches that were denunciatory toward the Administration and the North, exciting the crowd into a frenzy. Wilson C. N. Carr, who had stumbled into the meeting by chance, entered the room as T. Parkin Scott was trying to calm the crowd, urging them to “do nothing rashly” and “not to interfere with any troops that might attempt to pass through the city.”

Thomas Parkin Scott, circa 1860s. Taken at the Bendann Bros. Studio at No. 207 West Baltimore Street. (Photo courtesy of Margaret Scott.)

Thomas Parkin Scott, circa 1860s, at the Bendann Bros. Studio at No. 207 West Baltimore Street. (Courtesy of Margaret Scott)

This mentality was nothing new to Scott. Five months earlier, in December of 1860, he had anonymously authored The Crisis, a pamphlet in which he recommended that Maryland citizens “be calm and forgiving,” yet “firm” as well. “Act not rashly,” Scott said, “[i]f our Northern brethren will now do us justice, forgive and forget the past; but yield no more.” His viewpoint was not the one of the majority, however—at least not at Taylor’s Hall. Describing the scene later in life, Carr said:

I went up, but had no intention of saying anything in opposition to what Mr. Scott had advised the people to do. I was not there as an advocate of secession, but was anxious to see some way opened for reconciliation between the North and the South. I did not make an excited speech nor did I denounce the Administration. I saw that I was disappointing the crowd. Some expressed their disapprobation pretty plainly and I cut my speech short. As soon as I finished speaking the meeting adjourned. (Brown 39)

Try as Scott and Carr did to prevent the masses from attacking federal troops as they passed through the city, the next morning, their advice went unheeded. Since Baltimore was the nation’s first railroad hub, there was no line that went all the way through the city. Rather, lines started in Baltimore and branched outward, to their respective destinations. This meant that anyone who traveled north or south through the Baltimore had to either walk, or take another form of transport, from one train station to the other, in order to continue their journey: a dangerous task for federal troops navigating their way through a Confederate-sympathizing hotbed.

On the 19^th of April, as the 6^th Massachusetts Infantry was marching down Pratt Street, from the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad’s President Street Station to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad’s Camden Station, a full-on riot broke out (with Thomas Parkin Scott’s son, Henry Chatard caught in the thick of it). Broken store windows and damaged property was just the beginning. By the end of the day, four soldiers and twelve civilians had been killed. The day after the riot, on the 20^th, the same mob attacked a German-language newspaper office, destroying the building, threatening the lives of its editor and publisher and compelling them both to leave town for fear of personal safety. This mob-mentality turned Baltimore into a war zone, and the city’s administration was eager to diffuse the situation. In an effort to bring peace, Mayor Brown had railroad bridges north of the city limits burned in order to keep federal troops from inundating the town and exciting the population even more; a plan which quickly backfired. It caused the federal government to take control: more troops were sent in, and the area was put under martial law.

Imprisoned Without Cause

By May 25^th, President Lincoln had suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, and less than four months later, after a group of Maryland State Delegates had convened in Frederick to discuss the escalating nature of current events, on September 13^th, Thomas Parkin Scott, Mayor George William Brown, Frank Key Howard, Severn Teackle Wallis, and several others were arrested without cause and detained by Union troops in Fort McHenry.

What a strange turn of events this must have been for Scott. During the Battle of Baltimore, as a ten-year-old boy in 1814, he undoubtedly witnessed the British Royal Navy’s bombardment of Fort McHenry from the rooftop, or upstairs window, of the Scott residence on St. Paul Street. Now, exactly 47 years to-the-day later, he—with Francis Scott Key’s grandson, no less!—was being detained without cause or trial, by his own Government, inside the same fort that had previously defended his American Liberty under the real Star-Spangled Banner… The irony was not lost on anyone.

Autograph Book of Prisoners at Fort Warren, 1862. (Courtesy of Hal Scott)

Autograph Book of Prisoners at Fort Warren, 1862. “T. Parkin Scott / of Baltimore City / Late Member of the House / Delegates of Maryland / arrested 13 Sep 1861” (Courtesy of Hal Scott)

Scott was imprisoned for fourteen months in total. The morning after his arrest and detainment in Fort McHenry, on September 14^th, he was transferred to Fortress Monroe by the order of General Dix. From there, he was then moved up to New York and Boston, where he served time in Forts Lafayette and Warren. These were nasty places to begin with, and even worse for those who were deemed “enemies” of the State.

After what must have seemed like a lifetime had passed, finally, on Thursday, Thanksgiving Day, November 27^th 1862, Scott, Brown, Howard, and Wallis, were all unconditionally released. While technically they were free—in a country that could imprison them at any moment on a whim, without rhyme or reason—how much freedom did they really have? Released to the public, weak and ill from poor treatment in four consecutive military prisons, 400 miles from home, it must have been difficult for Thomas Parkin Scott to be thankful for much of anything on Thanksgiving Day, 1862.

Sentenced to Hang

Thomas Parkin Scott’s youngest son, 25-year-old John White Scott, was reading law in the family practice at the outbreak of the war. With the Jacksonian-Democrat political leanings of his father and the energetic zeal of a youthful adventurer, on May 11^th 1861, J.W. found himself in a milk wagon headed for the B & O Railway depot. Once there, he caught a Richmond-bound train and headed for rebel territory. On May 24^th, in the Virginia capital, he and a number of other Marylanders formed Company B of the 21^st Virginia Regiment, captained by J. Lyle Clarke of the Baltimore Greys.

Though John White was eager to fight, his time with Lyle’s Company was short. During the fall of ’61, after his father’s arrest in Baltimore, he and Carroll Jenkins both came down with a bad case of camp fever and were sent to Bath Alum Springs to convalesce under Dr. Crump. It was thought that Scott would die and Jenkins would survive, but the opposite happened. On January 3^rd 1862, Scott was given an honorable, medical discharge.

Without the ability to serve in the field, John White spent much of 1862 performing desk duty as the Secretary to the Commander of the CSS Arkansas. By August, he was working in the Medical Department in Richmond (likely, in close proximity with his brother, H.C.), and after several months of hard work, he and two others—Pierre Chatard Dugan, and Simon Ignatius Kemp—secured a three-week furlough from Dr. Johns, Medical Purveyor at Richmond, with the privilege of going across enemy lines. Scott, Dugan, and Kemp made it as far as Northumberland County, and were waiting to cross the Coan River when they were apprehended and arrested as spies by a raiding party of Michigan Cavalry.

According to the May 24^th 1913 edition of the Baltimore News, John White Scott said in his diary:

The most thrilling episode of my career down South was when I was sentenced to be hung . . . . [three of us] were arrested March 5^th, [1863], taken . . . . before Gen’l Hooker, and tried (without counsel) before Gen’l Daniel E. Sickles, pres. of Court Martial . . . . When asked if we had anything to say, I replied — ‘When I left home I was a student of law, but had only read a few pages . . . . of Blackstone, and am therefore unable to try my own case, and counsel has been denied us, but I think that the evidence for the prosecution is good enough defense for anyone.’ The Gen’l was furious and ordered us away. We were confined for awhile in the Old Capitol Prison in Washington, then transferred to the Carroll House Prison, where we were told by a Yankee soldier that we had been sentenced to be hanged.

Sgt. John White Scott, C. S. A., circa 1861.

As luck would have it, when the case crossed Abraham Lincoln’s desk, the president realized that the men had been apprehended in Northumberland County, Virginia—which was Confederate territory—and could not rightfully be tried as spies. With this, he commuted their sentence to prison during the war, signing his initials ‘A.L.’ on the folder. Jefferson Davis, who was still under the impression that the three were waiting to hang, took three Union officers and held them as hostages, threatening to deal them the same fate. In May of ’63, crisis was averted and the prisoners were exchanged.

The Flight of Jefferson Davis

J.W. might have viewed his brush with death as the most “thrilling” event of his southern career, but the most important event, without question, was still to come. After his close call in ’63, Scott was asked to join Isaac Trimble’s staff in Maryland, and immediately made his way northward. Following a several-day delay in Winchester, he broke across enemy lines—only to find out that the Battle of Gettysburg had been fought and that the whole army was in retreat. J.W. spent a month volunteering in the 1^st Virginia Cavalry, before heading back to the Hospital Department in Richmond. Later that fall, he was transferred to the Field Transportation Department in Wadesboro, North Carolina, and remained there until war’s end.

Picket Pass of John White Scott, issued by Jefferson Davis’s Private Secretary, Burton Norvell Harrison. “Presidents Office / Charlotte, N.C. April 20th 1865 / Mr John W. Scott belongs to the Presidents / personal escort — / All Guards + picketts (sic) will pass him / without question — / By Order of the President. / Burton N. Harrison / Private Secretary”

By the spring of ’65, all hope for the Confederacy had been lost. After the Fall of Richmond and the evacuation of the Confederate government on April 2^nd, just one week later, on April 9^th, Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse (enter Mr. Benson and his favorite character—Wilmer McLean). Following a brief stay in Danville, Virginia, Jefferson Davis, along with the Confederate Baggage and Treasure Train, headed southward to North Carolina.

A temporary stop in Greensboro was interrupted on April 14^th, as Davis, his cabinet, and his personal escort, were forced to leave town, and move to Charlotte. With them, they carried the Confederate Archive, their personal baggage, as well as $35,000 in gold from the Confederate Treasury (approximately $534,000 in today’s money). It was here that John White Scott, issued with a picket pass from Jefferson Davis’s private secretary, convened with four other Marylanders, from the Eastern Shore—Capt. Fred Emory, William Sidney Winder, William Elveno Dickinson, and Tench Francis Tilghman—and continued on with the baggage train.

As they left Charlotte on April 26^th, the party consisted of five wagons and a cavalry escort. According to Tilghman’s diary, Capt. Emory, who had been placed in charge of the five wagons, was “drunk continually,” and was soon relieved of his duties and replaced by Capt. Watson Van Benthuysen. With each passing day, as the Confederate cavalcade continued southward, the gold in its coffers dwindled. Eventually, the number of people started to dwindle as well. By early May, the baggage train had diminished to one wagon and one ambulance. On the 6^th, near Sandersville, Georgia, Jefferson Davis abandoned the group, with a cabinet member and two aids. Captain Micajah Henry Clark, acting Treasurer of the Confederacy, Van Benthuysen, Tilghman, Dickinson, Winder, and Scott—along with Van Benthuysen’s two brothers—were all that remained. Their plan was to continue to Florida, where they would rejoin Davis near Madison or Tallahassee. This plan was squashed when Davis’s faction was captured.

The Cavalcade’s treasure had started at $35,000 at the outset of the journey, but once $10,000 had been spent, Captain Clark made the decision to pay his associates a fair salvage from the gold. Van Benthuysen laid aside one quarter of the fund—roughly $6,790 (approximately $104,000 today)—for the benefit of Mrs. Davis and her children. Additionally, $1,940 in gold sovereigns (approximately $30,000 today), was distributed to the Van Benthuysen brothers, Clark, Dickinson, Emory, Tilghman, Winder, and Scott each, with another $55 (approximately $840 today) to cover traveling and miscellaneous expenses. With the treasure divided, and Davis captured, the group went its separate ways. Dickinson, Tilghman, Winder, and Scott surrendered to federal troops in Jacksonville, Florida on May 23^rd. After initially refusing the Oath of Allegiance, they later took it at Hilton Head, South Carolina, and were then allowed to go anywhere in the country. Tilghman, who was the last caretaker of the Confederate Archive, supposedly buried it—along with part of the treasure—in an undisclosed location, deep in a forest, somewhere in Florida or Georgia. Since he died two years later, in 1867, without revealing the true whereabouts of either, both are likely lost to history—just like the Confederacy itself.

Postscript

After his time as a POW, physically unable to take up arms for the southern cause, T. Parkin Scott went back to his law practice in Baltimore. Henry Chatard took his medical talents to Richmond and served much of the war in the Confederate Hospital Department at Jackson Hospital. And as for John White, well—you know the story.

These men lived in a complicated time and place. Looking back on their careers, it can be a tricky task to truly decipher their nuanced political stances. Thomas Parkin Scott stood for states’ rights; he was an advocate for the poor, frequently offering legal counsel to those who could not afford to pay him for his services. Yet, as noble as he was in his regard for the economically disadvantaged, he was clearly not an advocate for all men… As he wrote in his pamphlet, The Crisis, “perfect, social or political equality amongst all men has never existed, and never can exist.” He continued, saying “[w]e cannot recognize the social or political equality of the negro with the white man ; the Creator has made the distinction which now exists ; they are an inferior species, and their protection, as well as our own, requires that we should hold them in subjugation.” Well, then.

His views on racial equality—or, rather, inequality—look pretty damning to 21^st-century readers. But a closer inspection of T. Parkin Scott suggests that he, as a person, might not be so easily defined… As Mayor Brown noted on page 39 of his previously-mentioned book, Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April, etc., Scott “was a strong sympathizer with the South, and had the courage of his convictions, but he had been also an opponent of slavery, and I have it from his own lips that years before the war, on [the] Fourth of July, he had persuaded his mother to liberate all her slaves, although she depended largely on their services for her support.”

How are we to reconcile this with his statement in The Crisis, a pamphlet in which he argues for the “subjugation” of blacks?

Perhaps Thomas Parkin Scott maintained that blacks were an “inferior” people, while simultaneously being opposed to their physical enslavement. When he argued for their subjugation, was he arguing for legal subjugation, as opposed to physical subjugation? A complex distinction, that. And, yet, it’s an important distinction to make. Even abolitionists, who were opposed to slavery—not all of them maintained that blacks and whites were equal across the board.

All of these men were flawed. This whole country was flawed.

And that’s not to say that 19^th-century America was unique in this way. This inherently flawed way of thinking permeated American politics well into the 20^th century, until the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

In fact, perhaps the “subjugation” conversation is relevant even today, as countless modern-day Americans are being oppressed due to their sexual orientation.

All these years later, and we’re still fighting a civil war…

Baltimore History

The Sestercentennial of Baltimore’s First Printing Press

“The what-centennial?” you’re probably asking. Well, if nothing more, allow this as an opportunity to learn a great vocabulary word. The Latin expression for two-and-a-half is equivalent to ‘half-three’ in English, which comes from being halfway between the second and third integer. Half-three in Latin is ‘sestertius’, a contraction of ‘semis’ (halfway) and ‘tertius’ (third). Thus, a sestercentennial is a 250^th anniversary. Marvelous!

Alright, now that we’ve dusted off that much-neglected vocab. word, let us turn next to the story of an ancient, long-forgotten citizen of Baltimore Town: Nicholas Hasselbach.

Evergreen House: built in 1858 for Stephen Broadbent, and notably the home of John Work Garrett II, who assembled an extraordinary collection of rare books some 30,000 strong.

Evergreen House: built in 1858 for Stephen Broadbent, and acquired by the Garrett Family in 1878. The library houses the JHU rare-book collection.

Nestled deep within the rare-book collection at Johns Hopkins University’s Evergreen Library, there is a section that is dedicated to Maryland-related titles. “Marylandia,” they call it, and it’s chock full of historical goodies. One of the most unassuming titles of all, however, resides on the spine of a small, red, leather-bound specimen. It reads “CONDUCT OF ANNAN AND HENDERSON,” and at first glance, it appears to lack any historical significance.

The prize of the collection.

But, much like Indiana Jones found out while searching for the holy grail in The Last Crusade—the simple, unassuming artifacts are the ones that tend to hold the deepest secrets.

A closer inspection reveals that the red leather binding is actually a case, almost like a glove. Remove the top, and out slides an even smaller, soft-cover, octavo pamphlet. The title page is missing a few pieces here and there, but the words are still decipherable: “A | DETECTION | OF THE | CONDUCT and Proceedings of | Meſſrs. Annan and Henderſon, Mem- | bers of the Aſſociate Preſbytary’s | whole Sitting at Oxford Meeting- | Houſe April the 18th. Anno Domini | 1764. Together with their Abet- | tors ; wherein is contained ſome | Remarks.” by John Redick-Le-Man.

Geez. Quite a title, huh? And a specific one at that!

What Makes This Little Book So Special?

Nicholas Hasselbach was the very first printer in Baltimore Town, and this is believed to be his first publication. A curious choice, perhaps, but no one has ever found a Hasselbach imprint that predates it. At least, not of his work in this province…

Baltimore in 1752, as remembered by John Moale, Jr.

In the mid 18^th century, Baltimore was but a small, ramshackle settlement on the red-clay banks of the Patapsco River. In 1749—the same year that Hasselbach, a German immigrant, traveled aboard the ship Elliot from Rotterdam to Philadelphia—a visitor described Baltimore Town in a letter as nothing more than “nine miserable log cabins.” The population grew, of course, and more buildings were added, but on the whole, we can presume that not too much had changed by the time that Hasselbach showed up with his printing press, sixteen years later.

Hasselbach, you see, had spent a decade-and-a-half honing his skills in Philadelphia. He started in Koch’s paper mill on the Wissahickon, and after learning the art of printing from Christoph Souer in Germantown, established his own press with Anthony Ambruster—a protégé of Ben Franklin—in Chestnut Hill, just north of Philly.

Sometime around 1764 or ’65, for reasons that are unknown, he decided to go south to Maryland. Perhaps he had heard that Baltimore Town needed a printer and saw himself fit for the job. Whatever the case, Hasselbach made the move with fonts in hand, ready to leave a lasting mark.

Though the first public mention of Hasselbach was not until July 6^th 1765, when he purchased Lot No. 71—the approximate location of 414 East Baltimore Street—from Thomas Harrison (see Liber B., No. O., Folios 343 through 347), the deed hints that he had been in town for awhile: “THIS INDENTURE made . . . BETWEEN Thomas Harrison of Baltimore County in the Province of Maryland Merchant of the one part and Nicholas Haßelback (sic) of the same County and Province Printer of the other part.” If buying this property was Hasselbach’s first act in town, it probably would have, instead, noted that he was “of Philadelphia County in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” Alas, the clerk at the county courthouse thought it sufficient enough to deem Hasselbach a local—and so he was.

Aside from a few tidbits here and there, Hasselbach remains an elusive character. His exact point of origin is uncertain. He may or may not have been the ‘Johannes Nicolaus Wilhelmus Haselbach’ who was born in Raubach, Prussia, on December 15^th 1728 (and christened four days later). Yet, even in places where his existence is certain, barely any trace remains of the life that he once lived. Here, in Maryland, out of the three property deeds that were executed during his lifetime, only one bears a genuine signature: the first one, as mentioned above.

It looks as though this was an attempt by the clerk to copy Hasselbach’s signature, which was written in the archaic German script known as “Kurrentschrift.”

Admittedly, his handwriting leaves a lot to be desired. Yet, in fairness, he did not make his money as a scribe, or someone who had to physically write the words that he was printing. Hasselbach just needed to arrange the letters in the correct order—to mind his p’s and his q’s, if you will. And, considering that he was an 18^th-century printer, during the era when the long ‘s’ reigned supreme, his ſ’s and his f’s as well! No small feat, that. No siree.

Sadly, Hasselbach’s time in Baltimore was short. Around 1770, he went to Europe to attend to some business matters, and was lost at sea, leaving a wife and three children back home. His last public record in Baltimore was a land transaction, on October 26^th 1769. After that date, he vanished…

His widow and executrix, Catherine Hasselbach (née Steiz), settled his estate soon thereafter. A personal inventory was taken in January of 1772 (see Baltimore County Inventories, vol. 11, pp., 86 through 89), and his debts were paid off by July of 1775 (in the same volume, p. 294).

The inventory is probably our best insight into his life. Its total worth was appraised at a little more than £1,675 sterling, which would be close to $355,000 today. The items themselves are worth a read through in their own right: the most intriguing are his 21 violins. Was he a virtuoso? After hours, might Baltimoreans on a casual, late-evening stroll have heard the works of Bach or Vivaldi streaming out the windows of his print shop…? A tantalizing thought. And his 12 pictures—whom, or what did they depict? Perhaps there is a portrait of Nicholas Hasselbach, floating around somewhere. We can dream of such things…

George W. McCreary’s Reprint

Until recently, the closest that I had ever gotten to seeing the original was George Washington McCreary’s publication, The First Book Printed in Baltimore-Town: Nicholas Hasselbach, Printer. McCreary was the Assistant Secretary and Librarian at the Maryland Historical Society when, during the summer of 1902, he received a package in the mail of untold value. Inside it, among other 18^th-century pamphlets, he found “A Detection…”, which, thenceforth, was the only extant example of Hasselbach’s work. McCreary gave the book to Robert Garrett who, evidently, gave it to his brother John—the proprietor of Evergreen House. It has been there ever since.

This is McCreary No. 220, owned by Towson University’s Special Collections.

As one of my all-time favorite writers, James Hall Bready, noted on page D4 of the February 9^th 1975 edition of The Baltimore Sun, McCreary did two things to preserve Hasselbach’s book: the first, as previously mentioned, was giving it to the Garretts, who had an enormous rare-book collection and the means to maintain it. The second was publishing the reprint (pictured above), in 1903, complete with a sketch of Hasselbach’s life. Since it was a limited run of 300, copies are almost impossible to find. Bready, who owned a McCreary that he had initially purchased for $10 (presumably in the 1950s or ’60s), would have laughed off a $25 offer for it in 1975. For the record, that would be around $110 in today’s money—an offer that I would laugh off for my copy, too.

Examining The Artifact

I ventured up to Evergreen House to see the book for myself. For its age, its condition is a lot better than I would have expected. Granted, the title page is imperfect, and it has no cover—but that makes its survival all the more impressive. Bready notes that a town with less than 5,000 inhabitants probably had no bindery, which makes sense.

After more than two centuries of wear and tear, the book has finally been conserved. Now, it has a wonderful, marble, soft-cover binding, along with a protective case. Additionally, the holes in its pages have been infilled with Japanese paper. This will allow them to last for generations to come.

As with most 18^th-century publications, the subject matter is pretty dense. It centers around a fellow by the name of John Redick-Le-Man, or John Redick, layman, in the Pennsylvania back country. Redick describes, at length, his side of a financial disagreement with a blacksmith named Hugh Scot, which occurred during a trip to Lancaster. Scot thought that Redick had shortchanged him, and Redick pleads his case to the otherwise.

My favorite line is on page five, where Redick says “…as I deſign the greateſt brevity poſſible; I ſhall not ſpend the Readers Time in looking over all, or the tenth Part of what occur’d…” At which point he babbles on—for another 40 pages. Perhaps we can all agree that “brevity” was not exactly John Redick’s greatest strength! Then again, people had longer attention spans during the 18th century, when electronics were not constantly vying for their time. So, it is conceivable that, to them, 48 pages really was considered brief.

Regardless, Redick took Scot’s accusations as a personal attack. He felt strongly enough about defending his honor, that he went to the nearest printing press, which was evidently in Baltimore Town, and decided to have his side of the story made public so an “impartial” audience could hear him out. The preface to the book is dated February 12^th 1765, and because there is no official arrival date for Hasselbach in Baltimore, this is the closest that we are likely to get. And celebrate we will!

Postscript

Not surprisingly, Hasselbach has never really gotten his due. After his ship went under, he faded into obscurity. So much so, in fact, that on January 29^th 1884, when the circa-1710 dwelling at 63 East Fayette Street was being demolished (which is a travesty in itself), The Baltimore Sun (on page 4) made the following mention of a book that had been found above a crossbeam in the attic: “[a] receipt-book, evidently the property of ‘Nicholas Hasselbach’, whoever he may have been, show[ing] receipts for various small sums of money paid to different persons by Hasselbach for tracts of land, &c., in 1769 and 1770.” It also mentioned some account books that had belonged to Hasselbach’s son-in-law, John Hillen.

Nobody knows what happened to any of those books. They were probably thrown away—carelessly discarded like the house they inhabited. The Baltimoreans of 1884 might have looked on with little more than a shrug of the shoulder. We 21^st-century Baltimoreans, however—alarm bells are going off in our heads! If only we could inform them of the error in their ways. And the house… Was it Hasselbach’s house? Goodness. The thought is almost too much to bear. But, honestly, it’s the line they slid in right after his name that bugs me the most. The one that really sticks in my craw.

“…whoever he may have been…”

They didn’t even know who he was!

Can you believe that? Especially since The Baltimore Sun makes its money by way of the printing press—the technology that Hasselbach was responsible for bringing to town in the first place.

The irony is, had Hasselbach lived longer, he may have been able to stake a claim as Baltimore’s first journalist. Indirectly, though, he does have a claim. Or, at least, a partial one… Catherine Hasselbach sold her deceased husband’s printing equipment to William Goddard, who started Baltimore Town’s first newspaper. So, when The Maryland Journal, and the Baltimore Advertiser. opened up shop in 1773, it did so using Hasselbach’s types.

Thus, even in death, Hasselbach’s contribution was readily seen.

And, I suppose that I would be remiss were I not to mention his personal contribution, to me.

Because, without Nicholas Hasselbach, there’s no JGB.

— PROCLAIMING IT IN PUBLICK —

N E W – Y O R K, July 11.

B A L T I M O R E.

B A L T I M O R E.

BALTIMORE COMMITTEE.