(PDF) Maryland Historical Magazine, 1959, Volume 54, Issue No. 1msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5800/sc5881/000001/000000/... · Monumental-Security Storage Company combines two

MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

LANVALE MILL, c. 1804

From the Sketch Book of Fielding Lucas, Jr. (See p. 27)

HISTORICAL SOCIETY

March • 1959 BALTIMORE

They're prepared— how about you?

They're learning to do the things that will make them well-rounded and useful citizens. In the meantime, they're depending on you. Now is the time to safeguard the future of your youngsters, and the rest of your family as well. We will be pleased to discuss with you and your attorney the many advantages of creating a First National Trust Fund either during your lifetime or by your will.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK of Baltimore Main Office: Light & Redwood • Offices throughout Baltimore area • Member FDIC

fmA Sc5^/-i-ai3

MARYLAND

HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

PUBLISHED BY

THE MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY

VOLUME LIV

BALTIMORE

1959

CONTENTS OF VOLUME LIV

PAGE

NEW FAITH IN THE AMERICAN HERITAGE. Edward Alexander, .... 1

SOME BALTIMORE CITY PLACE NAMES. William B. Marye, . . . .15, 353

FREIGHT RATES IN THE MARYLAND TOBACCO TRADE, 1705-1762. John M. Hemphill, 11, 36

FREIGHT RATES IN THE MARYLAND TOBACCO TRADE: APPENDIX. ]ohn M.

Hemphill, 11, 153

FORT MCHENRY: 1814. Edited by Richard Walsh, 59 I. THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE. Franklin R. Mullaly, .... 61

II. THE OUTWORKS IN 1814. S. Sydney Bradford, 188 III. THE STAR FORT. Richard Walsh, 296

SIDELIGHTS, 105, 210, 310, 408

REVIEWS OF RECENT BOOKS, 114, 213, 314, 423

NOTES AND QUERIES, 128, 221, 329, 434

CONTRIBUTORS, 130, 223, 330, 438

QUEEN HENRIETTA MARIA: MARYLAND'S ROYAL NAMESAKE. Milton Ruhicam, 131

A NOTE ON THE FREE SCHOOL IDEA IN COLONIAL MARYLAND. Clara P. McMahon, 149

MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY REPORT FOR 1958, 224

SUPPRESSION AND CONTROL OF MARYLAND, 1861-1865. Charles B. Clark, . 241

THE METHODIST CHRISTMAS CONFERENCE: BALTIMORE, DECEMBER 24, 1784- JANUARY 2, 1785. N. C. Hughes, Jr., 272

COVER PICTURE: ALLEN C. REDWOOD, CONFEDERATE ILLUSTRATOR. Richard Walsh and C. A. Porter Hopkins, 293

CHARLES J. BONAPARTE AND NEGRO SUFFRAGE IN MARYLAND. Jane L. Phelps, 331

MARYLAND POPULATION: 1631-1730. Arthur E. Karinen, 365

ILLUSTRATIONS

PAGE

Lanvale Mill c. 1804, From the Sketch Book of Fielding Lucas, Jr. Cover, March Original Sketch of Fort McHenry in 1814 by James M. Mulcahy

from information given him by the Historical and Archaeo- logical Research Project of the National Park Service, . . . opp. 61

The Battle of Baltimore from Drawing by R. E. Lee Russell, . . 63 Sketch of present end wall of house at one time owned and occupied

by Chancellor John Johnson, Jr., showing how changes in brickwork reveal the three stages in the development of the dwelling, 108

Omenhausser's Confederate Prisoners at Point Lookout, .... Cover, June Cover picture is a reproduction of one of 46 watercolors by John T. Omen-

hausser of Confederate prisoners confined in Point Lookout Prison, Maryland. See H. P. Manakee, "Cover Picture" Aid. Hist. Mag., LIII (June, 1958), 177-179.

Omenhaussers captions read: " 1. Here's the place to get a big chew tobacco for a cracker. 2. You ought to give one a big chew for this cracker, it's not been handled much. 3. Mister don't you want to buy a cheap pair of socks for ten cents. I want to buy something to eat. 4. Don't you want to buy a cheap lot of tobacco, you can double your money on it. 5. No! I don't want to buy it it's musty."

Fort Whetstone, 1781. From Louis-Alexandre Berthier's Map of Baltimore, opp. 188

Sketch Based on Rivardi's Plans for the Water Batteries, 1794, . . 194 Fort McHenry, 1819, based on Poussin's Plan, 198 Confederate Boxing Match at Fort Delaware. From a Sketch by

Allen C. Redwood, Cover, Sept. Contemporary Painting of the Bombardment of Fort McHenry in

1814 opp. 296 Plan of 1803, the most important of all maps of Fort McHenry, . betw. 300-301 Excavated Cellar Fire Place in Building E, betw. 300-301 Plan of the Magazine in 1814, . . 301 Enlisted Men's Barrack D of the Present Time, 303 Enlisted Men's Barrack D, after the Major Alterations of 1829, . . 303 Enlisted Men's Barrack D in 1814, showing Gable Roof, Dormer

Windows, Garret, and Cellar, 304 Building D Soldiers' Barrack, 305 Building C, Officers Quarters, cellar and main floor plans, 1834, . 307 " The Vineyard," Baltimore, c. 1805, Cover, Dec.

The view of " The Vineyard " is reproduced from the top rail of the setee in a set of painted drawing room pieces in the Sheraton style by courtesy of the owners, Mrs. Edward C. Venable and Mrs. Herbert C. de Roth. The work of Baltimore furniture makers John and High Findlay, circa 1805, the set is on exhibition at the Baltimore Museum of Art. " The Vineyard," on Vineyard Lane, is described in Mr. Marye's article in this issue.

Caricature of Bonaparte during the Poe Amendment battle, . . . 339 Plat of Baltimore from G. M. Hopkins, City Atlas of Baltimore and

Evirons (1876) Plate R, 355 Maryland Population, 1630-1730 363 Population, St. Mary's, Kent, Anne Arundel and Calvert Counties,

1630-1730 377 Popu'ation. Charles, Baltimore, Talbot, and Somerset Counties,

1630-1730 387 Population. Dorchester, Cecil, Prince George's and Queen Anne's

Counties, 1630-1730, 399 Maryland Population Percent Change by Decades 1640-1730, . . 406

IN 1898 — when we reached the age of 20

The supposed bones of Christopher Columbus were sent from Cuba to Seville, Spain.— January 19.

Maryland and surrounding states were hit by a severe blizzard, snow falling January 11-13, All traffic was at a standstill, many stores unable to open. Total snowfall in Baltimore, 32 inches, drifts 10 feet high; in Frederick, 20 feet high. Ice in the Susque- hanna was 14 inches thick and surf froze at Ocean City. Similar conditions prevailed in adjoining states and the cold wave extended as far as Jacksonville, Fla.

Peace ratified by the United States and Spain.— April 11.

Purchase of the Philippine Islands completed in Washington; price, $20,000,000.— May 1.

Admiral Schley was presented with a silver service in Balti- more.— June 21.

Monumental-Security Storage Company combines two of the oldest and best known names in Moving, Storage and Rug Cleaning. Today, Monumental- Security offers the best service possible in these special fields.

MOVING, local and long- distance, by skilled personnel experienced in handling everything from household furnishings to priceless works of art.

STORAGE, in a sprinkler- protected, concrete building where carefully trained work- men assure safe handling of your possessions.

RUG CLEANING, by the exclusive Crystal Cleaning process that guarantees thorough cleaning of rugs; alterations and repairs by expert craftsmen; mothproofing, dyeing and cleaning of upholstered furniture.

Call on fhe combined experience of 740 years.

ooumentai - ooun STORAGE CO., Inc.

MOVING DEPT: 1110 PARK AVE.—SArafoga 7-3480 - MUlberry 5-7900

RUG CLEANING DEPT: 1915 WINDSOR AVE.—LAfayelle 3-3771

'Round and 'Round in circles? You can save or make loan payments directly

from your car at FRATERNITY'S DRIVE-UP windows.

Or park on the big lot at the back door.

FRATERNITY'S DIVIDENDS are among the HIGHEST paid by a "Federal" in Maryland— OPEN or ADD to YOUR account TODAY at

FRATERNITY FEDERAL

SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION 764-770 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD

BALTIMORE 3, MARYLAND

LE-9-1313

if Savings INSURED by the FLIC, a government instrumentality to £10,000.

if Safe Deposit Boxes

• MORTGAGE LOANS to fit your needs. OPEN: MONDAY thru THURSDAY—9 to 2

FRIDAYS 'til 8:30 P.M.

• ••• ••• •••••• • *

BENEFACTORS AND CONTRIBUTORS TO THE FUNDS OF THE SOCIETY

Mary Washington Keyset, Gift in memory of her husband, H. Irvine Keyser, of the buildings and grounds of the Society, 1916.

William S. Thomas, Very large estate payable after termination of a life estate.

Richard Bennett Darnall, Very large bequest 1957 payable after termination of a life estate.

Elise Agnus Daingerfield, Bequest, 1949 $154,248.00 A. Morris Tyson, Bequest 1956 119,713.90 Harry C. Black, Bequest, 1956, Florida home and contents 66,960.01 Elizabeth S. M. Wild, Bequest, 1950 63,906.55 Judge Walter I. Dawkins, Bequest, 1936, $500, and interest in residuary

estate not yet accrued. Jane James Cook, Bequest, 1945, $1,000., and other gifts; and 3/40 of

annual income of residuary estate. Mrs. Thomas Courtney Jenkins, Purchase of Star-Spangled Banner MS.,

erection of marble niche, 1953, gift of Key portraits and renovation of Key Room, 1952 38,225.45

H. Oliver Thompson, Bequest, 1937, one-half of annual income from trust estate, and ultimately one-half of estate outright.

Josephine Cushing Morris, Bequest, 1956, $5,000; proceeds sale of house and contents $23,937.45 28,937.45

George Peabody, 1866 20,000.00 Miss Virginia Appleton Wilson $300. gift 1918; Bequest 1958 11,954.04 J. Wilson Leakin, Bequest, 1923 10,000.00 Susan Dobbin Leakin, Preparation of J. Wilson Leakin room and con-

tribution to its contents, 1924. George L. Radcliffe, Large contributions cash and otherwise. J. B. Noel Wyatt, Bequest, 1949 9,685.23 National Society Daughters of Founders and Patriots of America, For

binding and restoration of manuscripts 8,732.36 Prewitt Semmes, 1954, $5,650.00; R. Charles Danehower, 1955, $2,500.00;

For Semmes Genealogy and voluntary contributions 8,150.00 Drayton Meade Hite, Bequest, 1923, $6,000., and other gifts 7,000.00 Arthur A. Houghton, Jr., For Queen Anne's County History, $5,000., and

other gifts 6,750.00 A. S. Abell Foundation, 1956, For Brewington Maritime Collection 5,000.00 Mrs. Laurence R. Carton, Bequest 1958 5,000.00 Mendes Cohen, Bequest, 1915 5,000.00 Caroline J. Lytle, Bequest, 1928 5,000.00 Mrs. Richard Bennett Darnall, 1957, Restoring six Darnall portraits. Jacob France 4,600.00 Mary B. Redwood, Bequest, 1941 4,378.43 Henry Stockbridge, gift 1921 and bequest 1924 4,378.43 Anonymous 4,000.00 Mrs. Drayton Meade Hite, Bequest, 1927 4,000.00 Raphael Semmes, Bequest $3,000., and other gifts 3,140.00 Eleanor P. Passano, In memory of Edward B. Passano for purchase of

books 3,000.00 John E. Semmes, For Studies in Maryland History, 1953 2,726.14 Ellen C. Bonaparte, Bequest 1925 2,500.00 Mrs. Francis C. Little, For portrait of Bishop Claggett, 1953 2,500.00 Anonymous 2.427.97 Charlotte Gilman Paul, Bequest, 1955, $1,630.85, and other gifts 2,405.85 Mrs. Harold Duane Jacobs 2,150.00 Sally Randolph Carter, Bequest, 1939, $1,000., and $1,000. to establish the

Marie Worthington Conrad Lehr room 2,000.00 Mrs. Sumner A. Parker, For annual genealogical prize, 1945 2,000.00 Mrs. DeCourcy W. Thorn 1,585.00 Van Lear Black 1,500.00 Washington Perine, Bequest, 1944 1,500.00 J. Gilman D'Arcy Paul 1,460.42 Alexander S. Cochran 1,450.00

Eleanor S. Cohen, To furnish room in memory of her parents, Israel and Cecilia E. Cohen 1,300.00

Mrs. Thomas B. Gresham, Bequest, 1926 1,200.00 Charles Exley Calvert 1,150.00 Mrs. Charles P. Blinn, Jr., For Studies in Maryland History and other

gifts 1,100.00 S. Bernard November, Bequest 1956 1,100.00 Mrs. Maurice Bouvier, 1957 1,000.00 Samuel K. Dennis, Bequest, 1953 1,000.00 Allen Dickey Fund, 1958 1,000.00 Isaac Henry Ford, Bequest, 1916 1,000.00 Anna B. C. Hambleton, Bequest, 1940 1,000.00 W. Hall Harris, Sr. 1,000.00 Mary Parkhurst Hayden, Bequest, 1934 1,000.00 M. Ella Hoopes, Bequest, 1942 1,000.00 Sewell Key, Bequest, 1948 1,000.00 Isaac F. Nicholson 1,000.00 Isaac Tyson Norris , 1,000.00 Emilie McKim Reed, Bequest, 1926 1,000.00 Clinton L. Riggs, Bequest, 1938 1,000.00 J. Henry Stickney, Bequest, 1892 1,000.00 DeCourcy W. Thorn 1,000.00 Mrs. W. Calvin Chesnut, Bequest, 1942 1,000.00 Donaldson Brown, Mt. Ararat Foundation, Inc., 1957 1,000.00 Nellie C. Williams, Bequest 1944 1,000.00 Society of Cincinnati in Maryland 900.00 Confederate Relics Fund, 1921-22 900.00 F. Sims McGrath, For Bordley Papers and other purposes 833.25 Misses Elizabeth Gray and Julia McHenry Howard, For Studies in Mary-

land History, and other gifts 758.33 Western Maryland Railroad, 1957 750.00 Maryland Society Colonial Dames of America, For restoration of manu-

scripts 748.55 Moses S. and Blanch H. Hecht Foundation 712.00 Louis and Henrietta Blaustein Foundation, 1957, for the purchase of

portrait of Mrs. Elijah Etting 700.00 Miss Grace Birmingham 650.00 Mr. and Mrs. Morgan B. Schiller, For restoration of Lloyd Papers 650.00 Augusta M. Libby, Bequest $500., 1946, and other gifts 625.00 Hendler Foundation 600.00 Louis S. Zimmerman 600.00 Mrs. WiDiam R. Milford, For Amelung gob}et 553.00 Maryland Society Daughters of Colonial War 510.00 Mrs. Francis N. Iglehart, 1958 509.75 J. Apppleton Wilson, Gift, 1921 500.00 W. G. Baker, Jr 500.00 Mrs. John Nicholas Brown 500.00 Buck Glass Company, For Amelung goblet 500.00 Mrs. W. Hall Harris, Sr 500.00 Rebecca Lanier King, Bequest, 1928 500.00 Mrs. William Milnes Maloy, For purchase of Jefferson Papers 500.00 Neil H. Swanson 500.00 R. C. Ballard Thruston, Bequest, 1946 500.00 Vanderbilt University, For Studies in Maryland History No. 3 500.00 Adelaide S. Wilson 500.00 William Power Wilson 500.00 Maryland Society Daughters of Founders and Patriots of America, For

restoration of manuscripts 476.00 Charles McHenry Howard 433.33 Miss Ethel M. Miller 350.00 Mrs. William S. Hilles 340.00 McHenry Howard 333.34 Mrs. Mildred Siegel, For gallery installation 322.66 Arunah S. A. Brady 315.00 Simon Dalsheimer 300.00 Mrs. Frank M. Dick 300.00 George de Geofroy 300.00 Bryden Bordley Hyde 300.00 Mrs. Brantz Mayer Roszel, Bequest, 1954 300.00 Miles White, Jr 300.00 Calvert Distillers Corporation, For cleaning portrait 273.86

Joseph Katz 275.00 J. Hall Pleasants 275.00 Robert Garrett 270.00 Baltimore Ice Cream Centennial 250.00 Heyward E. Boyce, Bequest, 1950 250.00 Hugo Dalsheimer 250.00 L. Manuel Hendler 250.00 William Milnes Maloy Memorial, Gift of employees 250.00 Society of the War of 1812 in Maryland 260.00 Ida M. Shirk, Bequest, 1949, $200., and other gifts 250.00 Joseph E. Smith 250.00 S. M. Drayer 200.00 Jacob Epstein 200.00 Maryland Society United Daughters of the Confederacy 200.00 Edward B. Passano 200.00 Mrs. Arthur Robeson 200.00 Henry F. Reese 200.00 Miss Elizabeth Chew Williams 200.00 Miss Margaret Myrtle Lankford 200.00 Maryland Daughters of American Revolution Chapters 200.00 Woman's Eastern Shore Society 200.00 Miss Sue W. Worley 200.00 Mrs. Frances Eaton Weld 175.00 Charles C. Homer, Jr 150.00 Addison C. Mullikin 150.00 Louis H. Dielman 125.00 Douglas H. Gordon 125.00 Samuel E. Wilson 120.00

The following have contributed 1100.00 each either to the Endowment Fund or for other purposes:

American Institute of Eastern Shore Society of Elizabeth Grant Mcllvain Architects Baltimore City Carl Ross McKenrick

Ark and Dove Society Alexander B. Griswold Robert G. Merrick Philip A. Beatty R. C. Hoffman John H. Morgan Mrs. Harvey G. Beck Henry P. Hynson F. C. Nicodemus, Jr. Mrs. A. B. Bibbins Hutzler Fund, Inc. Florence Belle Ogg John E. Bordley William Ingle Pratt D. Phillips Fred G. Boyce, Jr. Mrs. Frank R. Kent Mrs. Harper D. Sheppard Mrs. Zelina C. Brunschwig Jane Griffith Keys Mrs. Edward Shoemaker John G. Buck Joseph LaPides Katherine Bibb Stehman Mrs. Stockton Buzby Mrs. Rebecc? Littlejohn Bernard C. Steiner Milton Campbell Mrs. James H. Lovcll Wilbur Van Sant Charles M. Cohn Maryland Credit Finance Washington County His- Mrs. Virginia B. Davies Corporation torical Society Alice Curtis Desmond Henry deCourcy May Mrs. George Weems Henry F. du Pont McCormick & Co. Williams Alexander E. Duncan John Purdon Wright

For other contributions, including those donated in connection with payment of annual dues, the Society makes grateful acknowledgment.

Gifts of various funds, many of large amounts, have been received to advance the cause of historical preservation and increase appreciation of our Maryland heritage. These have been used for contemplated purposes for the benefit of the people of Maryland without direct advantage to the Society and have not been included in the general funds listed above.

Mrs. Edgar W. Garbisch, Old Trinity Restoration

Laurance S. Rockefeller

Ramsay, Scarlett & Co. Chapel of Ease, Taylor's Island, Restoration Anonymous contributions.

For the gift of objects, books and papers, far too numerous to list here, which have been received in the century and more since it was founded, the Society records this expression of its lasting gratitude. These contributions from count- less members and friends have made the Society a major storehouse of state and national treasures.

OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF COMMITTEES OF THE

MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY elected at the Annual Meeting, February 9, 1959

LAURENCE HALL FOWLER

Corresponding Secretary WILLIAM B. MARYE

President GEORGE L. RADCLIFFE

Vice-Presidents J. OILMAN D'ARCY PAUL JACOB FRANCE

Treasurer Recording Secretary SAMUEL HOPKINS W. HALL HARRIS, JR.

Trustees of the Athenaeum HOWARD BAETJER LUCIUS R. WHITE, JR., Chairman SUMMERFIELD BALDWIN, JR. EDGAR W. GARBISCH

A. A. HOUGHTON, JR. CHARLES L. MARBURG

DR. MICHAEL A. ABRAMS J. R. HERBERT BOONE

THOMAS F. CADWALADER ROBERT GARRETT

BENJAMIN H. GRISWOLD, III L. MANUEL HENDLER

Committee on the Gallery JOHN HENRY SCARFF, Chairman

MRS. HAROLD D. JACOBS R. MCGILL MACKALL MRS. H. IRVINE KEYSER, 2nd MRS. GEORGE W. WILLIAMS

AUBREY C. LAND

Committee on the Library G. Ross VEAZEY, Chairman

THOMAS G. MACHEN CHARLES C. WALLACE

Committee on Finance JACOB FRANCE, Chairman

Committee on Publications CHARLES A. BARKER, Chairman

ROBERT G. MERRICK

JOHN CAMPBELL WHITE DR. HUNTINGTON WILLIAMS

HOOPER S. MILES THOMAS S. NICHOLS

HARRISON TILGHMAN

WILLIAM J. CASEY GEORGE W. CONSTABLE FRANCIS H. JENCKS

RICHARD F. CLEVELAND

Committee on Membership CHARLES P. CRANE, Chairman

MISS ELIZABETH CHEW WILLIAMS, Chairman 'Emeritus JOHN C. KIRBY

HAMILTON OWENS

Committee on Addresses JOHN E. SEMMES, Chairman

Committee on War Records GARY BLACK JOHN T. MENZIES, Chairman ROGER BROOKE HOPKINS

Commitee on Education HON. W. CALVIN CHESNUT, Chairman

DR. JOHN MCF. BERGLAND MISS JULIA MCHENRY HOWARD

JOHN P. PACA, JR. NEIL H. SWANSON

JOHN L. THOMAS

HENRY E. TREIDB

HOWARD W. JACKSON J. RlEMAN MdNTOSH

BRYDEN BORDLEY HYDE A. RUSSELL SLAGLE

Committee on Relations with Other Societies MRS. FRANCIS F. BEIRNE, Chairman

ALEXANDER S. COCHRAN MRS. FRANK M. DICK MRS. WILLIAM S. HILLES

Committee on the Maritime Collection

MARION V. BREWINGTON S. VAN NORT CHAPMAN CHARLES S. GARLAND R. HAMMOND GIBSON

G. H. POUDER, Chairman WILLIAM C. KNAPP AUGUST MENCKEN

RICHARD H. RANDALL RALPH J. ROBINSON

JAMES W. FOSTER, Director

CHARLES E. SCARLETT, JR. WILLIAM C. STEUART

JOHN M. WILLIS H. GRAHAM WOOD

HON. ANTHONY EDEN

Honorary Members DR. ST. GEORGE L. SIOUSSAT DR. LAWRENCE C. WROTH

MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

VOL. 54, No. 1 MARCH, 1959

CONTENTS PAGE

New Faith in the American Heritage Edtvard P. Alexander 1

Some Baltimore City Place Names . . William B. Marye 15

Freight Rates in the Maryland Tobacco Trade, 1705-1762 John M. Hemphill, II 36

FortMcHenry: 1814

Part I, The Battle of Baltimore . Franklin R. Mullaly 61 Sidelights 104

Lot Number 71, Annapolis, A Brief Historical Sketch Ruby R. Duval

A Marylander Visits Jackson, 1832

Reviews of Recent Books 114 Fenton, Poliltics in the Border States, by J. Joseph Hutchmacher Whiffen, The Public Buildings of Williamsburg, by Henry

Chandlee Forman Whyte, The Uncivil War, by Harry L. Coles Bass, The Green Dragoon, by Carlos R. Allen, Jr. Jones, The Plantation South, by Anthony Harrigan Christie, The End of North's Ministry, 1780-1782, by George A.

Foote Stewart, Names on the Land, by J. Louis Kuethe Armstrong, Days at Cabin John, by Mrs. John G. McDonald Mitchell, A Family Lawsuit, by Ella Lonn Skordas, and Thomas, Eds., Calendar of Maryland State Papers,

No. 5, by Mabel E. Deutrich Wiley, Ed., Recollections of a Confederate Staff Official: Kentucky

Cavaliers in Dixie, by C. A. Porter Hopkins MacLysaght, Irish Families: Their Names, Arms, and Origins,

by Dorothy Mackay Quynn Steadman, The Home Team: 100 Year of Baseball in Baltimore,

by James H. Bready

Notes and Queries 128

Contributors 130

Cover Picture: Lanvale, by permission of Lucas Bros., Inc., Courtesy of the Enoch Pratt Free Library

Annual Subscription to the Magazine $4.00. Each issue $1.00. The Magazine assumes no responsibility for statements or opinions expressed in its pages.

Richard Walsh, Editor C. A. Porter Hopkins, Asst. Editor

The Magazine is entered as second class matter, at the post office at Baltimore, Maryland, under Act of August 24, 1912.

THE MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY H. IRVINE KEYSER MEMORIAL BUILDING

201 W. MONUMENT STREET, BALTIMORE 1 GEORGE L. RADCLIFFE, President; JAMES W. FOSTER, Director

The Maryland Historical Society, incorporated in 1844, was organized to collect, preserve and spread information relating to the history of Maryland and of the United States. Its threefold program includes

1. Collection of manuscript and printed materials, maps, prints, paintings, furniture, silver, fabrics, maritime items, and other objects of interest;

2. Preservation of these materials for the benefit of all who care to enjoy them, and exhibition of items which will encourage an understanding of State and National history; and

3. Spread of historical information relating to Maryland and the rest of the country by means of addresses at the Society's home by authorities in various fields; addresses to outside groups by officers and staff of the Society; publication of the Maryland Historical Magazine, a quarterly containing original articles about State history; Maryland History Notes, a quarterly bulletin of news of the Society and other historical agencies; the Archives of Maryland and volumes of the series " Maryland in World War II " under the authority of the State; and the series of useful historical books entitled "Studies in Maryland History."

Annual dues of the Society are $8 and up, life membership $150. Subscriptions to the Magazine and to the quarterly news bulletin, Maryland History Notes, are included in the membership fee as well as use of the collections and admission to the lectures. The library, portrait gallery and museum rooms, are open daily except Sunday, 9 to 5, Saturday, 9 to 1. June 15 to Sept. 15, daily 9 to 4, Saturday, 9 to 1. Closed Saturdays in August.

WILLIAM BUCKLAND, 1734-1774 ArchiteEt of Virginia and ^Maryland

by ROSAMOND R. BEIRNE and JOHN H. SCARFF, F. A. I. A.

Generously illustrated with views of distinguished colonial houses. Based on records in England, Virginia, and Maryland. Throws much light on the life and customs of the 18th century, especially on the atmosphere of Annapolis. Second printing.

175 pp. $7.50 per copy plus 19c. postage. Md. sales tax 23c. extra

INDIANS OF EARLY MARYLAND

MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

A Quarterly

Volume 54 MARCH, 1959 Number 1

NEW FAITH IN THE AMERICAN HERITAGE

By EDWARD P. ALEXANDER

THE historical museum came into existence in the United States soon after independence had been won and the Constitution

adopted. It arrived as part of the first historical societies—the Massachusetts Historical Society set up at Boston in 1791, the New-York Historical Society of 1804, and the American Anti- quarian Society at Worcester in 1812. Then in 1844 a score of gentlemen, led by the zealous and hard-driving Brantz Mayer, gathered in the office of the Maryland Colonization Society in Baltimore and formed the Maryland Historical Society. By 1860 there were some 65 of these societies in every state east of Texas except Delaware.1

1 The best general studies of historical societies are Julian P. Boyd, " State and

Local Historical Societies in the United States," American Historical Review, XL (October, 1934), 10-37 and Leslie W. Dunlap, American Historical Societies, 1790-

2 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

American historical societies were founded on the premise that history is good for the citizens of a republic, that historical perspective helps them more clearly understand their lives and culture, and that the inspiration of historical personalities fosters better citizenship. Thomas Jefferson expressed this belief in the useful- ness of history for citizens of the new republic.2

History [he wrote}, by apprizing them of the past, will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views.

The founders of the early historical societies were driven by love of learning and love of country. Many of them were true antiquarians, admiring the past and " bygones " for their own sake. They wished to emulate learned groups like the Society of Antiquaries of London or Edinburgh and L'Academie des Inscrip- tions et Belles-Lettres in France. As true disciples of the Enlightenment, they had unlimited faith in the power of knowledge and reason. They were interested in all fields of learning— the arts, humanities, sciences, and especially the social sciences. History and political science bore close relationship to the setting up of government in which they were engaged and to the vehe- ment politics they practiced. The intellectual climate of that unspecialized day still allowed a bright and determined man to come close to becoming a universal scholar making significant contributions in many areas.

There was patriotism also. Intensified by recent successes against the powerful British Empire, the heady business of creating new governments, and the exuberant self-confidence of the westward-moving frontier, American nationalism was riding high. The entrepreneurs of the pioneering historical societies were determined to preserve the thrilling story of the rise of the republic and the individual states and to point out the factors

1S60 (Madison, Wisconsin, 1944). On the Maryland Historical Society, see Brantz Mayer, History, Possessions and Prospects of the Maryland Historical Society (Baltimore, 1867); Bernard C. Steiner, "Maryland History and the Maryland Historical Society," Md. Hist. Mag., XIV (March, 1919), 10-26; Samuel K. Dennis, "A Brief Summary of the Maryland Historical Society's Hundred Years," ibid., XXXIX (March, 1944), 1-5.

1 Edgar W. Knight, ed., A Documentary History of Education in the South before 1860 (5 vols.; Chapel Hill, 1949-53), II, 150-53.

NEW FAITH IN THE AMERICAN HERITAGE 3

that caused the American genius for self-government to flower. They were sure that America had a manifest destiny culturally as well as politically.

Brantz Mayer, while president of the Maryland Historical Society, made clear the high purposes of these organizations when he wrote in 1867:

We can hardly overestimate the worth of local institutions, which, in late years have done so much in rescuing our perishable records. They show us what we may be by disclosing what we have been; they brighten the dim memories of the statesmen and soldiers who strove to found a true republic; they cherish a love of country without which patriotism degen- erates into "politics"; and while each of them strengthens and polishes its separate link, unitedly they guard the endless chain of national union.

The society founders were men of soaring imagination and restless energy. John Pintard of New York in 1789 urged the Rev. Jeremy Belknap of Boston to establish " an Antiquarian Society" and drew a plan for it. The Rev. Mr. Belknap and Ebenezer Hazard adapted this idea to local conditions in forming the-Massachusetts Historical Society. Meanwhile, Pintard as Saga- more of the Society of Tammany (later Tammany Hall) in New York tried to add a historical library and museum to the social and charitable functions of that organization. Failing to obtain quarters in City Hall, he at last succeeded in organizing the New- York Historical Society. Isaiah Thomas, the Worcester patriot and publisher, observed these efforts closely and went on to found and become the first president of the American Antiquarian Society."

These three institutions were built upon the principle of a limited membership, though the New York society did not, like the other two, constitute a virtual academy with membership a reward for merit in study, and writing history. As the historical society movement spread through the country, more democratic types of organization appeared that, as in Maryland, admitted to membership anyone interested in history. Chiefly in the Midwest, the societies even obtained support by state tax appropriations. The State Historical Society of Wisconsin was the first important institution to secure substantial and continuing state subsidization.

•Boyd, loc. cit., 10-19; Dunlap, op. cit., 6-7; Mayer, op. cit., 30; R. W. G. Vail, Knickerbocker Birthday: A Sesqui-Centennid History of the New-York His- torical Society, 1804-1954 (New York, 1954), pp. 3-27.

4 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

Founded in 1846, it was reorganized seven years later by that driving collector and shrewd salesman of history, Lyman Copeland Draper.*

With their broad aspirations and interests, the early historical societies often embarked upon too ambitious and widely dispersed programs. In Boston, New York, Worcester, and New Hampshire (1823) their aims were national in scope, and the Historical Society of Pennsylvania (1824) was the first state society to confine its purposes to state boundaries. Thus the object of the New-York Historical Society was " to discover, procure, and preserve whatever may relate to the natural, civil, literary and ecclesiastical history of the United States in general, and of this State in particular." The Society would " gratefully receive specimens of the various productions of the American Continent and of the adjacent Islands, and such animal, vegetable, and mineral subjects as may be deemed worthy of preservation." 5

The Society in 1817 appointed special committees to collect materials in the fields of Zoology, Botany and Vegetable Physi- ology, Mineralogy and Fossils, and Coins and Medals. Some thirty years later. Dr. Nathan Jarvis deposited a splendid collection of the weapons, utensils, and costumes of the Plains Indians and various South American artifacts. Then in 1858 came the Lenox Collection of Nineveh Sculptures and in another two years Dr. Henry Abbott's Egyptian Collection. It included three huge mummies of the Sacred Bull, Apis. Thomas Jefferson Bryan's Collection of Christian Art when added in 1864 to earlier extensive American portraits and other paintings gave the Society the greatest gallery of European and American art in New York prior to the opening of the Metropolitan Museum in 1872.6

The charter of the Maryland Historical Society of 1844 defined its purpose as " collecting, preserving, and diffusing information relating to the civil, natural, and literary history of this State, and to American history and biography generally." With the closing of Peale's Baltimore Museum and Gallery of Fine Arts in the late 1820s, the Society decided to broaden its aims to

* Edward P. Alexander, What Should Our Historical Society Do?, American Association for State and Local History, Bulletin, I (Washington, D. C, 1941); William B. Hesseltine, Pioneer's Mission: The Story of Lyman Copeland Draper (Madison, Wisconsin, 1954).

eBoyd, let. cit., 19-21; Vail, op. cit., 451, 454. 'Ibid., 52-53, 93, 108-11, 126-28.

NEW FAITH IN THE AMERICAN HERITAGE 5

include an Art Gallery that would foster "' the improvement of the taste of the public in regard to Art, as well as the occupation and amusem*nt of its idle hours." It was agreed, though, that " the Gallery shall be kept in its subordinate relation: that it should not swallow up the Historical Society." The Society purchased copies of European masterpieces, held exhibitions of contemporary art, and was Baltimore's true art center until the 1890s. Ultimately the Walters Gallery and the Baltimore Museum of Art took over the art museum function.7

The early historical societies emphasized the collection of library materials and the dissemination of history through meetings and publications. Jeremy Belknap set standards that are still admirable today when he remarked in 1791: '" We intend to be an active, not a passive, literary body; not to lie waiting, like a bed of oysters, for the tide (of communication) to flow in upon us, but to seek and find, to preserve and communicate literary intelligence, especially in the historical way." When he was on the trail of the manuscripts of Governor Trumbull of Connec- ticut, Governor Hanco*ck, and Sam Adams, he added: " There is nothing like having a good repository, and keeping a good lookout, not waiting at home for things to fall into the lap, but prowling about like a wolf for the prey." 8

The accounts of some of the early New-York Historical Society meetings make amusing reading today. On one occasion William Cullen Bryant was presiding and had dozed off when the speaker concluded by reading lines from Bryant's poem, " Thanatopsis." The applause awakened the poet who joined in it vigorously. Another eye-witness description of a young lady who went to the meetings with her father runs: 9

They were attended by a few very old gentlemen, who all went to sleep in the course of the lectures . . . and I happened to catch the lecturer's eye as he glanced over his audience. Without changing his " lecturing voice," he said, "As you are the only person awake in the room, with your kind permission I will omit the next ten pages," which he did, and concluded rather abruptly.

After the lectures we used to go down to the basem*nt and sit on tombstones and marble sarcophagi and partake of what my father always

7Steinef, loc. cit., 10-26; Dunlap, op. cit., 74; Anna Wells Rutledge, "Early Exhibitions of the Maryland Historical Society," Md. Hist. Mag., XLII (June, 1947), 124-36.

8 Dunlap, op. cit., 65. 'Vail, op. cit., 116-17.

6 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

called '" a light collation." This consisted of the very best water-cress and lobster salad sandwich I ever ate, and cups of very hot, very strong chicken bouillon. All the old gentlemen, refreshed by their naps, became very lively and a good time was had by all!

There was much less emphasis on museum collection and display. Little knowledge of museums existed in the colonies when independence was declared. The British Museum was barely twenty years old, and the Louvre not open to the public until the rise of Napoleon. The only collections made by the colonists had been family portraits, furniture and silver, and an occasional curio cabinet. Outside the historical societies, a few museums were organized. The Library Society of Charles-Town began in 1773 to collect materials for a natural history of South Carolina and set up a public museum; thus the Charleston Museum is the oldest in the country. Charles Willson Peale's noble attempts after 1784 to show tastefully in his Philadelphia Museum " a world in miniature" including the bones of mammoths, mounted specimens of animals, birds, and insects, and the portraits he painted of the Founding Fathers was the exception to the usual cabinet of curiosities. Archaeological and ethnographical materials of the American Indian were also collected, the American Anti- quarian Society, for example, sending expeditions to excavate the Ohio mounds.10

Mistakes in collecting plagued the societies. In 1847, the New- York Historical Society accessioned a bullet swallowed twice by a Revolutionary soldier. In 1855, the American Antiquarian Society accepted the jawbone and tusk of a wild hog that lived along the Potomac River in the early nineteenth century. The more discerning historical society officials tried to keep their collections free from such " antique trash." Christopher Columbus Baldwin, talented librarian of the American Antiquarian Society, declared it absurd " to pile up old bureaus and chests, and stuff them with old coats and hats and high-heeled shoes." The Masachusetts Historical Society in the 1830s deposited its natural history specimens with the Boston Museum of Natural History,

10 Francis Heniy Taylor, Babel's Tower: The Dilemma of the Modern Museum (New York, 1945), pp. 18-20; Laurence Vail Coleman, The Museum in America; a Critical Study (3 vols.; Washington, D. C, 1939), I, 6-12; Charles Coleman Sellers, Charles Willson Peale (2 vols.; Hebron, Connecticut, 1939; Philadelphia, 1947), I, 239-40, 248-56; II, 6-10; Dunlap, op. cit., 19-20, 167-68.

NEW FAITH IN THE AMERICAN HERITAGE 7

and the New-York Historical Society took similar cooperative action with the Lyceum of Natural History.11

The Chicago Historical Society in 1868 had many Civil War mementos including torn battle flags, Confederate knives called Southern toothpicks, the bronze eagle knocked off the flagstaff at Fort Sumter on the first shot, and Abraham Lincoln's favorite walking stick made from a rail he split. Twenty years later its collections included George Washington's razor, a lancet used to bleed him, and a black oak tree found eight feet below Halsted Street and Belden Avenue.12

In 1884, John Bach McMaster told the Historical Society of Pennsylvania: 18

Not many years since an Historical Society was commonly believed to differ but little from a dime museum. People believed its quarters to be a dingy room in an attic, and its treasures bullets from Bunker Hill and guns from Yorktown, arrowheads from Tippecanoe, books nobody ever read, and portraits, as like as two peas. . . . That there was anything lively and human about such societies was doubted. But this [he added tact- fully], most happily, is so no longer.

By that time, however, a new kind of American historical museum was appearing. This was the historic house museum. In 1850 the Hasbrouck House at Newburgh, New York, built in 1727 and once the headquarters of General Washington, opened its doors to the public. Purchased by New York State the previous year, it was operated by local trustees. In 1859, the Mount Vernon Ladies Association of the Union acquired Mount Vernon after both the federal government and the Commonwealth of Virginia had refused to do so. The determined and hard working group of women zealously set about furnishing Washington's plantation home authentically and placed it on public display. By 1876, Independence Hall, that precious shrine of the Declaration of Independence and the Liberty Bell, had become a public museum, and the centennial celebrations then starting did much to stimu- late the historic house movement.

This kind of historical museum, while not suited for synoptic display of a series of objects, has many advantages in teaching

11 Ibid., 74-75. 11 Paul M. Angle, The Chicago Historical Society, 1856-1956: An Unconven-

tional Chronicle (New York, 1956), pp. 53-55, 120. " Boyd, loc. cit., 25.

8 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

history. The natural arrangement of authentic furnishings gives the visitor a feeling of realism and participation. Flickering candles and fragrant flowers heighten his sensory perception; he experiences a feeling of historical mood, a haunting impression of having passed this way before. The historic house put the old planless, dingy, and crowded historical society collection to shame.

In 1895, there were 20 historic houses open in the country, and in the next fifty years a tremendous growth took place until there were some 700. The chief cause was the Industrial Revolution bringing with it a new leisure and especially producing the automobile which opened the countryside to tourists. Another force was a heightened, more sophisticated concern for American national growth and world status that took new interest in American beginnings and basic principles.

With the founding of Colonial Williamsburg in 1926, whole historical villages appeared, either authentic historical restorations on the Williamsburg pattern or outdoor folk museums like Henry Ford's Greenfield Village. The folk museums often moved old structures to a spacious and beautiful setting; they took their models from Scandinavia where Artur Hazelius had pioneered in 1891 in establishing Skansen on a high bluff overlooking Stockholm. These historical villages used costumes and carriages, restaurants serving traditional foods, music and period plays, and other appealing devices to make hsitory come to life.1*

The National Park Service brought the federal government fully into the preservation movement with the Historic Sites Act of 1935 which declared it " a national policy to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings and objects of national significance for the inspiration and benefit of the people of the United States." 15 In 1950, the historical and archaeological properties protected by the Park Service numbered 116 and had an annual visitation of about 12,500,000. Some of the states also have developed ambitious programs of historic preservation including New York, Ohio, Illinois, California, New Jersey, and Penn- sylvania. A central coordinating but nongovernment preservation

14 Edward P. Alexander, " Historical Restorations," in William B. Hesseltine and Donald R. McNeil, eds., In Support of Clio: Essays in Memory of Herbert A. Kellar (Madison, Wisconsin, 1958), pp. 195-204; Laurence Vail Coleman, Historic House Museums; with a Directory (Washington, D. C, 1933).

1B Ronald F. Lee, United States: Historical and Architectural Monuments (Mexico, D.F., 1951), p. 68.

NEW FAITH IN THE AMERICAN HERITAGE 9

agency appeared in 1949 in the National Trust for Historic Preser- vation which now has 259 member organizations.

Another contribution of the Park Service to the museum movement was the trailside or field museum, a series of outdoor displays built around a trail and interpreting the natural science and history of scenic and recreational areas. Begun at Yosemite Park, in 1921, it was largely an outcome of tourism and the automobile. This successful experiment caused state and local parks also to install trailside exhibits, such as the Bear Mountain Trailside Museums operated in the Palisades Interstate Park by the American Museum of Natural History and the branch trailsides of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History in the parks surrounding that city.1"

Improvement in the indoor historical museum came with refine- ments in exhibition techniques. Through the nineteenth and into the first quarter of the twentieth century, display methods usually had been crude with visible storage the rule. Heavy cases were crowded to overflowing, poorly lighted, and inadequately labeled, and pictures were hung frame to frame and three or four rows deep. But a far-reaching change gradually took place in the under- lying philosophy of the exhibit. When collection, curatorial care, and scholarship were the chief aims of the museum, glass cases filled with serried rows of objects were adequate enough. But as education and interpretation became important purposes, better display methods were imperative to tell the story. Storytelling—• that is the important word—was the heart of the exhibit. Materials must have meaning and be attractively arranged with taste and showmanship. They needed to communicate with a broader audience—school children, family groups, casual vaca- tionists, collectors, specialists, octogenarians.

Part of the revolution in display came from the series of World's Fairs that began with London's Crystal Palace Exposition of 1851 and has continued to the Atomium at Brussels in 1958. Spacious buildings and huge crowds demanded significant, uncluttered, and exciting exhibits with fewer objects per square yard. Part of the change was the influence of department stores and advertising, and more recently the application of modern art and industrial design. Architects, artists, and craftsmen began to work together

"Nationr.! Trust for Historic Preservation, Primer for Preservation: A Handbook for Historic-House Keeping (Washington, D. C, 1955); Coleman, Museum in America, I, 35-36, 54-58, 154-56; III, 567-72.

10 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

in the German Werkhund movement in 1907, and the Bauhaus School ultimately sought to synthesize technology and art. The more progressive art museums reflected the struggle between modern and traditional art, first underlined in America by the famed Armory Show of 1913. It brought radical European paintings like Marcel Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase to the notice of an aroused, if not disturbed, public. As a result of all these forces, museums are dealing with structure, space, form, color, and light as a unified, meaningful whole, not as unrelated elements. Exhibits are planted for the beholding eye as well as after the patterns of the objects themselves.17

The emphasis on exhibition and education threatens to change the very nature of the museum. Many institutions keep a large portion of their permanent collections in storage and bring them out in a constantly changing series of special displays. This dual arrangement of study collections and special exhibits began in the science museums in the 1860s, and the " New Museum Idea " slowly spread to other kinds of museums.18

Good storytelling also makes an orientation program desirable for a larger museum with complex holdings. A theme or over- view, whether a special exhibit, talk, slide series, filmstrip, or motion picture, insures that the forest not be missed because of the trees. The new motion picture at Colonial "Williamsburg with its especially constructed theatre and encompassing screen is perhaps the most spectacular orientation program in existence today. Even it backfires occasionally; visitors with limited time sometimes view the film but skip the historic buildings it is designed to introduce.

Another improved exhibit technique for the historical museum is the diorama. This miniature modeled group portrays some moment of history, preferably a dramatic one, with carefully scaled authentic detail of architecture, landscape, furnishings, and costume. The foreground in three dimensions blends almost imperceptibly into a painted background. The diorama springs immediately from the full-scale habitat group so frequently used in science museums after 1870. Its antecedents go back to the little figures found in Egyptian tombs, medieval religious modeled

17 Lothar P. Witteborg, " Design Standards in Museum Exhibits," Curator, I (January, 1958), 29-41; Russell Lynes, The Tastemakers (New York, 1954), pp. 196-226. 18 Coleman, Museum in America, II, 249-51.

NEW FAITH IN THE AMERICAN HERITAGE 11

groups, the elaborate stage settings of seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, German and Dutch doll houses, and the nineteenth- century peep shows. Another influence, the full-scale panorama or cyclorama, reached its peak in Franco-Prussian and Civil War battle scenes; those still to be seen at Gettysburg and Atlanta are in this tradition.19

The period room is another modern exhibition device. Closely akin to the authentically furnished room of a historic house or village, the period room is a convincing and unifying way of showing furniture and furnishings, that is, objects of the decora- tive arts. A New England kitchen was featured in the Centennial Exposition at Philadelphia, in 1876, and beautifully done period rooms were created after 1878 in museums at Nuremburg, Munich, and Zurich. Not until the American Wing was opened at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1924 did this kind of display become popular for American historical materials. Since that time many historical museums have installed period or authentically furnished rooms, and they have reached near-perfection in the Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, opened in Delaware in 1951.20

Museums of science and industry have developed another kind of display sometimes adaptable to history museums. Visitors participate in the exhibits by pressing buttons to activate maps, models, or demonstrations; in the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry the visitor even " descends " in a cage in a coal mine and " rides " an electric car through the mine gallery to the face of coal being " cut " by machine. Many of these techniques originated with the famed Deutsches Museum opened at Munich in 1925.21

This brief recital of some of the new display techniques makes one realize how few historical museums employ modern methods. Though the most numerous kind of American museum with 1235 out of a total of about 2500 institutions in 1938,22 the historical museum is too often small, ill-financed, and antiquated, closer to the eighteenth-century cabinet of curiosities than to the dynamic teaching center demanded by the sophisticated modern visitor.

19 Ned J. Burns, " The History of Dioramas," Museum News, XVII, No. 16 (February 15, 1940), 8-12; Arthur Woodward, "Miniature Historical Dioramas: Their Construction and Use," ibid.. No. 11 (December 1, 1939), 8-10.

20 Coleman, Museum in America, II, 266-71; Lynes, op. cit., 238-42. 21 Coleman, Museum in America, I, 93-99. 22 Ibid., I, 61-63.

12 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

In order to accomplish its mission of teaching historical perspective and inspiration, the historical museum must devise displays and activities close to life itself that will convey understanding and mood. The museum needs to select and define its field with care and to collect purposefully, not leaving its holdings to chance and the discards of community attics. A strong exhibition program, in every sense the heart of the museum function, must be devised. It should tell a clear and moving story, but be object centered. Long narrative labels have little part in the exhibit but can be incorporated in a publication that will serve as ambassador for the museum long after the exhibit has been dismantled.

The good museum must be thoughtful and careful about its program. It needs to re-examine its goals continually and to make objective checks to see whether its methods are effective. Some- times enthusiasm, emotion, and good humor can make one think he is accomplishing more than a little cold-blooded testing will sustain. Not nearly enough research in audience reaction is done by any American historical museum. It is also easy for such institutions to fall into careless and superficial habits in setting up exhibits. The good historical museum demands sound historical research for its displays and activities, the same kind of scholarship that historians use in writing books even though, in the museum, it often takes a three-dimensional form instead of the printed page.

The ideal indoor historical museum is a beehive of community activity. The constantly changing series of special exhibits probes every phase of the community past in the light of today's interests and needs. Meeting activities are built about the exhibits, and their variety and versatile appeal are amazing. Special events long on showmanship and full of publicity value are planned for openings of exhibits, visiting speakers, panel discussions, concerts, films, radio and television programs, and meetings of hobby groups. The museum also supplements the curriculum of the elementary and secondary schools and attracts a continuous stream of lively but purposeful youngsters; they are prepared to get the most from their visits because their teachers have carefully supplied the background of book learning that makes the displays most intelligible. There may also be junior clubs meeting after school and on holidays, or in some fortunate localities a separate children's

NEW FAITH IN THE AMERICAN HERITAGE 13

museum devoted to junior interests. It is thrilling news that the Darnall Bequest will soon set up and endow a children's museum for the Maryland Historical Society.

The excellent historical museum will also have a strong extension program. The central museum may be able to take actual displays throughout the city—by traveling exhibits to the schools, by operation of historic houses or folk museums, or by building trailside displays in the city parks. Other extension devices include newspaper and magazine stories, books and pamphlets, slides, filmstrips, motion pictures, radio and television. Such techniques are not quite so real as the three-dimensional displays themselves, but the eloquent spoken word, the arresting, well-illustrated printed statement, and the realistic film image are still effective in reaching a larger audience than can normally be enticed within the museum's walls.

The future of the historical museum is most promising. Our country is experiencing a great boom in history. Because of it the beautiful illustrated magazine, American Heritage, can, in three years time, obtain a circulation of 300,000. Because of it an estimated 47,953,902 visits are made to historic sites and buildings in a single year!

The new leisure brings a new public to the historical museum, puzzled by the pace and problems of modern living and seeking balance and wisdom from their common American heritage. Individual historical museums are now attracting a million visitors yearly—at George Washington's Mount Vernon, at Colonial Williamsburg, at the Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village, or at Abraham Lincoln's home town of New Salem in Illinois. These eager visitors with their implicit faith in the American heritage offer great opportunities to our historical societies and museums.

In the first century of their existence, the historical societies failed to reach the American mass audience, chiefly because they were organized and conducted to appeal to antiquarians, historians, and connoisseurs, that is, to the initiated few. Charles Willson Peale and his sons did reach a larger public with their museums at Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New York. They displayed " the Wonderful Works of Nature " arranged according to the Linnaean system and the portraits of the great men and women of early American history.

14 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

The Peales pioneered in discovering sound museum techniques and procedures. They mounted and preserved birds, animals, and insects in realistic poses with carefully studied painted back- grounds as well as showing living animals and reptiles. They used lectures, magic lantern shows, and demonstrations to interpret their collections. They opened their museums at night, even developing pioneer systems of gas lighting at Baltimore and Philadelphia.

But this ingenuity came to naught, perhaps because the mass audience was not yet ready to appreciate and support three- dimensional education. The Peales tried to finance their ventures with 25-cent admission fees. In order to arouse and keep public interest, they employed '" rational amusem*nt " devices. Thus the museum in Philadelphia, to the delight of visiting farmers, depicted a five-legged, six-footed, two-tailed cow giving milk to a two-headed calf. At Baltimore crowds were drawn by an Italian magician, a troupe of Indians, and an armless woman who performed incredible stunts with instruments held between her teeth. Public interest in curiosities and freaks was exploited by Phineas T. Barnum and other ingenious and unscrupulous pro- moters. The dime museum and traveling circus did not hesitate to emphasize pure amusem*nt or distort the natural or historical truth. Their competition was too much for the museums that had tried to sugar-coat pure science and historical heritage with rational amusem*nt. They soon went bankrupt.23

Today the situation has changed markedly. While there are still abundant tourist traps trying to collect easy money from the traveling public, both the public and museums have become more mature. Emphasis on truth and authenticity is appreciated today, and freaks no longer seem as amazing as they once did. Education has become a more serious matter, perhaps even necessary for survival, and the American public wants to understand, to take faith, and to be reassured. Historical societies and museums have a fresh chance in today's world, for history like art, as Gian-Carlo Menotti puts it, " should be an act of love toward humanity, not a specialized message to the initiated few." 2*

"For the Peales, see Sellers, op. cit., I, 248-56; II, 6-10, 100-101, 233, 300-303, 381; Wilbur H. Hunter, Jr., "The Tribulations of a Museum Director in the 1820'$," AW. Hist. Mag., XLIX (September, 1954), 214-22.

" Gian-Carlo Menotti, " Missionary Author," New York Times, March 6, 1955.

SOME BALTIMORE CITY PLACE NAMES

By WILLIAM B. MARYE

THE present article is concerned with the names of places on Jones's Falls, Baltimore City, and with the names of tributary

streams, now covered over, between the Twenty-Ninth Street bridge and Charles Street. I shall also give some account of the fording-places of the Falls within this area.

The fords of Jones's Falls, within the Baltimore area, are, to some extent, the key to roads used by early settlers of this area, before the laying out of the town, and perhaps, also to Indian paths. From the point of view of the local historian they are far from negligible, and they possess considerable human interest. Between Twenty-Ninth Street and Bath Street there were three fords. The Falls was forded at the mouth of Sumwalt Run, in those days known as Edwards' Run, about 800 feet north of North Avenue bridge. Here Gilmor's Lane crossed the stream. Down the Falls there was a fording place called Rutter's Ford, between Maryland Avenue and Charles Street, which was where Hanson's Mill Road, later called Lanvale Road, crossed the Falls. The lowest ford on Jones's Falls was situated near where Bath Street intersects the Fallsway, a short distance above the head of the " canal," or cut-off, which late in the eighteenth century was dug through Steiger's Meadow. Here travellers on the road to Phila- delphia forded the little river.1 Jonathan Hanson's first mill, later called Moore's Mill, was built, before the founding of Baltimore Town, near this ford. This spot was at or near the head of tidewater on the Falls.2 So far as we know, there is no contemporary mention of this ford,8 but its " existence " is not to be doubted.

1 J. Thomas Scharf, Chronicles of Baltimore (Baltimore, 1874), pp. 32, J3. 2Md. Hist. Mag., XIX (Sept., 1924), 275, 388; XX (Mar., Dec, 1925), 45, 53,

386, 388. * This—it is not unlikely—was the ford which is mentioned in the certificate of

survey of a tract of land called " Hale's Folly," laid out for Nicholas Hale, or Haile, February 19th, 1702,and described as situated " on the north side of Jones's Falls, beginning at a bounded white oak standing on the north side of the Roade leading from the said Hales plantation to the common Wadeing place of the said falls "

16 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

MOUNT ROYAL FORGE—MOUNT ROYAL MILL

Our Baltimorean love for the world " royal," " (whether it be merely local, or national, I do not know), as if we yearned for the good old days before 1776, owes much to Jonathan Hanson, the Quaker miller from Pennsylvania, for whom, on September 22, 1720, there was surveyed a tract of land, containing 340 acres, which he called " Mount Royal." 5 The reason why he bestowed this particular name on this resurvey is no longer known. Certain it is that he had no idea of the extensive use which would one day be made of it, of which the end is not yet, or that what we now call the Mount Royal Area would take in much land outside the limits of the original " Mount Royal."

" Mount Royal " is a tract of land of irregular outlines, which is more or less roughly divided by North Avenue, lying on both sides of Jones's Falls, and extending down the Falls past Maryland Avenue, near to Charles Street.6 Mount Royal Avenue, west of Charles Street, Mount Royal Station, and Mount Royal Terrace all lie within its bounds.7

On October 11, 1753, an inquisition was held on behalf of the Baltimore [Iron Works} Company in order to obtain a writ of ad quod damnum on parts of certain adjacent tracts of land,

(Land Office of Maryland, Patent Records for Land, Liber CD., f. 167). The late Edward V. Coonan, Surveyor for Baltimore City, gave me the following information about the site of the beginning of " Hale's Folly," as located by Charles Dawson, Jr., in 1856. It stood on the present Polytechnic Institute grounds, near the northwest corner of North Avenue and North Street (now Gmlford Avenue). Nicholas Hale, in 1701, was the owner of only one tract of land, namely, one half of " Merry- man's Lot," which he took up with Charles Merryman, June 24th, 1688 (ibid.. Liber XXII, f. 438). Hale and Merryman divided this land, and Hale took that part which was later called Liliendale, and later still (1801), Homewood. Hale was living there when he made his will, and died in 1730. His son, Neale, owned the property for many years afterwards. If the modern Homewood (now the site of Johns Hop- kins University), was the site of Hale's plantation in 1701, as I think it was, a road going thence past the beginning tree of " Hale's Folly " could not possibly have been bound for either of the two upper fords above mentioned, but it might easily have continued on to the east side of Jones's Falls and so on down the Falls to the lowest ford. It was probably a rolling road, which led to a landing on the Basin.

4 The Baltimore Telephone Directory for 1958 has sixty-four "Royals"—Royal this or that—not counting the Mount Royals, of which there are eight.

6 Land Office of Maryland, Patented Certificate No. 3407, Baltimore County. " Mount Royal " is a resurvey on a tract of land, containing 200 acres, called " Saint Mary Bourne " or " Saint Mary Bow " (a London name), laid out for George Hick- son, May 20th, 1669, ibid.. Liber XII, f. 276.

* See " Map of the Original Tracts of Land Included within the Present Limits of Baltimore," in Thomas J. Scharf, History of Baltimore City and County (Phil., 1881).

' The Mount Royal Hotel stands on " Salisbury Plains."

SOME BALTIMORE CITY PLACE NAMES 17

situated on Jones's Falls, whereon it was proposed to erect a forge mill.8 In this way the company acquired 100 acres, including about 38 acres, part of " Mount Royal." 9 The proposed forge was probably built soon afterwards, and became known as the Mount Royal Forge, but was sometimes called Franklin's Forges.10

A tract of land, lying adjacent to the forge property, called " Ivy Hills," containing 54 acres, was taken up by the company, under the name of Charles Carroll, Esq., and Company, in November of the same year.11

On July 8, 1785, there appeared in the Maryland Journal an advertisem*nt which announced the coming sale of the properties of the Baltimore Company, comprising 4650 acres of land, and including: " Three small tracts lying round the Old Mount Royal Forge, on both sides of Jones's Falls, about l*/) miles from sd. town [Baltimore], containing 250 acres." The advertisem*nt con- tinues: " On this land are three excellent mill seats, on one of which stands the old forge, with other considerable improvements. About one third of these tracts are very well wooded; but what adds exceedingly to their value: there are a considerable number of quarries of excellent stone for building."

A plat, styled " Plat of the Baltimore Company's Land at Mount Royal Forge," was made by Cornelius Howard, and dated August 27, 1785.12 The property was divided into sixteen lots,

8 Land Office of Maryland, Chancery Proceedings, Liber I. R. No. 5, f. 98 et seq. 9 See Dr. Charles Carroll's "' Collection of Land Certificates Chiefly in Baltimore

and Anne Arundei Counties," f. 487, for a description of the survey, MS, Md. Hist. Soc. One of the "calls" is the mouth of Edwards Run (Sumwalt Run). The survey is styled " Baltimore Company's forge, Jones's Falls."

"Mention of the Mount Royal Forge near Baltimore Town will be found in the Maryland Journal, June 24, 1777, October 30, 1781. On October 23, James Franklin advertised in this newspaper for the return of a mulatto servant named Will, " run away from the Mount Royal Forges near Baltimore Town." In March 14, 1780, there is mention in the Maryland Journal of the plantation of John Ensor " 3 miles from Baltimore on the falls above Franklin's Forge." Among the Dulany Papers, in the Md. Hist. Soc, there is a letter from D. Dulany to [?}, March 9, 1798, saying in part: " The books were Burnt at Franklins Forge I have been told." Testifying, Dec. 17, 1787, in the suit of Josias Pennington against Benjamin Griffith, John Weston, an iron master, said he had known Pennington 17-18 years, during which time he had resided " at a place of his own near Franklin Forges " (Land Office of Maryland, Chancery Proceedings, Liber 30, f. 19.) Pennington owned a small piece of land at the mouth of Stony Run, then called Ensor's Run or Union Run. This run was so named for John Ensor (see above), whose lands were situated on it.

11 Dr. Charles Carroll's Collection of land Certificates, ibid., f. 427. 12 The author has a copy of this plat, which was kindly given to him by the late

Edward V. Coonan. In a letter, dated October 30, 1943, Mr. Coonan informed me that the plat is filed among the Bouldin Plats, 12th Ward Division, Office of Plans and Surveys, Municipal Building, Baltimore.

18 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

the bounds of which are indicated on the plat. Also indicated thereon are: Ensor's Run (Stony Run) and Edwards Run (Sumwalt Run), discharging into the Falls on its eastern side; also the lower courses of Lawson's Run (Rutter's Run) and Spicer Run, above their junction. All of these considerable streams are now covered over, except Stony Run. The structures apparently belonging to the forge are nine in number. One stands besides the mill-race, and is probably the forge itself. A road styled " Furnace Road " runs east through the property to the mill race, where it turns north and runs along the western side of the Falls. Most of the forge buildings stand in " Mount Royal." In modern terms, they were situated betwen Jones's Falls and Mount Royal Terrace, north of the site of the Mount Royal Reservoir. The mouth of the mill-race is about two hundred yards above the mouth of Edward's Run, on the opposite side of the Falls. To account for the name of " Furnace Road " we infer that there was both a forge and a furnace on the Mount Royal Forge property. So much for Mount Royal Forge.

The chief interest which attaches to the old Mount Royal flour mill is due to the distinguished men who, at one time or another, owned or had an interest in it: Dr. Solomon Birckhead, "William Patterson, General John Strieker, and Governor William Brad- ford. It must have been a rather massive building; built of stone, two stories high, with a hipped roof, and measuring 51 X 41 feet.13 It stood on the west side of Jones's Falls, a short distance above the mouth of Sumwalt Run.14 There is little doubt that it derived its power from the old mill-dam and mill-race of the Mount Royal Forge. In 1833, when it belonged to Bradford, it had a capacity of 15,000 barrels of flour per annum.15 The land on which Mount Royal Mill stood was acquired by Messrs. William Taggert and George Legatt, operating under the name

13 Particular Tax List of Middlesex Hundred, Baltimore County, 1798: Solomon Burkhard (sic), Mount Royal. Besides the mill, there is mention of seven houses. These must have been leftovers from the old Mount Royal Forge days.

14 James Kearney, " Sketch of the Military Topography of Baltimore and its Vicinity made by order of Brigadier General Winder, 1814," copy in Md. Hist. Soc, shows " Strieker's mill " on the west side of Jones's Falls, a short distance above the mouth of Sumwalt Run (not named).

16 Charles Varle, A Complete View of Baltimore (Baltimore, 1833), p. 96, et seq.: Jones's Falls and its mills. In the federal Gazette, May 18,1798, Solomon Birckhead offers this mill for sale, describing it as situated two miles from Baltimore, and commanding a powerful stream of water. The mill house is described as " large," and the mill had two water wheels and two pairs of burr stones.

SOME BALTIMORE CITY PLACE NAMES 19

of Legatt & Co., in the year 1795, and sold the same year to Birckhead.18 How explain, then, that the mill was already in Dr. Birckhead's possession by 1794? 17 In 1802, he entered into a contract to sell the mill and the land belonging to it to William Patterson.18 In 1815 he conveyed the property to Strieker (who was already in possession), with allowance for Patterson's interest.19 In his will, 28 February, 1828, Strieker mentions a contract, by which he was bound, to sell his mill property to his son-in-law, Bradford.20 I have not followed the history of Mount Royal merchant mill farther than 1833. It actually begins in, or before,

" Baltimore County Land Records, Liber W. G. No. Q. Q., f. 565: Charles Carroll & Company to George Leggitt, 1795; Liber W. G. No. R. R., f. 552: George Leggitt to Solomon Birckheal, 1795. As we shall see later, the Mount Royal Mill was already, by 1791, in occupation of Mr. Leggitt. There is a deed, dated February 7, 1801, whereby Charles Carroll of Carrollton, Esq., sold to Solomon Birckhead, merchant, certain lots acquired under a writ of ad quod damnum (this refers to the Mount Royal (orge property), and " Ivy Hills," in all 921/2 acres (Liber W. G. No. 65, f. 503). According to my calculations, the mansion built by Dr. Birckhead, which is still standing, corner of Park Avenue and Reservoir streets, was built on " Ivy Hills." The late Christiana Bond, his great-granddaughter, is the authority for the statement that " Mount Royal " was built in 1786, Christiana Bond, " Mount Royal and Vicinity," The Mount Royal Garden Blue Book (Baltimore, 1957), p. 167. Certain it is that this stately house was standing by 1798. In a Particular Tax List of Middlesex Hundred, Baltimore County, it is described as follows: "Solomon Brickhead, Mount Royal, stone dwelling, 2 story, 54 X 23. Addition of stone, 31 X 18." Among the out-buildings was a round milk-house, 1 story, ten feet in diameter. In 1852 the Mount Royal farm contained 80 acres, and belonged to Dr. Birckhead's son-in-law. Dr. Thomas Emerson Bond. T. H. Poppleton, Plan of the City of Baltimore, 1832. In his will, 21 May, 1734, Dr. Birckhead leaves to his daughter, Christiana Bond, for life, his lands at Mount Royal, whereon he formerly resided, on Jones's Falls, " and adjoining the mill and lands I sold to General John Strieker which lands and tenements I bought of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, William Taggert and George Leggett, Alexander Lawson [this refers to part of " Newington "] and the Baltimore Company (Wills, Baltimore County, Liber 16, £.167).

17 According to an advertisem*nt in the Maryland Journal and Baltimore Adver- tiser, June 16, 1794, a millwright was wanted at Doctor Birckhead's mill on Jones's Falls, Bazil Lucas, manager.

18 Liber W. G. No. 174, f. 54: Birckhead to Patterson, 10 Dec, 1802, two tracts of land, containing 10^ and 3 acres, respectively, " part of a tract of land surveyed for Charles Carroll, Esquire, and Company, by a writ of ad quod damnum for Iron Works, together with the mill and other buildings and improvements thereon."

"Liber W. G. No. 132, i. 53: Birckhead to Strieker, 10 August, 1815. General Strieker already had an interest in the property. In the federal Gazette, Baltimore, June 14, 1810, there is published an Act " to prevent pollution of Jones's Falls between Strieker's and Patterson's mill and the pumping house of the Water Company. It was forbidden to build "necessaries" near the Falls; dead animals were not to be left on the banks, and no swimming or bathing in the stream was permitted. In the Baltimore American, June 13, 1814, there is offered a reward for the return of a stray cow, lost near Fall's Turnpike Gate near " Strieker's Mill." We have already mentioned the fact that Strieker's mill is indicated on Kearney, "Sketch, 1814."

" Wills, Baltimore County, Liber 12, f. 143.

20 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

1791, when, as we shall presently see, George Legatt was already in possession of the mill, and it was styled " Legatt's mill." The story o£ the laying-out of the the Falls Road brings out this fact.

We quote in part from an Act of the Maryland Assembly, A.D. 1791:

Whereas Elisha Tyson, William and Charles Jessop, John Ellicott and George Legett, of Baltimore County, have by their petition to the General Assembly, set forth that they have no permanent public road from their mill-seats21 on Jones's Falls in the said County, to Baltimore Town,22 etc. The petitioners pray that a road be laid out from the said Ellicott's mill seat to Elisha Tyson's mill on the said Falls, from thence to the mill of the said William and Charles Jessop, from thence to the mill of John Baxley,22 from thence to the fording place on the said Falls next below the mill of the said George Leggett, and from thence to Baltimore Town, etc. Be it enacted that Robert Long et. al. are hereby authorized to lay out a road not exceeding forty feet wide, from Ellicott's mill-seat on Jones's Falls by Tyson's Mill, from thence to Jessop's mill, from thence to Baxley's mill, from thence to the fording place on Jones's Falls next below Legett's mill, and from thence near the east corner of the poor house ground.23

In 1804 the Maryland Assembly pased an act to incorporate the Falls Turnpike Road, which reads as follows:

21 There was, at that time, a road from the Mount Royal Forge direct to Baltimore Town. On Cornelius Howard's plan of the forge property as laid out into lots, 1785 (see above), it is styled "Road to Town." It meets the Furnace Road some fifty perches west of the mill race. Elsewhere it is called " the road to the stone quarries " and " the Mill Road."

221 can not identify Baxley's mill. There was a mill called Union Mill, on Stony Run, a short distance above its mouth. This may have been Baxley's but I have a quantity of records relating to Union Mill and his name does not appear therein. Jessup's mill was the well-known Rock Mill, on Jones's Falls, a short distance above the mouth of Stony Run. Elisha Tyson's mill was at Woodberry. A particular Tax List of Middlesex Hundred, Baltimore County, for 1799, has: " Elisha Tyson, Woodberry, brick mill house, two story, 43 X 43 feet." In the Federal Gazette, February 2, 1799, there is advertised to let Woodberry Mills, four miles from the city, on Jones's Falls. Applicants were advised to apply to Messrs. Tyson and Norris, or to Wm. Norris jun., & Co. I am not perfectly sure about John Ellicott's mill, but believe it was the mill called White Hall Mill. In 1799, according to a Tax List of Patapsco Lower Hundred, Baltimore County, Messrs. [Philip] Rogers and Owings were the owners of White Hall Mill. James Ellicott was the " occu- pant," i. e., the miller. A note attached to the record reads: " This property sold to Ja.' Ellicott." The mill house was of stone, two stories, 70 X 30 feet. A Complete View of Baltimore, by Varle (1833), shows White Hall Merchant Mill, next above Rock Merchant Mill, and described as " Property of Messrs. Ellicott." James Slade, Plan of Baltimore and Vicinity Showing the Proposed Routes for Bringing Water from the Jones's and Gwynn's Falls & the Patapsco River (1853), shows White Hall Factory between Mount Vernon Factory and Woodberry Factory.

!", Frederick Green, printer, Laws of Maryland (Annapolis, 1802), Ch. XXX. The poor house, built about 1771, and pulled down about 1832 when the land was divided into lots, stood across Hamilton Terrace. The east corner of the poor house ground should be on or near the site of the Richmond Market and Armory.

SOME BALTIMORE CITY PLACE NAMES 21

An Act to incorporate a company to make a turnpike road to lead from the cross roads near Richard Caton's limekiln,24 in Baltimore County, nearly in the direction of Jones's Falls, to the City of Baltimore, beginning for the same at the ford by Messieurs Patterson & Strieker's Mill & running thence northerly on and as near to the said Falls as may be found practicable for a good road & passing over the Bare Hills to the westward of Benjamin Bowen's House, until it reaches the bend, running westerly on or near the land of Job Hunt,25 & from thence to the cross roads by the limekiln of Richard Caton.26

In 1805 the Maryland Assembly passed a supplementary act in order to enable the Falls Turnpike Company '" to open a road on the east side of Jones's Falls towards Old-town by passing from the ford by Messrs. Patterson and Strieker's Mill to the stone bridge opposite to the mill of Josias Pennnington.27

Such were the beginnings of the Falls Road. The ford above mentioned was called Strieker's Ford.28 Kearney's military map of 1814, which we mentioned above (note 14) shows a bridge over the Falls at the mouth of Edwards's Run (Sumwalt Run), where the ford was situated.

In November, 1799, the Maryland Assembly passed an act to divide Baltimore County into districts to replace the old " hun- dreds." District No. 2 is therein defined as follows (notices in Baltimore American and Federal Gazette, August 26, 1800) : " To begin on Jones's Falls at the old Road above Rutter's Mill (formerly Hanson's)29 at the mouth of Edwards's Run, then with the said Road to the York Turnpike near Christopher Walker's," etc.30 This old road at one time went by the name of " Harry

s* On the Brooklandwood estate. Caton was the son-in-law of Charles Carroll of Carrollton.

25 Hunt owned lands now part of Ruxton. "'Laws of Maryland (1804), Ch. XCI. 21 Laws of Maryland (1805), Ch. XLVII. Pennington's mill was situated on

Jones's Falls, near the Biddle Street bridge. 28 So named on a plat, dated Nov. 26, 1805, and styled " Plot of roads north from

Baltimore." This plat is the work of Samuel Green, Deputy Surveyor, Baltimore County, and will be found among the Bayard Papers, Md. Hist. Soc. On it we find: " Strieker's ford," a short distance below Strieker & Co. mill. On the eastern side of the Falls the Falls Turnpike (so designated) is shown, as it turns north along the Falls. On its western side the Falls are the goal of a road styled " the Road to the Stone Quarries," which runs northwards from the eastern corner of the Poor House ground, at Richmond (now Read) Street. This was also called "the Mill Road."

2' Rutter's Mill, of which presently, stood on the north side of Jones's Falls, close to Maryland Avenue, the former Decker Street.

80 Acts of the Maryland Assembly, November Session, 1799.

22 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

Dorsey Gough's road." S1 but was later called Gilmor's Lane, later still, Vineyard Lane. Its intersection with the York Road is opposite St. John's Church, Huntington,32 or, in modern terms, half a block below Thirtieth Street.

SPICER'S RUN—RUTTER'S RUN

To one who will station himself on Lafayette Avenue and look down over the forlorn and litter-sprinkled squares of Eutaw Place to the hollow of McMechen Street, and up to the heights of North Avenue, or will look northwards from Lafayette Avenue up and down Linden Avenue, where the underprivileged dwell, or, standing beside the dear, old, wizened church will survey Bolton Street's neat houses, homes of a distinguished, if wistful, gentility—to such a one it will be difficult to realize that this was once a fair valley, intersected by a clean, bold stream, which gathered volume and force from many a tributary spring, on its way to Jones's Falls.

A stream of water, visible from the North Avenue bridge over Jones's Falls, issues from a tunnel, about a city block beyond the eastern end of Mosher Street. It winds around to the south, and goes under the Howard Street bridge, to empty into the Falls. This is Spicer's Run. Formerly it ran straight from the tunnel east to the Falls.83

Spicer's Run,3* nearly to its source, is shown on Warner and

81 So called on Samuel Green's Plat, 1805 (Note 28). Harry Dorsey Gough, Esq., of "' Perry Hall," owned " Huntington," and " developed " part of it.

82 G. W. Bromley & Co., Atlas of Baltimore, 1896, plates 15 and 18, shows Gilmor Lane (so called), from the intersection of Saint Paul and Twenty-Seventh Streets to the York Road, crossing the northwest corner of the Samuel Brady estate. T. E. Sickles, Map of the City of Baltimore and fart of Baltimore County, 1852, shows Gilmor Lane (not named), from Jones's Fails to the York Road, at St. John's Church, Huntington, passing, about mid-way, the " Grounds" of the Maryland Agricultural Society. Fielding Lucas, Map of Baltimore City, 1853, shows the old road leaving the Falls and ascending the valley of Edwards's Run (not named) from its mouth, crossing the run four times, thence proceeding north-easterly nearly to the York Road, past the Agricultural Society's farm, and intersecting the York Road at the church. This road got its name of Vineyard Lane from " The Vineyard," the estate of William Stevens Whiteley, whose mansion stood on the north side of the lane, east of Guilford Avenue.

83 This fact may be observed from a water color " perspective " for a proposed North Avenue bridge, designed by Hutton and Murdoch, 1767. It is also observable on Warner and Hanna's Map of Baltimore, 1801. The Hutton and Murdoch "perspective " is reproduced in Maryland History Notes, VI, No. 3, (November, 1948), 1.

84 This is the name which I find on Cornelius Howard's Plan of the Baltimore

SOME BALTIMORE CITY PLACE NAMES 23

Hanna's Map of Baltimore, 1801. Somewhat shortened, it is shown on James Kearney's " Sketch of the Military Topography of Baltimore and Vicinity, 1814." I estimate the length of Spicer's Run to be about a mile and half, and the combined area of its watershed and that of its tributary, Rutter's Run, to be four hundred acres, more or less. The width of its valley (including Rutter's Run) is about % of: a. mile.

Spicer's Run rises in what was once a swamp, at the corner of Druid Hill Avenue and Druid Hill Park, and flows between Druid Hill Avenue and Division Street to North Avenue. There, at North Avenue, the " fill " is about fifty feet deep. From North Avenue southwards to Laurens Street, where the run begins to turn towards the east until it reached McMechen Street, Spicer's Run flows between Druid Hill Avenue and Division Street. Years ago, houses on the west side of Druid Hill Avenue above North Avenue were two stories higher on their western sides than they were in front.35 In its original state, Spicer's Run, in its lower course, seems to have flowed through a deep and narrow hollow. The " Prick's Folly " houses (northern half of 1500 block, Park Avenue, west side) have subcellars; the remaining houses of the block have none. Tests, taken in connection with the foundations of the new school, McMechen, John and Mosher Streets, and Rutters Alley, bear out these facts.36

Writing in the Evening Sun, Baltimore, October 7, 1939, under the title "' Some Notes on Lanvale Street," the late Latrobe Weston says in part:

" John Street [within Mr. Weston's memory] was carried from Mosher Street to McMechen Street over a deep ravine by an embankment so narrow as to allow of the passage of only one wheeled vehicle at the time. The landscape on either side was desolate and forbidding. At the bottom of the ravine, some forty or fifty feet below the roadway, flowed a sluggish stream of sewage [JZV}, passing under the embankment through an arched

Company's Lands at Mount Royal, mentioned above. It is appropriate, and I dare say it was once in general use; but mention of this stream by any name is rare. I believe I have heard it referred to as Prick's Run, but have no record of that name.

85 Testimony of the late Mr. Milton Oler, Sr., given to the author, in August, 1939, when he was sixty-seven years old. Mr. Oier was born and brought up near North and Pennsylvania Avenues.

" For this information I am indebted to Mr. W. Watters Pagon, consulting engineer. His letter tn this effect bears date, October 27, 1928.

24 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

culvert and winding down on the east to Jones's Falls." 37 This refers to the seventies and eighties of the past century.

One of the primitive aspects peculiar to this valley seems to have been a great glade 38 or open space. So it appears from the will of John Spicer, who, on January 1, 1727, less than two years before the laying out of Baltimore Town, took up 100 acres of vacant land, which he called " Spicer's Inheritance." 39 In his will, January 1, 1738, John Spicer mentions "' the Great Glaid branch " four times by name, bequeathing to his son, Thomas, said son's dwelling plantation, being all of '" Spicer's Inheritance lying on the north side of the said branch," and to his son, Edward, after the decease of testator's wife, his (testator's) dwelling plantation, on the southern side of the same stream.40 In this way, from John Spicer and his family, Spicer's Run got its name.41

The laying out or tracing of streets in what we now call the

371 believe that Mr. Weston's memory of this feature of the John Street landscape is absolutely correct; but I am at a loss to explain why it is not illustrated on E. Sachse, Panoramic View of the City of Baltimore, 1869, on which we see the run emerging from a sewer (The McMechen street sewer or tunnel), between John Street and site of Mount Royal Avenue, from which point the stream makes its way east, to, and under the Northern Central Railroad tracks; thence to Jones's Falls. Between the run and the site of North Avenue we see a farm, the same as that mentioned by Miss Christiana Bond in her recollections of this neighborhood (see above).

38 According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the primary meaning of " glade " seems to be a sunny place. It means " a clear, open space or passage in a wood or forest, whether natural or produced by the cutting down of trees." It occurs to me that in the present instance the " glade " might have been the site of an old beaver pond, but I dare say this explanation will appear to be pretty far fetched.

39 Land Office of Maryland, Patent Records for Land, Liber I. L. No. D, f. 343. " Spicer's Inheritance " is a long and narrow tract of land. Its southernmost boundary is at or near the corner of Read and Cathedral Streets. Its northernmost boundary cannot be far from the intersection of Madison Avenue and Presstman Street (subject to correction).

40 Wills, Baltimore County, Liber 1, f. 312. Spicer's Run crosses the western side of " Spicer's Inheritance " at, or not far from, the intersection of McMechen Street and Eutaw Place. Thence east, along the run, present McMechen Street, was approximately the boundary which the testator, Spicer, intended.

41 Thomas Spicer (will proved, 9 March, 1748) leaves his part of "Spicer's Inheritance" (not named) to his son John Spicer, after the death of his wife, Rebecca Spicer. He mentions another son, Valentine Spicer. Wills, Baltimore County, Liber 1, f. 434. According to a tax list of Middlesex Hundred, Baltimore County, 1783, Rebecca Spicer owned 25 acres, part of " Spicer's Inheritance." The residue belonged to the heirs of James Richards. John Spicer's will was dated, 10 April, 1782, and proved 15 Jan., 1788. (Wills, Baltimore County, Liber 4, f. 289). He divides his part of "Spicer's Inheritance" among his sister, Eleanor Taylor, his nephew Valentine Spicer, his wife, Janet Spicer and his brother, Valentine Spicer. I have no record of any Spicer as owner of part of " Spicer's Inheritance " after 1796, but small parcels of it may have remained in the family in the female lines, until after 1800.

SOME BALTIMORE CITY PLACE NAMES 25

Mount Royal Area in the late 1840's made necessary the building of bridges over Spicer's Run (by then apparently no longer so called). May 24, 1852, the City Council voted " to have a bridge erected over the run in the bed of Grundy Street north of Mosher Street." 42 March 11, 1853, the council voted to finish the said bridge. Grundy Street is now called Bolton. June 9, 1853, the council voted to erect a bridge '" over the run in the bed of Garden Street between Mosher and McMakin [J?V] Street." 4S A stone tunnel in the bed of McMechen Street was already under way in 1854, between Madison Street and Garden Street (Linden Avenue).4* The following year the Council made provision for " tunnels " under Grundy Street and John Street and three alleys. Owners of adjacent properties were required to " tunnel their portion down to the building line of said streets." The heirs of Judge Frick were required to " open an air line water course to the mouth of the small tunnel which passes under the Susque- hanna Rail Road." 45

On March 24, 1887, an ordinance of the City Council made provision " to complete the sewers known as the Mosher Street sewer and the Rutter's Run sewer by extending the same to their junction under the culvert of the Northern Central Railway." 46

It was only in 1887 that the two streams, Rutter's and Spicer's Run, disappeared for all time under Mount Royal Avenue.

In an interesting article, which appeared in this magazine in 1931, under the title, " Mount Royal and Its Owners," Ella K. Barnard makes the following interesting remarks concerning Rutter's Run, which she does not name:

What is now North Avenue was formerly a deep ravine, down which in the memory of the oldest citizens a good sized stream was flowing. Some years ago when the sewer was laid there, forty feet under ground, stumps of good sized trees were found.47

On Warner and Hanna's Map Rutter's Run (not named) is shown, emptying into Spicer's Run (not named), something less than a hundred yards above the mouth of that stream. I had it

"James Lucas, printer, Ordinances . . . 1852 (Baltimore, 1852), No. 107. "Journal, First Branch of the City Council, 1852 (Baltimore, 1852), p. 629.

Ordinances, 1853, No. 18. " Journal, Second Branch of the City Council, 1854, p. 562. "Ordinances, 1855, p. 158, Resolution No. 159. 46 Ibid., 1887, No. 14. "Md. Hist. Mag., XXVI (Dec. 1931), 312.

26 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

from the late Mr. Milton Oler (mentioned above), whom I inter- viewed in 1939 concerning his recollections of this neighborhood, that the source of Rutter's Run was a very big spring, situated at the intersection of North Avenue and Bolton Street. There, so he told me, the " fill " is twenty feet deep, or more. North of this place was a tract of woodland called Callow's Woods.

Rutter's Run, as we have already observed, was formerly called Lawson's Run. It derived its name from the Lawson family, which owned " Newington " {q. f.).48 The name, Lawson's Run, appears on Cornelius Howard's plan of the Mount Royal Forge property, 1785.

NEWINGTON

" Newington," an extensive resurvey on earlier tracts of land, which includes the eastern side of Druid Hill Park, was laid out for Alexander Lawson, Jr., May 21, 1785.49 The original surveys were mostly acquired by his father, Alexander Lawson, Sr.,50

from the executors of John Gardiner, January 14, 1741.61 Before the resurvey was made the place already bore the name of Newington, as we learn from an advertisem*nt in the Baltimore American of August 8, 1883, wherein Mr. Lawson announces that he is laying off Newington in lots of from one to ten acres, to be offered on lease of 99 years. He describes the place as the site of his former residence.52 Newington Avenue, a street only three

48 From John Street, or thereabouts, west, to the western side of Pennsylvania Avenue, North Avenue lies on " Newington." East of John Street or thereabouts to Jones's Falls North Avenue lies on " Mount Royal."

48 Land Office of Maryland, Patented Certificate No. 3505, Baltimore County. The resurvey, which contained 482% acres, was composed of "' Hap Hazard," " Happy Be Lucky," part of " Spicer's Stony Hills" and part of " Daniel's Whimsey."

50 Alexander Lawson, son of James Lawson, of Banff, Scotland, was born about 1710, and was married, Nov. 13, 1735, aged 25, to Dorothy Smith, daughter of Walter Smith, of Calvert County, Maryland. (Lawson Bible). He was an eminent iron master, and one time manager of the Nottingham Iron Works. In the Maryland Gazette, Dec. 28, 1752, is the notice of the tragic death of his three daughters, " who fell into the Furnace Pond at his Iron Works in Baltimore County." Alexander Lawson, Jr. his son, was born at the Baltimore Iron Works, Jan. 4, 1740, Lawson Bible. Alexander Lawson, Sr., died in Baltimore Town, October 14, 1760. Alexander Lawson, Jr., married, January, 1763, Elizabeth Brown, daughter of Charles Brown, of Queen Anne's County, Md„ Dielman File, Md. Hist. Soc. She died "near Baltimore," January 11, 1814, ibid. He died, 11 Sept., 1798. He was Clerk of Baltimore County Court, ibid.

111 Baltimore County Land Records, Liber T. B. No. A, f. 66. 52 A Particular Tax List of Middlesex Hundred, Baltimore County, 1798, shows

the following persons holding lots in Newington: Zepheniah Chany, Henry Stouffer, Anthony Kimmil, Henry Carson, John Dixon, Alexander Mucklevans, Frederick

SOME BALTIMORE CITY PLACE NAMES 27

blocks long, is the only remaining street name which reminds us of the Lawsons.53 Formerly there was Lawson's Lane, which ran through Druid Hill Park from a point on Druid Hill Avenue to the south east line of St. Paul's Lutheran Cemetery in the Park, back of the sheepfold.54 The lower part of Lawson's Lane was closed in 1878.55

LANVALE—RUTTER'S FORD—PORCOSEN RUN

Lanvale appears to be a Welsh place-name.56 Originally (z. e., in Baltimore) it was applied to a part of " Mount Royal " situated on both sides of Decker Street, now Maryland Avenue, below North Avenue, and bounding on the northern and eastern sides of the Falls, whereon were situated the Lanvale factory and Rutter's grist mill. Illustrated on the cover of this magazine is a wash drawing from the Fielding Lucas, Jr., sketch book,57 styled " Lanvale," showing a water mill, identified as Rutter's mill (which stood on the north side of the Falls, a little up-stream from the Maryland Avenue bridge) and the mouth of a stream identified as Porcosen Run (later called Brady's Run), which emptied into the Falls a short distance below this bridge, close above Charles Street. The artist has shortened the distance between the tributary stream and the mill. The stream at its mouth is crossed by a paling water-fence, which joins, on either side, post and rail fences. The landscape in the distance is that of the area now bounded by North Avenue, the Falls and St. Paul Street. This drawing is not dated.58

Pratt, Joseph Young, Philemon Dorsey, Robert Taylor, Mathias Baker and Sarah Lawson, widow. Warner and Hanna's Map shows the residences of Messrs. Stouffer, Kimmil, Baker, Chany and Taylor, on or near the Reistertown Road (now Penn- sylvania Avenue), not far above or below the site of its intersection with North Avenue.

" The first street north of Reservoir Street, Brookfield Avenue to Mount Royal Terrace.

" J. V. Kelly, Public Parks of Baltimore, No. 3, Druid Hill Park (compiled for Baltimore commissioners, 1928), p. 9. Lawson's Lane was later called Newington Avenue (not to be confused with the present Newington Avenue). I doubt if there is a trace of it left.

"George W. McCreary, Street Index . . . (Baltimore, 1900), p. 139 refers to " Ordinances," 1878, No. 104. Lawson's Lane closed from Druid Hill Avenue to North Avenue.

"John Bartholomew & Son, Gazeteer of the British Isles, 9th ed. (Edinburgh, 1943), has no Lanvale. Samuel Lewis & Co., Topographical Dictionary of Wales (London, 1844, 1846, 1848) has " Llan Vaelog " and " Llanvael Rhys."

" Now belonging to Lucas Brothers, of Baltimore, Md. " It is my guess that the name of Lanvale was first applied to the Rutter's Mill

28 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

The ford called Rutter's was situated on Jones's Falls a little way above the mouth of Porcosen or Brady's Run, between Charles Street and Morton Alley. Here, at the ford, a road leading across country to the Poor House Ground and into Howard Street met the road called Hanson's Mill Road, later known as Lanvale Road, leading to the York Road. Hanson's mill and Rutter's mill are one and the same.

In November, 1805, the Maryland Assembly passed an act styled "An Act to straighten out the road leading into Howard Street in the City of Baltimore from the north end of Howard Street until it intersects what is called the Mill road at or near the ground of Elisha Tyson and George Grundy." 59 The new road was to start "' from the north end of Franklin Street and running thence the width of Howard Street and in the same direction until it reaches the south corner of the poor house ground, and from thence of the width of 66 feet towards Rutter's Ford, until it intersects the Mill Road (present Cathedral Street) at or near the property of Elisha Tyson and George Grundy." 60

Reference has already been made to Surveyor Samuel Green's " Plot of Roads north from Baltimore," dated November 26, 1805. On it, among others, we find indicated the following roads and landmarks:

(1) Rutter's Ford; (2) Rutter's Mill; (3) The Poor House Grounds and the Poor House; (4) the residence of George Grundy, Esq.; (5) Poor House Lane,61 (6) a road styled " Bolton Street (Contemplated)," which leads out of Howard Street (not named), at its intersection with Poor House Lane (present corner of Howard and Madison Streets) straight to Rutter's Ford; (7) a much narrower road styled " Road to Rutter's Ford," which, running east of the aforesaid " contemplated " Bolton Street,62

property not earlier than 1810, when it was sold to Messrs. James Mosher, Robert Cary Long and William Gwynn. Note the fact that Gwynn is a Welsh family name.

59 Tyson's land lay between Cathedral Street and Richmond Street (now Read). Grundy's adjointed Tyson's. His mansion, " Bolton," stood on the site of the Fifth Regiment Armory. The Mill Road was the road from town on the western side of Jones's Falls to Birckhead's Mill (q.v.).

'"Laws of Maryland, November Session (1805), Ch. XXXIV. 81 Called "Almshouse Street " on Warner and Hanna's Map. 82 This road is shown in part on Poppleton's Plan of Baltimore City, 182}. It

approaches the Falls at a point between St. Paul and Charles Street. It ran thence along the Falls to the ford. Poppleton shows it crossing John Street (now Preston) at its intersection with Charles. The Bolton spring branch also crossed this intersection.

SOME BALTIMORE CITY PLACE NAMES 29

from the end of Poor House Lane, skirts the Poor House grounds, and runs thence to Jones Falls, thence up the Falls to Rutter's Ford.63 This was a road of unknown antiquity, possibly one of the oldest pre-city roads of this area. (8) a road styled "' county road," which runs, generally, about north north east from Rutter's Ford to the York Road at James Edwards's; (9) a much wider road styled " The Road Contemplated," which runs straight from the ford to the York Road at the aforesaid Edwards's. This was the road laid out later (1811) and called Lanvale Road.

Among the so-called Package Plats at the Baltimore Court House is one styled '" Plat of Lanvale Road formerly called Han- sons Mill Road as laid out by the commissioners." The commission is dated 17 Jan., 1811, and calls for the widening and straightening of " a road commonly called Hansons Mill Road from Rutters ford on Jones fall to Baltimore and York Turnpike." The commissioners met and surveyed the aforesaid road, January 24, 1811, which is described in their report as follows (Package Plat, 161. The italics are mine.):

Beginning for the same N. 76 degrees west 2 perches from the center of the south end of the arch or culvert built over Porcosen run on that part of the Falls Turnpike road leading into old town and running thence south 20 degrees west 19 perches to Jones Falls, then from the beginning aforesaid North 20 degrees east 174 perches, north forty degrees east eighty five perches to the Baltimore and York Town Turnpike road at 7 perches southerly from James Edwards stone garden fence—called Lanvale Road.

This, according to my research, is the first occurrence of the name Lanvale in the records of Baltimore City. A Poppleton Plan of Baltimore City shows Lanvale Road (not named) intersecting the Falls between Charles Street and Morton Alley. This is the site of Rutter's Ford. It shows the road intersecting the Falls east of Charles Street, between Lanvale and Federal Street. This part of the Falls Road has been eliminated. Lanvale Road (not named) is shown intact on Hopkins' Atlas of Baltimore City and County, 1877 (p. 52, Ninth District), from North Avenue, at St. Paul Street, to Huntington Avenue (Twenty-Fifth Street), at Barclay Street. Lanvale Road ran into the York Road a short distance above Huntington Avenue.

Porcosen is an Indian word which, in the seventeenth and

" Not to be confused with the Bolton Street of today, which was not then " contemplated."

30 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

eighteenth centuries, in Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina, was applied to " low wooded ground or swamp which is covered with shallow water in winter and remains in a miry condition in summer." 64 It was formerly much used by Maryland surveyors, and occurs in many early surveys which are recorded at the State Land Office. Its application to the stream mentioned in the record quoted above seems to indicate that, while not earlier recorded, the name may have been in use in that connection at a much earlier date, perhaps in the latter part of the seventeenth century.

Porcosen Run, or, to call it by its later name, Brady's Run, emptied into Jones's Falls on its northern side a few perches above Charles Street, as is shown on a plat of a survey made for the Baltimore Water Company in 1835. This stream, described as a " small branch," is called for in the certificate of survey of " Saint Mary Bourne," alias " Saint Mary Bow " (see under " Mount Royal "). From a marked walnut tree at the mouth of this branch the survey (St. Mary Bourne) runs N. N. W. up the branch 75 perches (something short of % of a mile). This line was later (1720) retained and incorporated in the resurvey, " Mount Royal." The source of Brady's Run (so named), on the estate of Samuel Brady,65 is indicated in Bromley's Atlas of Baltimore City, 1896, Plates 15 and 18. This source lies in the area bounded by Barclay Street and York Road, Twenty-Ninth Street and Twenty-Eighth Street. The course of the run between its source and Twenty-Third Street, at Hunter Street, or Alley is shown on the Atlas. Bromley's Atlas of Baltimore, 1887, Plate 6, shows this stream from the south side of North or Boundary Avenue, between Charles and St. Paul Streets, south to Lovegrove Alley, nearly half way to Townsend Street (Lafayette Avenue).66 The stream passed the southeastern corner of Charles and Lanvale Streets.67

64 Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 30, Part 2, Handbook of American

Indians, p. 287. Other forms of the word are, as therein noted: poquosin, poaques- son, poquoson, pocoson, perkoson.

"Samuel Brady (1789-1871), mayor of Baltimore, 1840-1842. °a Bromley, Atlas, shows Brady's Run skirting the western sides of the Baltimore

Baseball Club's Union Park. In a most interesting article dealing with the history of North or Boundary Avenue (Baltimore Evening Sun, September 18, 1940) Mr. Lee McCardell mentions " an open brook," which, long after the laying out of this avenue, "' ran across it just east of Charles Street." This was Brady's Run. Mr. Talbot Denmead, 3rd, whose family home, a country house, stood near the intersection of Lafayette and Maryland Avenues, informed me a number of years ago, that it was his opinion that Brady's Run, on leaving North Avenue, passed under the present Oriole Cafeteria.

" Journal, the First Branch of the City Council, 1853-1854, p. 359.

SOME BALTIMORE CITY PLACE NAMES 31

Brady's Run has a length of about one mile. A bird's eye glimpse of its valley may be had in Sachse's View of the City of Baltimore, 1869- Its entire course is shown, on a small scale, on T. E. Sickles' A Map of the City of Baltimore and Part of Baltimore County for the Introduction of Water into the City, 1852.68

On March 27, 1747, there was surveyed for Jonathan Hanson, under a writ of ad quod damnum, a tract of land, containing forty acres, lying on both sides of Jones's Falls, for the purpose of erecting a mill thereon. The land so surveyed was part of " Mount Royal" and already belonged to Hanson.69 This Jonathan Hanson was the son of an earlier Jonathan Hanson (d. 1727) by his first wife, Keziah Murray, and was born, September 10, 1710. He married (1) Sarah Spicer, and (2) Mary , died in 1786. He and his father were among the pioneer business men of Baltimore Town. In his last years he resided in a large stone mansion, later John Rutter's residence, and later still the home of the Denmead family. The grist mill, which Jonathan Hanson built on the land so acquired from himself, was known, first, as Hanson's Mill, then as Rutter's Mill. It was occasionally called Mount Royal Mill, and finally went under the name of Lanvale. Jonathan Hanson was buried in the family graveyard, which lay at and below the intersection of Lafayette and Charles Street. In an advertisem*nt, published in the Maryland fournal, October 16, 1776, George Parker, clothier, informs the public that he has removed to Mr. Hanson's fulling mill about one mile from Balti- more Town, where he carries on the fulling and dying business. Hanson's grist mill stood on the north side of Jones's Falls, immediately above the Decker Street (Maryland Avenue) bridge.70

The mill-dam belonging to this mill lay across the Falls between

68 Sickles places the mouth of the run too far up Jones's Falls with reference to Charles Street. This map shows the dwelling house and out buildings of the "Sadler" [Sadtler] family between Lanvale Road (not named) and Gilmor Lane (not named), with an entrance on the former. The entrance lane crosses the run. The Sadtler house is placed somewhat too far to the east. As is well known, it stood, until a few years ago, on the east side of Charles Street, between Twenty- fifth Street (Huntington Avenue) and Twenty-sixth Street.

'"'Land Office of Maryland, Chancery Proceedings, Liber I. R. No. 5, f. 53. To the layman it is a curious fact that the law required a man to " condemn " his own land for a mill site.

'"Warner and Hanna, Map, 1801, shows a "Mill" standing on the Falls, at about that place. Fielding Lucas, Map of Baltimore, 1841, shows a building on N. side of the Falls, immediately above Decker Street.

32 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

North Avenue and Lafayette Avenue, and is shown on a '" perspective " of the proposed North Avenue Bridge, 1867, to which reference has already been made.11 A section of the mill-race is also visible in this drawing.

In his will, dated December 26, 1785,72 Jonathan Hanson be- queaths to his wife, Mary Hanson, " the houses and plantation on which I live, being part of a tract of land called Mount Royal, and my upper grist millT3 thereon, except my fulling mill, which I devise to my son Amon Hanson."

The next owner of Hanson's mill on Mount Royal was John Rutter (d. 1806). He was a member of the Hanson family by marriage.74 The Baltimore City Directory for 1804 has: "John Rutter, gentleman. Mount Royal." In the Baltimore American of July 9, 1804, he advertised this property for sale. The estate contained some 99 acres, exclusive of the " three good stone quarries " " mentioned in this advertisem*nt. Among its other advantages and its amenities were, it was said: 39 acres of woods; a large stone dwelling house;76 a '" well cultivated garden;77 an

71 Poppleton, Plan of Baltimore City, 1852, shows the mill-race, starting a little below North Avenue, above Townsend Street.

72 This will was proved, 7 January, 1786. Wills, Baltimore City and County, Vol. 4, f. 115.

73 His two lower grist mills were situated, as he says in his will, on " Salisbury Plains." One was at or near the site of the intersection of Jones Falls and Preston Street -.the other, later Josias Pennington's mill, was on the east side of the Falls a little below Biddle Street.

74 He married Elizabeth Askew, who survived him. Their marriage license is dated Baltimore County, Feb. 16, 1785. There are recorded among the Land Records of Baltimore County in Liber T. K. No. 238, at folio 270, articles of agreement between Hugh W. Evans and Joseph Todhunter, of the one part, and Thomas B. Rutter, of the other part, concerning the graveyard known as Rutter's, on the site of the intersection of Charles Street and Lafayette Avenue. These articles are dated, Nov. 4, 1834. Therein it is recited that " John Rutter, who married into the family of the aforesaid Jonathan Hanson . . . afterwards became sole owner of that part of the said farm in which the graveyard was situated."

75 These quarries must have been situated in the rocky banks on the east side of Jones's Falls, below the mouth of Edwards's or Sumwalt Run. The Hanson's Mill property, part of " Mount Royal," extended no farther up the Falls than this point. Only a few decades ago a number of old quarries were to be observed on the eastern side of the Falls above North Avenue. In Particular Tax List of Patapsco Lower Hundred, Baltimore County, we find the following items: John Foss, a stone quarry, near Birckhead's Mill, Gabriel Gill, a stone quarry opposite the mill of Doctor Birckhead; John Keplinger, quarrier, 1/2 acre used as a stone Quarry, adjoining Gills near Birckhead's Mill. G. M. Hopkins' Atlas of Baltimore and Its Environs, 1876, Plate " R," shows a short street called Quarry Place between Denmead (Twentieth) Street and Mankin (now Twenty-first) Street, west of Oak Street (now Howard), a block and a half above North Avenue.

76 Warner and Hanna, Map, 1801, shows this house marked " Rutter." 77 This garden is also shown by Warner and Hanna. It is extensive, being about

a city block wide and more than a block long.

SOME BALTIMORE CITY PLACE NAMES 33

apple orchard of 300 trees; the mill, "in complete order," and " an extensive view of the bay and the neighbouring country." The property is described as within a mile of the city of Baltimore, on the eastern side of Jones's Falls. The sale did not come off, and in the American of August 25, 1804, " Mount Royal Mill," situated one mile from town, is advertised to let. Applicants are advised to apply to John Rutter, " on the premises " or to the subscriber, Thomas Rutter, Jr.

The Rutter's Mill property, containing eleven acres, part of " Mount Royal," was sold, November 24, 1809, by Josias Penning- ton and Thomas Rutter to Messrs. James Mosher, Robert Gary Long and William Gwynn, of John, of the City of Baltimore,78

who, on June 26, 1810, bought of John Rutter's executors, Thomas and Josias Rutter some 86 square perches adjacent to it, farther down the Falls.79 The later deed is interesting in that it called for "" a road that leads from James Edwards's80 across Jones's Falls [at Rutter's Ford} to Howard Street." This road has already been considered in detail.

The Lanvale Woolen Manufactory, equipped for " fulling. Dyeing, and Dressing of mixed linens and Woolen or Cotton Woolen Cloths," was advertised in the Baltimore American, of March 10, 1813, by one William Brinkett, who mentions his " long acquaintance with the above business in Europe." It is described as being situated about one mile from town. On Poppleton's Plan of the City of Baltimore (1823), we find the Lanvale Woolen Factory at the site of Lanvale and Decker Streets. Charles Varle, in his Complete View of Baltimore (1833), tells us that Lanvale Factory, " built several years ago," employed 150 hands, and consumed about 200,000 pounds of cotton yearly. Hugh D. Evans was the proprietor. Mr. Evans bought the property, styled the Lanvale Cotton Factory, in 1828, for $25,000.81

78 Baltimore County Land Records, Deeds, Liber W. G. No. 105, f. 194. The

property therein conveyed extended up the Falls, on both sides, as far as the mouth of Edwards's Run. Mentioned in this deed are: the land condemned for Mount Royal Forge; the Mill Road (i.e., the road from town to Birckhead's Mill, later Strieker's, etc.) ; the mill dam (of Rutter's Mill).

•"Baltimore County Land Records, Liber W. G. No. 108, f. 541. As will appear later, Rutter's Mill stood on this property.

89 Warner and Hanna's Map shows the residence of " Edwards " on the west side of the York Road, a little less than a mile above the site of the intersection of that road and North Avenue. The distance is greatly exaggerated.

81 William Frick, trustee, conveyed this property and other parts of " Mount Royal " to Hugh W. Evans (elsewhere referred to as Hugh D. Evans) Feb. 16,

34 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

It is my opinion that the Lanvale Woolen Factory, which is the subject o£ the above mentioned advertisem*nt, was housed in the old mill house on Jones's Falls, and that the the active and important Lanvale Woolen Factory of 1823 was not built until after 1813.82

In 1843 Mr. Adam Denmead, a resident of Baltimore, purchased 31 acres of " Mount Royal," on which the Hanson-Rutter mansion was situated, and, thereafter, made it his summer home.83

The old house stood across the site of the bed of Townsend Street, until, in 1883, that street was extended from Charles Street to Maryland Avenue. It is now called Lafayette Avenue.84 In 1877 the entrance lane led up to the house from Charles Street and

1830, Baltimore County Land Records, Liber W. G. No. 204, f. 592. It appears that the property was sold at auction, 29 Nov., 1828, under a decree of the Baltimore County Court, and Mr. Evans was the highest bidder. He sold a one-half interest in it to Joseph Todhunter, Feb. 25, 1830. Ibid., f. 597.

82 Kearney's " Sketch of the Military Topography of Baltimore and Vicinity, 1814," shows no building on the site of the intersection of Decker Street (Maryland Avenue) and Townsend Street (Lafayette Avenue), but does show a building, styled " factory," on the Falls, at or about the place where Warner and Hanna (1801) show a "Mill," which is unquestionably identical with Rutter's Mill. There is recorded among the land records of Baltimore County, in Liber W. G. No. 161, at folio 170, a deed, dated 1 August, 1821. Samuel G. Jones is the party of the first part, James Mosher, Robert Gary Long and William Gwynn, of John, the parties of the second part, and Philip E. Thomas, executor and trustee under the will of Joseph Thornborough, the party of the third part. The property involved is that part of " Mount Royal " and Coxes's "Addition " purchased by the parties of the second part of Thomas and Josias Rutter, June 26, 1810 (see above). Men- tioned in the deed of 1821 is " the mill factory and other buildings and improvements thereon."

"Baltimore County Land Records, Deeds, Liber T. K. No. 345, f. 205: President and Directors of Union Bank of Maryland to Adam Denmead, 13 Sept., 1843, Lots No.'s 1 & 3, parts of " Mount Royal," lying on the northern boundary of the City of Baltimore, in all, something over 31 acres, also part of " Huntington," 3% acres and 13 perches. Mr. Denmead, who was born in Baltimore in 1804, died there in 1860, aged sixty. His son, Talbot Denmead, 1st (1828-1876), succeeded him as owner of this property, whose son, Talbot Denmead, 2nd (1854-1882) was the last of the family to own and occupy the old house. I am indebted to his son, Talbot Denmead, 3rd for information, which is contained in a letter, dated October 23, 1943. Mr. Denmead is the distinguished conservationist: " The old Denmead place was purchased by my great-grandfather, Adam 2nd" (N. B.: his father, Adam Denmead, 1st, a native of Ireland, died in Baltimore, 13 Feb., 1823, in his 56th year.) " The old Denmean place consisted, as I recall, of a tract of about 43 acres extending from about Union Station northerly to and including the present site of St. Michael's and All Angel's Church, which site was donated by Talbot Denmead 1st, and ran along Twentieth Street, which was formerly Denmead Street, toward Oak Street [now Howard Street]. It included the Northern Central R. R. tracks south of the North Avenue bridge."

84 G. W. McCreary, Slreet Index . . . (Baltimore, 1900), p. 193. Mr. Talbot Denmead, 3rd, recalls the old house, which faced south. (His letter of Oct. 23, 1943).

SOME BALTIMORE CITY PLACE NAMES 35

out by way of Decker Street.85 I do not doubt that it originally met Lanvale Road, which crossed Townsend Street at Lovegrove Alley, half a block east of Charles.

The old graveyard, known as Rutter's graveyard, which was laid out by Jonathan Hanson,86 wherein he, his two wives, and many of his descendants were buried, was situated in the bed of Charles Street, at and below its intersection with Townsend Street, the present Lafayette Avenue. When the opening up, or extension of Charles Street was imminent, the bodies interred in this private burying ground were removed to a vault in Greenmount Ceme- tery,87 and the land sold to Mr. Denmead.88

86 Hopkins' Atlas of Baltimore City, 1876, Plate "' P," shows the house astride

the bed of the future Townsend Street. A private road leads up from Charles Street to the front of the house, where there is a circle, and thence to Decker Street. Mr. Denmead tells me that "' there was a patent gate on the Charles Street side that opened when a horse drawn vehicle passed over the trigger." These contraptions were apparently once quite popular. I know of one which failed to open, and nearly caused a serious accident.

8a Baltimore County Land Records, Deeds, Liber T. K. No. 338, f. 270: Hugh W. Evans and Joseph Todhunter to Thomas B. Rutter, Nov. 4, 1834. The said parties enter into an agreement as to the bounds of the graveyard and the road leading thereto. A new entrance is agreed on, leading up to the stone dwelling-house from the Eastern Branch of the Falls Road, past the Lanvale Factory, and thence to the graveyard. The graveyard is described as having been laid out by Jonathan Hanson.

81 Greenmount Cemetery, Area " E," Lots 46 and 47, vault. A large stone slab is engraved with the names of the persons who are buried beneath, and the years of their respective demises, as follows: Jonathan Hanson, 1786; Sarah, his wife; Mary his wife, 1794; Kezia, 1770; Edwd, 1786; Amon, 1787; Elizabeth, 1791; Jonathan, Sarah, Hannah, 1831, their children; W. Askew, 1792; William, his son; D. Gorsuch; Charles, his son, 1781; Jonathan, 1792; Joshua, 1783; Josias, 1790 (sons of Josias Pennington); John Rutter, 1806; Elizabeth Rutter, 1838; William, 1792; Edward, 1799; J. Hanson, 1800; Robert, 1806, their children; Edward Rutter, 1800; Margaret, his wife, 1806; Mary Barry, 1782; L. Barry, 1822; J. Johnson, Adeline, his daughter; S. Wilkinson, Elizabeth, his wife; Jonathan Rutter, 1806; Martha, his wife, 1829, and their children.

88 Baltimore County Land Records, Deeds, Liber A. W. No. 423, f. 149: 12 Nov., 1829, Josias Rutter, surviving trustee under the will of John Rutter, to Adam Den- mead, conveyance, Rutter's Graveyard. This deed recites, in part, that " whereas North Charles Street as lately laid out and opened by the Board of Commissioners for opening streets in the City of Baltimore intersects and divides that part of the tract of land called Mount Royal heretofore reserved and for many years past used by the families and descendants of the late Jonathan Hanson and the late John Rutter as a family graveyard . . . whereby it became proper and expedient to remove the persons there interred to Greenmount Cemetery," etc.

FREIGHT RATES IN THE MARYLAND TOBACCO TRADE, 1705-1762

By JOHN M. HEMPHILL, II *

A FTER the outbreak of the War of the Spanish Succession in JLx. 1702, captains of ships in the Maryland tobacco trade took advantage of the scarcity of shipping to charge exorbitant freight rates.x The Maryland tobacco planters complained that shipmasters, after promising to charge as little freight as anyone else, later agreed among themselves to fill out their bills of lading at a high freight.2 In October, 1704, in order to prevent this evil practice and to give the many scattered consigning planters a better bargaining position with the shipmasters, the Maryland General Assembly passed " An Act requiring the Masters of Shipps and Vessells to publish the rates of their Freight before they take any Tobacco on board." '

The act contained four sections. The first required ". . . that every Master and Commander of a Shipp or other Vessell that purposes to export Tobacco on Freight shall before he take any such Tobacco on board his said Shipp or Vessell publish in Writing by a Note under his hand which he shall Cause to be affix'd on the Court door of that County where his said Shipp shall ride at Anchor at what rate he will receive Tobo upon freight P Tonn

* The author wishes to thank Dr. T. C. Barker of the London School of Eco- nomics, Dr. Morris L. Radoff and Mr. Gust Skordas of the Maryland Hall of Records, Mr. Samuel Rosenblatt and especially Dr. L. W. Towner of Williams- burg, Virginia, for assistance in the preparation of this article. He is indebted to Stein Tviete, Mag. Art., of Mosby, Norway for suggesting and to Dr. Francis C. Haber, formerly Editor of this magazine, for encouraging the publication of the material presented here.

1M. S. Morriss, "Colonial Trade of Maryland, 1689-1715," Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, XXXII, No. 3 (Baltimore, 1914), 96; cf. Archives of Maryland, XXVII, 465.

'"The Governors Remarques upon the Laws of Maryland," CO. 5/715/Docu- ment 87 (Part vii), pp. 36-J7, British Transcripts, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress; cf. Curtis P. Nettels, Money Supply of the American Colonies before 1720 (Madison, Wisconsin, 1934), p. 54.

'Arch. Md., XXVI, 136, 345-346.

FREIGHT RATES IN THE MARYLAND TOBACCO TRADE 37

on board his said Shipp for that intended Voyage which Note the Clerk of the County shall enter upon Record." i The next two sections provided for the forfeiture of any tobacco put on board any ship or ship's boat before the master had posted his freight, and for a fine on the captain of twenty shillings for every hogshead taken on board before his freight was published. The last and longest section required a shipmaster who sent small craft to another country for part of his load to provide the skipper with a certificate of the freight rate, signed by the clerk of the county where the ship rode at anchor; this section also enjoined the Collectors of the Customs and the Naval Officers to procure copies of the act and to affix the same in their offices.5

Although enacted to remedy a specific grievance, largely resulting from a temporary wartime shortage of shipping, the act of 1704 contained no clause limiting its duration. It remained in effect for more than fifty years and on the statute books until 1785.6 By that time, grain had succeeded tobacco as the staple of Maryland agriculture, and the American Revolution had termi- nated the British shipping monopoly in the Chesapeake tobacco trade.7

Thanks to the clause, " which Note the Clerk of the County shall enter upon Record," Maryland local records contain a great number of useful entries concerning shipping in the eighteenth- century tobacco trade. The recorded freight rate notices have preserved not only the dates of the notes, the names of vessels and their captains, and the freight rates themselves, but also, more frequently than not, both where the ships were anchored in Maryland and the names of their owners or charterers, in England. In addition to these usual items, other details relating to the vessels and their voyages were often included in the captains' notes and entered verbatim by the clerk.

The primary importance of these entries lies in the statistical

llbid., 345. 5 Ibid., XXVI, 345-346. ' Act of 1704, Ch. LXII, requiring masters to publish freight rates, repealed

1785, Ch. 69, W. Kilty, Laws of Maryland (2 vols., Annapolis, 1799-1800), I, sub date 1704.

7J. Franklin Jameson, (ed.), "Letters of Phineas Bond," American Historical Association Annual Report, 1896 (2 vols.; Washington, 1897), I, no. 629; L. A. Harper, " Effects of the Navigation Acts on the Thirteen Colonies," in R. B. Morris, (ed.), Era of the American Revolution (New York, 1939), pp. 9-10, 25-26.

38 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

evidence they provide for the student of the colonial tobacco trade. As Dr. A. Pierce Middleton has pointed out in Tobacco Coast: " Freight rates ... are a good indication of the state of trade at any given time. They indicate the amount of shipping employed in relation to the amount of goods to be transported, and they indicate indirectly the risk involved, because the shipowner must meet his insurance premium out of the proceeds of the freight." s

Since freight was the largest (except for English customs duties) and most variable of the charges which the planters had to pay on a hogshead of tobacco consigned to England for sale, freight rates are also useful as evidence in assessing the costs and profits of the Maryland tobacco planters.9

The series of freight rates discussed here have been abstracted from the land records of Anne Arundel County, and are summarized in tabular form at the end of this article.10 Fortunately, the freight rate notices for this county appear to have been more systematically recorded and are better preserved than for any other; and since Anne Arundel County occupied a central position in the tobacco economy of Maryland during the first half of the eighteenth century, it is believed that these entries accurately reflect—at least until 1755—the fluctuations of freight rates in the Maryland tobacco trade over the same span. The series of entries which follow, therefore, provide one means of gauging the condition of the tobacco trade over a period of more than fifty years.

Besides giving twentieth-century economic historians useful eighteenth-century statistics, the Maryland law of 1704 seems also to have accomplished, at least partially, the purpose for which it was enacted. Throughout the eighteenth century, peacetime freight

' A. Pierce Middleton, Tobacco Coast: A Maritime History of Chesapeake Bay in the Colonial Era (Newport News, Virginia, 1953), p. 300. I am grateful to Dr. Middleton not only for permission to quote this passage but also for his friend- ship and advice over a period of years.

The planters paid freight charges from one fourth to one half as large as their own net proceeds from sales. Johns Papers, Deposit 339, Hall of Records, Items #13 and 44. Cf. Charles A. Barker, Background of the Revolution in Maryland (New Haven, 1940), p. 81.

10 These records are now deposited in the Hall of Records at Annapolis, Maryland. For permission to publish material from them and from other documents in the custody of the Hall of Records, for generous assistance in locating similar entries in the records of other counties, and for numerous courtesies extended over many years, I am greatly indebted to Dr. Morris L. Radoff, Archivist of Maryland, and the staff of the Hall of Records.

FREIGHT RATES IN THE MARYLAND TOBACCO TRADE 39

rates in Maryland were lower than in Virginia, which had no such law.11 The requirement that the freight rate be published before any tobacco was taken on board both decreased the time in which the shipmaster could assess the supply of tobacco and the demand for freight, and also increased the probability of concerted action by the planters if they considered the rate excessive.12

The lower freights may have resulted partly, as a correspondent wrote to the Maryland Gazette in 1747, because the wording of the bills of lading used in Maryland offered larger opportunities for fraud to the masters and the English merchants; but as the Maryland rivers were more distant from the English markets, and the Maryland tobacco hogsheads larger than those of Virginia, it seems likely that the law of 1704 was at least equally responsible for the lower freight rates prevailing in Maryland.13

Freight rates in the tobacco trade were calculated in pounds sterling per ton. By a custom established in the Virginia tobacco trade before 1630, four hogsheads, no matter what their weight, constituted a ton.14 The ton, therefore, was a measurement ton, and the maximum dimensions of the hogsheads were fixed by Maryland law.15 Since the weight of the hogshead had no effect on the freight charged, it was to the shipper's advantage to pack into the cask, by means of a lever device called a "" prize," as

11 Although Governor William Gooch of Virginia suggested a similar provision for the publication of freight rates in his 1729 " Proposals " for a tobacco inspection law, it was not included in the Virginia tobacco inspection act of 1730. After the long depression of the 1720's, the Virginia planters rarely succeeded in forcing the peacetime freight rate below £8 per ton. For evidence of higher rates in Virginia, see Louis B. Wright, (ed.). Letters of Robert Carter, 1720-1727 (San Marino, California, 1940), p. 10; Maryland Gazette, December 9, 1747, p. 1, column 1; and John C. Fitzpatrick, ed.. Writings of George Washington (39 vols.; Washington, 1931-1944), III. 89.

"Brice Protest Book, 1734-1744, Maryland Historical Society, pp. 126-180. Cf. Wright, (ed.), op. cit., p. 20.

13 Barbadoes, which had a similar law pertaining to the freight charged on the carriage of sugar to England, enjoyed lower freight rates than other English sugar islands. See Nettels, op. cit., p. 92, n. Ill; and Ralph Davis, "Earnings of Capital in the English Shipping Industry, 1670-1730," Journal of Economic History, XVII, No. 3 (September, 1957), 415.

14 Governor John Harvey to the Privy Council of England, Virginia, May 29, 1630, Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, VII, No. 4 (April, 1900), 382. The same custom applied in Maryland; see, for example, an agreement for freight dated London, 21 September 1657, ". . . he or they paying fraight after the Rate of Seven pounds Sterling per Tunn four usuall hhds according to the Gage of the Countrey to the Tun . . ." (Arch. Md., XLI, 29).

"Middleton, op. cit., pp. 116-117.

40 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

much tobacco as he could without impairing its quality. Especially in wartime, the planters tended to overestimate the quantity of tobacco which could be pressed into a hogshead; and some of the many complaints from the English merchants about the quality of the tobacco shipped from the Chesapeake colonies referred specifi- cally to damage from " overprizing." ia Nevertheless, the planters gradually increased both the legal size of the hogsheads and the quantity of tobacco pressed into them from an average of less than five hundred pounds in the late seventeenth century to nearly one thousand pounds after the passage of the Maryland tobacco inspection act of 1747.17 By that act, no tobacco hogshead weighing less than 950 pounds could be legally exported from Maryland.18

The gradual increase in the size and weight of the hogsheads, therefore, effectively reduced the freight charges which the planters had to pay.19

Freight rates in the Anne Arundel County entries for 1705-1762 varied from £4 per ton to £18 per ton, but the usual fluctuations were much smaller than these figures suggest.20 The greatest variations were between wartime and peacetime freight charges.21 In time of peace the rates tended to vary only a pound per ton above

ie Robert Carter to Thomas Corbin, Rappahannock River, Virginia, 20 August, 1705, William and Mary Quarterly, 1st Series, XVII, No. 4 (April, 1909), 260- 261; Farrell & Jones to Mrs. Elizabeth Jones, Bristol, July 15, 1760, Jones Family Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.

17 Middleton, op. cit., p. 101; c\. L. C. Gray, History of Agriculture in the Southern United States to 1860 (2 vols.; Washington, 1933), I, 220-223; and L. F. Stock, (ed.). Proceedings and Debates of the British Parliaments respecting North America (5 vols.; Washington, 1924-41), II, 431.

18 For the inspection act of 1747, see the excellent monograph by V. J. Wyckoflf, " Tobacco Regulation in Colonial Maryland," Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, Extra Volumes, New Series, No. 22 (Baltimore, 1936), Ch. VIII.

18 L. C. Gray, op. tit., I, 223. 30 Dr. Ralph Davis of Hull University, England, has made a brief analysis of

freight rates in the tobacco trade in connection with his study of the English shipping industry in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries; but as he apparently has neglected the effect of war on freight rates, ignored the impact of sales in the colonies on the demand for freight, and relied chiefly on evidence drawn from the West Indian sugar trade, his conclusion that freight rates in the tobacco trade fluctuated substantially from year to year may be questioned. Ralph Davis, " Merchant Shipping in the Economy of the Late Seventeenth Century," Economic History Review, Second Series, Vol. IX, No. 1 (August, 1956) ,67-69.

21 Cf. the illuminating analyses of freight rates in the English West Indian sugar trade in Richard Pares, War and Trade in the West Indies (Oxford, 1936), pp. 500- 503; and K. G. Davies, Royal African Company (London, 1957), pp. 201-203.

FREIGHT RATES IN THE MARYLAND TOBACCO TRADE 41

or below a norm of f7.22 In wartime the rates were naturally almost always higher than the peacetime norm, but the rates in any given year of war depended on so many factors that the variations were much greater than in time of peace.

After war and peace, the next most important influence on freight rates was the number and activity of the tobacco purchasers in Maryland. Most of the purchasers were factors for merchants in the outports of England and Scotland, and the tobacco they bought in Maryland was ordinarily loaded on ships which their employers had chartered to carry only their own tobacco. These ships rarely accepted tobacco on freight, even when consigned to the same port, and consequently their captains seldom published their freight rates. When vigorous competition to purchase drove up tobacco prices in the colony, many planters who otherwise might have shipped their tobacco to English merchants on consignment sold their crops in the country. As a consequence, vessels taking in tobacco on freight frequently experienced difficulty in obtaining their ladings. In these circ*mstances captains often published their freight rate " with liberty of consignment," that is, they published their freight charges to a given English port and allowed the shipper to name the merchant to whom the tobacco was to be delivered. When the purchasers were especially active, freight rates were sometimes forced down.23 Conversely, when there were few cash purchasers active in Maryland and the price of tobacco was low in the colony, many planters preferred to consign their crops to England. At such times, the demand for freight space sometimes exceeded the capacity of the available shipping; liberty of consignment was rarely offered; and shipmasters were occasionally able to publish their freight at a higher rate than would otherwise have been accepted.24

The last, and least frequent, causes of variation in freight rates were large crops of tobacco and a shortage of freight space, on the one hand, or short crops and a surplus of shipping, on the other. The quantity of tobacco to be exported on freight most

" V. J. Wyckoff, " Ships and Shipping of Seventeenth Century Maryland," Md. Hist. Mag., XXXIII and XXXIV, (1938-39), passim, especially XXXIV, 283.

28 Dr. Charles Carroll to William Black, Maryland. September 14, 1750, " Account and Letter Books of Dr. Charles Carroll," Md. Hist. Mag., XXIII, No. 4 (December, 1928), 383.

" Petition of Delegates of Maryland to the Queen, November, 1709, Arch. Md., XXVII, 465.

42 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

frequently exceeded the available cargo space in times of war or depressed trade; the reverse was often true in years of peace and prosperity.

As a result of the English struggle with France and Spain for commercial domination of the New World, the series of freight rates for the years 1705-1762 fall naturally into five distinct periods. The years 1705-1712, 1740-1748, and 1756-1762 were years of war and of high freight rates. During the War of the Spanish Succession, the average freight rate was close to £15 per ton; in the War of the Austrian Succession, it varied from £9 to £16 per ton; and in the Seven Years' War, from £8 IOJ-. to £14. During the long period of peace from 1713 through 1739 and the much shorter one from 1748 through 1754, on the other hand, low freights of £6 to £8 generally prevailed.

High and low freight rates were important factors in the alter- nating cycles of prosperity and depression which plagued the tobacco trade of Maryland and Virginia in the eighteenth century, but the freight rate cycles and the cycles of good and bad times in the tobacco industry were by no means synchronous. During much of the 1720's, for example, when freight charges were low, the tobacco trade was depressed; and again, for several years during the Seven Years' War, the tobacco trade enjoyed a boom in spite of high freight rates. The figures which follow, therefore, are only one of a series of data necessary to interpret the fluctuating prosperity of the tobacco trade in the eighteenth century. Other sources have provided additional evidence for the interpretation of the prevailing level of freight rates in each of the five periods and for explanations of the variations in particular years.

I When the act requiring the publication of freight rates went into

effect in December, 1704, the War of the Spanish Succession was already more than two years old. In 1701, the last year of peace but also a time of depression in the tobacco trade, freight charges on tobacco shipped from Maryland had varied from £7 to £10 per ton.25 The outbreak of war in 1702 caught both shipmasters and tobacco shippers unprepared. One captain filled up his bills

"AOne] A[rundel] Deeds, Liber W. T. No. 2, 1702-08, pp. 323, 324, 325, 330, Hall of Records.

FREIGHT RATES IN THE MARYLAND TOBACCO TRADE 43

of lading with two rates, £14 per ton if war came and £11 if peace were maintained.28 Some masters refused to set a freight and left the rate in the bills of lading to be filled up in London.27

In 1703, freight rates climbed to £15 per ton, but in the following year the current rate fell slightly to £13.28

On August 22, 1705, Thomas Bordley, Clerk of Anne Arundel County, entered in the land records of the county the first notice posted on the courthouse door in compliance with the act of 1704. Although more formal in language than many subsequent entries, it will serve as an example of the information contained in these notices.29

At the Prayer of Richard Johnson Mariner the foils Cert is recorded which was by him put up at the County Court house dore of Annamndell this 22d of Aug* 1705— Viz* August the 22d 1750

These are to Certify all Persons concerned that I Richard Johnson Mariner commander of the good Ship Providence Galley of Maryland do hereby Publish that being purposed in the said Ship to Export tobacco out of this province to England by the first convoy upon freight the rate of the freight on which I will take tobacco on board the said Shipp in order to be Exported on freight as abovesaid is fourteen pounds per Tonn witness my hand

Richd Johnson

Perhaps because he intended to sail with convoy. Captain John- son offered freight at a rate one pound lower than any other captain did for the ensuing year.30 In November, 1705, Captain Thomas Cleeves tried to coax the planters to ship on the Panther by appending to his notice, offering freight at £15 per ton, a note that if most of the ships in the province went at £14 he would also. But no one else published his freight at that rate in Anne Arundel County.31 The going rate in 1705 and 1706 was £15 per ton.32 These were perilous years for vessels in the tobacco trade. The homeward-bound tobacco convoys from the Chesapeake

*' Ibid., p. 264. " Ibid., p. 330. 28 7^., pp. 124, 325, 332. " Ibid., p. 247. 30 For the workings of the convoys in the tobacco trade, see Middleton, op. cit.,

Ch. X. " A. A. Deeds, Liber W. T. No. 2, 1702-08, p. 264. 12 See table, post. Hereafter, no citation will be given for data summarized in

the table.

44 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

suffered heavy losses from enemy capture and bad weather during winter passages in the North Atlantic. Indeed, the French navy and privateers took such a toll of English shipping in 1705 and 1706 that the merchants carried their complaints to Parliament in an attempt to force better naval protection of commenrce.33

By 1707, the long Atlantic passage had become so hazardous and the tobacco trade had declined to such a low state that only a few ships came into the Chesapeake to load. The masters of two that did advertise their tonnage, defensive armament, and comple- ment of sailors,34 because there were so few vessels in the country, these captains were able to demand high rates; £16 per ton was the average for 1707. Shortages of ships and seamen are also illustrated by practices which appear at this time. For example, in 1706, Captain John Sharp of the David & Sarah offered to take in tobacco at £15 per ton if consigned to David Dennis, and in 1707, Captain Ralph Reed of the Coleman Friggott advertised a rebate of 10J. per ton for those planters who carried their tobacco to his ship.35

Thereafter, for the duration of the war, it became increasingly common for the masters to specify the merchants to whom, rather than the port to which, the freighters were to consign their tobacco.36 For many years longer still, captains who were short of hands or ill-supplied with small craft for fetching tobacco from the planters' landing continued to advertise lower rates for tobacco delivered alongside.37

Four times as many ships loaded tobacco in Anne Arundel County between March and November, 1708, as in the entire previous year. As a result, although some captains with a good interest in the trade published their freight at £16 per ton and Captain Reed asked £17 for tobacco consigned to his charterers and £18 for that shipped with liberty of consignment, other masters could not get their vessels loaded at £15 with liberty of consignment.38 A few captains who wished to load quickly, in order to

" More than a score of London vessels carrying 10,000 hogsheads of tobacco were lost from the homeward bound convoys of 1706. Stock, (ed.), op. cit., Ill, 156-157.

"A. A. Deeds, W. T. No. 2, 1702-08, pp. 510-511. "Ibid., pp. 346, 471. M Arch. AW., XXVII, 465. " [J- F. Jameson?], (ed.), "Narrative of a Voyage to Maryland, 1705-06,"

American Historical Review, XII, No. 2 (January, 1907), 336; V. J. Wyckoff, "Tobacco Regulation," 143; and Maryland Gazette, May 2, 1754, p. 2, col. 3.

" A. A. Deeds, W. T. No. 2, 1702-08, pp. 589, 638.

FREIGHT RATES IN THE MARYLAND TOBACCO TRADE 45

return with the same convoy which had brought them out, offered still lower rates.39 Edward Burford of the Unity, a large ship of four hundred hogsheads capacity which was set up at £15 per ton with liberty of consignment or £14 to her owner, probably feared a delay in loading, for he appended to his notice: " I must go into ye freshes of Patapscoe for fear of the worm & there take part of my Loading." 40 Apparently Burford had difficulty in getting a cargo even at £14 and £15 per ton. In July he dropped his rates to £12 10s. to his owners and £13 to other merchants, "(Provided the Said freighters Load the Sd Ship that She Can Sayle wth this present Convoy)." 41 A month later the captain of the Queen Anne Galley, which arrived with a cargo of slaves from Africa on August 19, published his freight at £10 per ton.42 This was the lowest freight rate quoted in Anne Arundel County during the war.43 The large number of ships in the country and the desire of many captains to return with the convoy forced down freight rates in 1708 in spite of the great quantity of tobacco awaiting shipment.44

After the return convoy finally sailed in October, 1708, freight rates again climbed to £16 per ton. One captain advertised at the same rate in 1709, but at this point entries of freight rates disappear from the Anne Arundel records for two years. Either the masters failed to comply with the law, or the clerk neglected to perform his duty. Certainly there were a number of ships in the country in 1709, for one Anne Arundel tobacco shipper divided his twenty-two hogsheads among no less than five vessels, including the one whose notice was recorded.45 No entries at all

" Ibid., pp. 636, 637. "Ibid., p. 636. The worm, of course, was the shipworm {Teredo Navalis),

then and now a scourge which is capable of chewing the bottom out of unsheathed wooden vessels anchored in the brackish waters of Chesapeake Bay and its tidal estuaries but which cannot live in the fresh water of the Patapsco and Patuxent. For the Teredo, see the illuminating passages in Middleton, op. cit., 35-37.

" Ibid., p. 638. 12 Elizabeth Donnan, (ed.), Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave

Trade to America (4 vols.; Washington, 1930-35), IV, 18; A. A. Deeds, W. T. No. 2, 1702-08, p. 645.

" Planters were reluctant to ship tobacco on vessels which had carried slaves. Middleton, op. cit., p .141.

"Wyckoff, "Tobacco Regulation," 121. 45 Letter of John Hyde of London to Lewes Duvall, March 25, 1710, copy in

A. A. Deeds, Liber PK, 1708-12, p. 310, printed in Md. Hist. Mag., LII, No 2 (June, 1957), 156.

46 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

were recorded in 1710. By the next year, freight rates had again declined. One ship loaded in June, 1711, at £10 per ton, and the captain of another advertised for consignments to Captain John Hyde at £12 per ton for tobacco delivered on board and £13 if fetched from the planter's landing.46

In the winter and spring of 1711-12, four captains published their rates. The first to arrive set his ship up at £14, the next at £16, and the two last at £14. Both of the late-comers noted that they designed to return to London " north about," meaning that they intended to sail around the British Isles to the north of Ireland and Scotland in order to avoid the privateer-infested waters in the Chops of the English Channel.47 Later in 1712, after the beginning of negotiations for peace, the freight rates from Maryland to London declined to an average of £12 per ton.

With the year 1712, the first period of war and high freight rates came to an end. The tobacco colonies had suffered severely through most of the War of the Spanish Succession from the high freight rates resulting from the scarcity of shipping and the heavy losses of the British mercantile marine, as well as from the loss of European markets for tobacco. Between 1702 and 1712 freight rates from Maryland to England rose from £3 to £11 above the peacetime norm of £7 per ton, and the average rate for the war as a whole was £15 per ton, more than double the rate in time of peace.

Although in 1713 the British tobacco trade had not yet recovered from its wartime depression, freight rates in Maryland dropped to £8 per ton. The details which six of the captains added to their freight notices in Anne Arundel County are significant. Five specified that the hogsheads were to be of the '" new gauge," that is, of the dimensions established by the law passed in 1711 to force the Maryland planters to make their hogsheads smaller and of the same size as those used in Virginia, with staves forty-eight inches long and headings thirty inches in diameter.48 One master,

46 A. A. Deeds, Liber IB No. 2, 1712-18, p. 216; A. A. Deeds, Liber PK, 1708-12, p. 380.

"Ibid., p. 441, 446; cf. [Jameson], "Narrative of a Voyage to Maryland, 1705- 06," A.H.R., XII, 339.

48 For the long struggle of the tobacco merchants to secure uniformity in this

FREIGHT RATES IN THE MARYLAND TOBACCO TRADE 47

in addition to advertising freight for consignments to England at £8, also signified his willingness to carry tobacco to Holland for £9 per ton.49 Since the English Navigation Acts forbade direct exportation of tobacco to European countries, one is left to specu- late whether the captain contemplated a bare-faced violation of the laws, or intended to unlade in some British port, pay the half- penny per pound duty on re-exported tobacco, and then proceed on his voyage.50 The reason for his offering the option is no mystery, however. As a consequence of a financial and commercial crisis, complicated by a revision of the customs regulations for the collection of the duties on tobacco, little tobacco could be either sold or stored in England.51 Thousands of hogsheads of tobacco, for which the merchants could neither find buyers nor pay the duties, had been rotting in the holds of vessels which had arrived in the Thames during 1712.62 Some of the English merchants, therefore, had shipped tobacco to Holland for storage, an example which the captain probably suggested the Maryland planters might follow.63

In 1714, the British tobacco trade recovered rapidly as a result of reviving European demand, new Parliamentary legislation to ameliorate the regulations for the collection of the tobacco duties, and the prospect of much diminished supplies from the English colonies.54 The tobacco colonies, in fact, proved unable in 1714 to produce sufficient tobacco both to satisfy the great number of purchasers in the country and to lade the vessels which came into the Chesapeake for tobacco freights. Torrential rains in 1713 drowned much of the crop in Virginia and Maryland, and when the fleet arrived in Maryland the following year, the planters were fully aware of their strong bargaining position.55 All four of the captains who published their freights in Anne Arundel County between May and October, 1714, set their ships up at £6 per ton.

particular and for the short duration of this law, which was repealed in 1715, see Wyckoff, "Tobacco Regulation," p. 124; and Middleton, op. cit., 116-117.

"A. A. Deeds, Liber IB No. 2, 1712-18, p. 18; cf. Arch. AW., XXV, 329-330. '"E. E. Hoon, Organization of the English Customs System, 1696-1786 (New

York, 1938), p. 38. 51 Leonidas Dodson, Alexander Spotswood (Philadelphia, 1932), pp. 41-44. ^ Ibid., p. 43, note 13. "Arch. Md., XXV, 329-330; Wyckoff, "Tobacco Regulation," p. 123. 54 L. C. Gray, op. clt., 1, 246, 269; Dodson, op. tit., pp. 44-45. "William Bassett to Philip Ludwell, Virginia, 22 September, 1713, Virginia

Magazine of History and Biography, XXIII, No. 4 (October, 1915), 359.

48 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

In the four succeeding years conditions in the trade continued to favor the planters, and the demand for freight fell short of the available shipping space until the summer of 1719. A long drought in 1714 shortened the tobacco crops of Maryland and Virginia even more than had the wet weather of the previous year, and the general assemblies of both colonies considered laws to relieve those owing debts in tobacco.68 In 1715 the captains of all but one of eight vessels advertised their ships at less than £7, and three of them offered freight at £5 per ton. In the winter of 1715-16, eight masters published their rates at £7, but when more ships arrived in the spring, the going rate again declined to £6. In July Captain Thomas Creed of the Forward Galley offered to take on freight at £4 per ton " wth Liberty to the Con- signer to Consigne to whom they please (but rather if it suits Conveniency to Mr Jona Forward Merch* in Londn." " Again in the winter of 1716-17, the captains of three early ships attempted to raise the rates to £7, but with even less success than the year before. Indeed, Captain William Lax of the Concord, who set up at £7 per ton on January 9, lowered his rate to £6 before the end of the month; and the masters of all the later arrivals published their freight at £6 per ton.

The first five ships to arrive in late 1717 and early 1718 were advertised at £7, but once again the captains failed in their bid to raise the rate. On June 6, the master of one late arrival offered the unusually low freight of £4 per ton " provided the Freighter brings on board the said Ship his Tobacco within a fortnight from the date hereof "; and the captain of another late ship advertised both liberty of consignment and a rebate of £1 per ton to those planters who would deliver their tobacco on board.58 The first seven vessels to arrive in the winter of 1718-19 came in within two months of each other. Although all the masters initially published their freight at £7 per ton, the last four arrivals offered liberty of consignment as well. Even so, four of the seven had to drop their rates to £6 before the beginning of summer.

58 For Virginia, Dodson, op. fit., p. 55; for Maryland Wyckoff, " Tobacco Regulation," pp. 122, 125, and Arch. Md., XXIX, 479-480.

"A. A. Deeds, Liber IB No. 2, 1712-18, p. 286. " A. A. Deeds, Liber IB No. 2, 1712-18, p. 464; many ships returned to London

from Maryland in the summer of 1718 '" Considerably dead freighted," according to a letter of August 1, 1718, to Messrs. Foxley & Medcalfe, Higginson and Bird Letterbook, Galloway-Maxcy-Markoe Papers, Manuscript Division, Liberty of Con- gress.

FREIGHT RATES IN THE MARYLAND TOBACCO TRADE 49

The planters' halcyon days of subnormal freight rates did not last. The balance of bargaining power, which short crops and increased demand for tobacco had given to the planters in the years from 1713 through 1718, tilted distinctly in favor of the charterers and shipmasters in 1719. In that year, the supply of tobacco passed the level of effective demand; seamen's wages and insurance premiums on British ships rose as a consequence of armed clashes between England and Spain; and perhaps more important still, a speculative boom gripped the commercial nations of western Europe. As the people of France, Holland, and England indulged in that orgy of speculation which culminated in the collapse of the Mississippi and South Sea Bubbles in 1720, legitimate trade suffered from a scarcity of fluid capital and from the rising costs of materials and labor.

From August, 1719, through November, 1721, all the freight rates published in Anne Arundel County were at or above the peacetime norm of £7 per ton. In August, 1719, Captain Henry Sampson of the Experiment offered freight at £7 for tobacco delivered on board and £8 if ". . . Rowled by the Ships Saylors." 69

The next arrival also put his vessel up at £8 per ton, with liberty of consignment; and in May, 1720, another master posted his freight at £7 15.f. All the rest of the shipmasters who advertised their freight before July, 1720, asked £7 per ton. Few of the captains who arrived after that date, however, were content with the average peacetime freight.60 The first two set up their ships at £8 and £8 IOJ., and the master who asked the higher freight also named the merchant in London to whom the shippers were to consign their tobacco. Having apparently succeeded in loading his vessel at above-average rates in 1719, Captain Sampson again raised his rates in November, 1720, to £9 per ton for tobacco delivered to the ship and £10 for hogsheads fetched by the ship's company. Possibly by way of compensation for these high rates, he offered liberty of consignment to any merchant in London. Two other captains, Thomas Apps and Darby Lux, also tried to charge more than £8 per ton, but both had later to reduce their freight not just to £8 but to £7. The average rate for the year 1721, however, was closer to £8 than to £7, and no fewer than

"A. A. Deeds, Liber C.W. No. 1, 1719-22, pp. 52-53. "C/. Wright, (ed.), op. tit., p. 20.

50 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

eleven masters named the merchants to whom their cargoes were to be consigned.

In two of the next four years, short crops of tobacco pushed down the prevailing freight rate in Anne Arundel County to £6 per ton; and in all four years, only a few captains even tried to raise the rate above the peacetime norm. In 1722, the masters of two early ships, one of which was the Experiment, Captain Samp- son, published their freights at £8; but until the return of the Experiment under a new captain at the start of the next shipping season, every other vessel was set up at £7. The rate of £7 per ton also prevailed in 1723, but late in May Darby Lux dropped his freight to £5 per ton with liberty of consignment in an attempt to get loaded without waiting for the new crop. His effort failed,61

and on October 22 he again advertised for freight, at £7 per ton with liberty of consignment. He was no more fortunate the second time around. The tobacco crop of 1723 turned out shorter than usual, and in 1724 the planters again had the pleasure of forcing the shipmasters down to £6 per ton. An early summer drought and an August hurricane, which together destroyed nearly one third of the 1724 tobacco crop in Virginia and Maryland, enabled the Maryland planters to hold the rate at £6 through most of 1725.e2

In contrast to the numerous, though comparatively small, variations in tobacco freight rates during the first decade after the Treaty of Utrecht, for fifteen years after 1725 the rates rarely varied from the peacetime norm of £7 per ton. In 1727, when a Spanish war threatened but failed to materialize, one captain made his freight charge dependent on the event. He advertised at £7, or £10 "(if there be a warr)." 63 In 1730, because the 1729 crop of tobacco was short, seven vessels loaded in Anne Arundel County at £6 per ton.64 Seven captains in 1734 took notice of another threat of war. One of the seven, Captain Walter Hoxton of the Baltimore, published his freight as £7 per ton, "(Provided a Warr is not Proclaimed in England before the departure of

•'Thomas Cable to John Mole, July 1, 1723, Letterbook of Thomas Cable, Ac. # 53,632 Maryland Historical Society.

"L. C. Gray, op. cit., I, 270; Arch. Mi., XXXVI, 576-578. " A. A. Deeds, Liber SY No. 1, 1724-28, p. 236. " Dr. Charles Carroll to his English correspondents, " Accounts and Letter Books

of Dr. Charles Carroll," Md. Hist. Mag., XVIII, No. 4 (December, 1923), 332-334.

FREIGHT RATES IN THE MARYLAND TOBACCO TRADE 51

the said Ship out of this Province) the freighters Consigning their Tobacco's to Mr Samuel Hide Merchant in London. The said Ship usually Carries about Nine Hundred Hogsheads of Tobacco But in Case of a Warr the said Walter Hoxton will take no more than Seven Hundred, that She may be in a Sailing Trim. She is already well fitted for defence and man'd with thirty five Men which shall be augmented to fifty if to be procured in Maryland or Pensilvania and in such Case the freight to be twelve Pounds Sterling. . . ." 65 One captain in 1735 and another in 1739 advertised rates below £7, but with these few exceptions the normal peacetime rate of il prevailed until 1740.

Thus, during the long years of peace from 1713 through 1739, freight rates in the Maryland tobacco trade were generally, but not uniformly, low. The rates published by individual shipmasters varied from £4 to £10 per ton, and it is significant that the greatest variations from the norm of £7 occurred in the decade following the war. Except for 1730, when seven ships loaded at £6 per ton, all the years in which the going rate was either lower or higher than £7 per ton were in the span between 1714 and 1725. The abnormally low rates reflected especially short crops of tobacco in 1713, 1714, and 1724; more vessels loading on freight than could be supplied; and great numbers of orders for the purchase of tobacco in the colony. The higher rates of 1720 and 1721, on the other hand, almost certainly resulted from the speculative boom and financial crises associated with the Mississippi and South Sea Bubbles. The failure of the rates to fluctuate around the peacetime norm after 1725, except in 1730, must be attributed to a remarkable coincidence of available shipping space with tobacco consignments from Maryland.

Ill

Although the long-threatened Anglo-Spanish conflict finally broke out in 1739, freight rates in the Maryland tobacco trade remained at £7 per ton through the spring of 1740. Then they rose to £9- Towards the end of the year, three captains attempted

"A. A. Deeds, Liber R.D. No. 2, 1733-37, p. 63. This Walter Hoxton was the author of the best colonial chart of the Chesapeake. His relationship to the captain of the same name who was in Maryland in 1699, 1708, and 1712 is not clear. Middleton, op. cit., pp. 73-75; A. A. Deeds, Liber W. T. No. 2, 1702-08, p. 666- Arch. Md., XXV, 329.

52 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

to increase their freights to £10 or £12, but concerted opposition by the planters of Anne Arundel County forced these shipmasters to publish their freight at the current figure, £9 per ton.66 Freights remained at that rate until the French entered the war against England in 1744. Soon afterwards, the freight rate from Maryland to London climbed to £12 per ton. In 1745 a few ships loaded in Anne Arundel County at £13, but most of the masters either asked £12 in the beginning or found themselves obliged to lower their freight to that figure in order to get loaded. Early in 1746 a few vessels were set up at £13, but the captains of all the later arrivals demanded £14 per ton. The masters of the early ships in the spring of 1747 offered freight at £14 if the tobacco was delivered on board, but insisted on £15 for any fetched by the ship's company. Later in the year freight rates rose to £16 in Maryland, and this rate remained standard until the spring of 1748. Then, with peace in sight, freight rates fell rapidly, first to £14, then to £12, and finally, on the cessation of hostilities becoming known in the colony, to £8 per ton.

The pattern of freight rates during the years of war from 1740 to 1748 depended almost entirely on the severity of the strain on the mercantile marine and financial resources of Great Britain. From 1740 until the entry of France into the war against England in the spring of 1744, the British navy and privateers provided good protection for merchant shipping in home waters, although Spanish privateers attacked British ships in the West Indies and off the Virginia Capes with some success. In these circ*mstances British trade prospered, and freight rates in the tobacco trade rose only enough to compensate for slightly increased insurance premiums and higher seamen's wages. From 1744 to 1748, on the other hand, the combined naval and privateering strengths of France and Spain inflicted heavy losses on British merchant shipping all over the Atlantic. The British navy was hard pressed to provide adequate convoys; the British war effort required the diversion of many men and ships from the paths of commerce; and British merchants suffered heavily from the manifold dislo- cations of war. In addition, internal rebellion and a financial crisis in 1745 and 1746 contributed to the depression of British trade. These adverse circ*mstances were reflected in the freight

" Brice Protest Book, 1734-43, pp. 126-180, Maryland Historical Society.

FREIGHT RATES IN THE MARYLAND TOBACCO TRADE 53

rates from the tobacco colonies, which climbed sharply in 1744, rose steadily until 1747, and remained at a high level until peace was again assured in 1748. Not one captain offered liberty of consignment in Anne Arundel County during the last four years of the war.67 It should be noted, however, that the highest rate of freight from Maryland to London in this war was £2 below the maximum for the years 1702-1712. Without question the lower peak in the later war was a reflection of the increasing size of the British mercantile marine and of the growing superiority of the British navy over its European rivals.

In 1748, freight rates declined in four stages from £16 to £8 per ton. When the Winchelsea, Captain Thomas Cornish, arrived in the Severn River at the end of February, her master posted his freight at £16 per ton. Early in May, Cornish advertised in the Maryland Gazette that his ship carried eighteen guns and forty men and would take in tobacco consigned to John Hanbury of London at £14 per ton.68 She did not get loaded at that rate either, for on July 13, Cornish changed the rate in his Gazette advertise- ment, "(according to his Promise)," to " Twelve Pounds Sterling per Ton, being the Freight other Ships go at." 69 The Winchelsea probably completed her lading at this last figure. On September 28, the Gazette noted her departure from the Severn in the previous week with 950 hogsheads of tobacco on board.70 Less than two weeks later, the master of another ship loading in the Severn for John Hanbury both posted and advertised his freight at £8 per ton.71 Even at this rate, which was then current throughout the province, many captains had great difficulty in getting their ships loaded.72

" Cf. Henry Callister to Foster Cunliffe & Sons, Oxford in Maryland, 12 Novem- ber, 1745. "Ships sefdora or never take fra1 that is not consigned to their Owners or those that Charter them . . ." (Callister Papers, Maryland Diocesan Library, on deposit in the Peabody Institute Library, Baltimore, Maryland.)

"Maryland Gazette, May 11, 1748, p. 3, col. 1. "Ibid., July 13, 1748, p. 3, col. 1. "•"Ibid., September 28, 1748, p. 3, col. 1. 71 Ibid., October 19, 1748, p. 3, col. 2. " See the protests in Notary Public Book, 1744-1797, pp. 60-92, Hall of Records;

"" Account and Letter Books of Dr. Charles Carroll," Md. Hist. Mag., XXIII, No. 1 (March, 1928), 44, 48, 51.

54 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

The rapid decline of the freight rates and the great difficulty most masters experienced in getting loaded in 1748 were the resultants of three complementary forces: the determination of the Maryland planters to have their innings after the long years of high wartime freight rates, the smaller-than-average tobacco crop housed in 1747 for export in the following year, and the reduction of the quantity of tobacco shipped on consignment because of the high cash prices in the colony.73 All three of these trends continued through 1750.74 In 1749 freight rates dropped the remaining £1 per ton to the peacetime norm of £7, and a number of ships again had great difficulty in completing their ladings.75 After 1749, with a few unimportant exceptions, the normal peacetime freight rate of £7 per ton prevailed through 1755.

The significance of the freight rate entries for the years of peace from 1748 through 1755 lies not in the rates charged but rather in the smaller number of vessels loading tobacco on freight in Anne Arundel County. Before 1748, from ten to sixteen ships had loaded in the county in most years; but in five of the seven succeeding years, the masters of only seven vessels posted their freight rates in Anne Arundel. The principal reasons for this decline seem to have been: first, the passage of the 1747 tobacco inspection act, which favored an increase in the quantity of tobacco sold in the country and consequently lessened the proportion of the crop annually consigned to London merchants; second, a geographical shift in the chief areas of Maryland tobacco production from the Tidewater region into the Piedmont of Prince Georges, Anne Arundel and Baltimore counties, whence the easiest trans-

"' Samuel Galloway to Joseph Adams, May 12, 1748, Galloway-Maxcy-Markoe Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress; Dr. Charles Carroll to William Black, merchant in London, July 24, 1748, and March 20, 1749, " Account and Letter Books of Dr. Charles Carroll," Md. Hist. Mag., XXII, No. 4 (December, 1927), 375-376, and XXIII, No. 1 (March, 1928), 51; and Stephen Bordley to William Hunt, November, 1749, quoted in Wyckoff, " Tobacco Regulation," p. 178.

" Henry Callister to Charles Craven of Liverpool, Wye River, Maryland, Novem- ber 12, 1749, and to Robert Whitfield of Liverpool, November 16, 1749, Callister Papers; Dr. Charles Carroll to William Black, merchant in London, Maryland, November 14, 1750, "Account and Letter Books of Dr. Charles Carroll," Md. Hist. Mag., XXIII, No. 4 (December, 1928), 383; Stephen Bordley to Flowerdewe & Norton, Annapolis, October 31, 1750, Stephen Bordley Letterbook, 1749-52, Md. Hist. Soc.; and William Anderson of London to James Hollyday, January 29, 1751, Hollyday Papers, Md. Hist. Soc.

"Maryland Notary Public Record Book, 1744-1797, pp. 96-120, Hall of Records.

FREIGHT RATES IN THE MARYLAND TOBACCO TRADE 55

portation to market lay through the " freshes " o£ the Patapsco, the Patuxent, and the Potomac rivers rather than through the brackish, teredo-infested tidal estuaries of Herring Bay, West River, South River, and Severn River; and finally, the gradual substitution of diversified farming for tobacco planting in much of Maryland.76 The effect of these changes was to stabilize Mary- land tobacco production at somewhat under 30,000 hogsheads per annum, to diminish the proportion of the crop grown in Anne Arundel County, and to decrease considerably the quantity of tobacco annually exported from the county on freight.77

Although freight rates rose during the Seven Years' War, the decline in the number of vessels loading tobacco on consignment in Anne Arundel County continued. In fact, so few entries of freight rate notices appear in the county records for these years that it is no longer possible to consider the going rate in Anne Arundel as the current rate for the whole province or even, in some years, to ascertain what the average rate was in Anne Arundel County itself. In 1756, three ships loaded at £9 per ton and two at £8 IOJ. The following year three vessels took in tobacco at £13 and two at £14, the highest rate posted in the county during this war. Short crops, high cash prices in Maryland, and improving control of the seas by the British navy reduced freight rates to £12 per ton for the next three years; and in 1761, although the ships had been chartered in England for as much as £12 per ton, the planters forced freight in Maryland down to £10.78 Freight rates rose again in 1762 because of the entry of Spain into the war as an ally of France. The three ships whose freight rates appear in the county records were set up at £11, £13, and the " current freight," which seems to have been £12 per ton.79 As no

" Paul H. Giddens, " Trade and Industry in Colonial Maryland, 1753-1769," Journal of Economic and Business History, IV, No. 3 (May, 1932), 512-538, esp. 515, 538. C. P. Gould, "The Economic Causes of the Rise of Baltimore," Essays in Colonial History Presented to Charles McLean Andrews by his Students, (New Haven, 1931), pp. 225-251. Wyckoff, " Tobacco Regulation," p. 185; Barker, op. cit., pp. 69, 96-100, 111-112.

,7 Barker, op. cit., pp. 105-106. 78 Silvanus Grove to Samuel Galloway, London, February 2, 1761, Galloway-

Maxcy-Markoe Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress. 79 The ship Essex, Captain Robert Curling, anchored in the Patuxent, was freighted

56 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

entries of freight notices have been found in the Anne Arundel records for the two succeeding years, both the table and the com- mentary have been concluded at this point.

Most of the general conclusions which can be drawn from this long series of entries have been discussed in the introductory paragraphs, but it will do no great harm to repeat the more important ones here. The normal peacetime freight rate in the Maryland tobacco trade was £7 per ton, £1 lower than in the neighboring colony of Virginia. In wartime, the average freight rate was nearly twice as high, and the variations from the norm were more frequent and larger than in time of peace. Indeed, wars had a greater effect on freight rates in the tobacco trade than anything else; a Virginia merchant lamented during a war scare, " Alas! poor Virginia, say I: What's to become of thee. High Freights and higher Insurances will draw off thy best Blood; and soon bring on a Hecteck." so By comparison to wars, all other influences on freight charges were of minor significance. Short crops, large orders for the purchase of tobacco in the colony, and a surplus of shipping in Maryland waters all tended to lower freight rates; the opposite conditions drove them up. Even in combination, however, these minor influences rarely caused an alteration of more than £2 per ton.

In addition to the purely statistical evidence these entries provide for the fluctuations of the freight rates in the Maryland tobacco trade over the first half of the eighteenth century, they show interesting trends in the handling of Anne Arundel tobacco. In the first place, as the century progressed, ships tended more and more to anchor in the " freshes " of either the Patapsco or the Patuxent.81 Annapolis, the port of entry for the Western Shore

at £12 per ton in September, 1762. Printed bill of lading in folder 1, box 3, Johns Papers, Deposit # 333, Maryland Historical Society.

80 William Nelson to Mr. John Norton & Son, April 5, 1771, Frances Norton Mason, (ed.), John Norton & Sons: Merchants of London & Virginia (Richmond, 1937), p. 156. Cf. Dr. Charles Carroll to Wm. Woodward, Goldsmith in London, Maryland, November 18, 1747: "These are very difficult times with us haveing nothing but what go's and comes thro the fire and attended with great charges in freight and Insurance" ("Account and Letter Books of Dr. Charles Carroll," Md. Hist. Mag., XXII, No. 4, [December, 1927], 360.)

81 See table, post, and for a specific example, the charter party of 9 April, 1762, between Philip Weatherall, owner of the ship Darlington, 210 tons, and Thomas Philpot of London, Merchant. The ship was to proceed to Patuxent for orders,

FREIGHT RATES IN THE MARYLAND TOBACCO TRADE 57

above Kent Island, retained some importance as an anchorage until the passage of the inspection act in 1747 and the rise of Baltimore in the 1750's and 1760's; but like Herring Bay, West River, and South River, the Severn River drainage basin provided neither extensive cargoes of tobacco nor moorings protected against the depredations of the shipworm.82 After 1752, when a deputy customs collector was established at Baltimore to enter and clear vessels, Annapolis steadily lost ground to both the Patapsco and the Patuxent. Since both of these rivers formed part of the county boundaries, many Anne Arundel planters must have shipped their tobacco on vessels which anchored and published their freight rates in either Baltimore or Prince Georges County.

Another development which is reflected in the table was the gradual decline in the number of vessels offering freight with liberty of consignment in peacetime. The reasons for this shift are less certain than those for the decline of the tidal estuaries as anchorages, but it is suggested that several other developments in the tobacco trade probably contributed to the change. First, as the number of planters indebted to London merchants tended to increase, more of them became obliged to ship their crops to their creditors, whose ships were thus assured of part of their lading. Second, the profitability of shipping was always marginal in comparison to the returns from handling tobacco on commission. As one writer put it in the Maryland Gazette in 1747, a merchant hardly ever sent a vessel to Maryland on freight " but for the Sake of the Consignments. . . ." 83 Third, as the opportunities for selling tobacco in the country improved after the passage of the tobacco inspection act of 1747, even marginal profits from the operation of shipping in the consignment trade became rare. Only those merchants who could afford losing voyages risked chartering ships to load tobacco in Maryland on

to lie in any river except South River, ". . . in the Freshes out of the way of the Worms in the River . . ." (Folder 2, box 3, Johns Papers, Deposit # 333, Md. Hist. Soc.) Before 1726, of course, the Patapsco was altogether in Baltimore County.

83 In 1763, for instance, the warehouse at Annapolis inspected only 75 hogsheads of tobacco and the other warehouse on the Severn, at Indian Landing, only 309; both together would have provided no more than one full shipload. At Elkridge Landing on the Patapsco, on the other hand, 1696 hogsheads were inspected, a gain of more than 600 hogsheads since 1750. Maryland Gazette, November 14, 1750, and November 17, 1763.

"Ibid., December 9, 1747, p. 1, col. 1.

58 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

freight, and most of the smaller consignment merchants were squeezed out of the Maryland tobacco trade. As a result of these circ*mstances, there was a tendency for the remaining merchants to send an annual ship to each of the large Maryland rivers from which they expected to draw their consignments; and these ships never offered liberty of consignment, except when unable to get a full cargo to their charterers.8*

The names of the merchants to whom freight was to be consigned and of the ports to which the ships were bound furnish overwhelming negative evidence that London merchants dominated the consignment business in the Maryland tobacco trade. Although the act of 1704 required the master of every ship loading tobacco on freight to publish his freight rate, only one entry in the table indicates an English port other than London as the ship's destination. Probably the London commission merchants charged higher freight rates than their few rivals in the outports, and the purpose of the act was achieved by enforcing its provisions against those most likely to charge exhorbitant rates and by allowing competition and self-interest to regulate the remainder.

Indeed, there is every indication that the competition from factors purchasing tobacco for outport merchants and the rising importance of grain exports regulated freight rates in the tobacco trade of Maryland after 1750 more effectually than any provincial law could have done. The enforcement of the law apparently declined in vigor as the London merchants lost their almost monopolistic control over the Maryland tobacco trade, and virtually ceased when grain began to rival tobacco as a staple export.

[Ed. Note: The Tables to which the author refers will be published in June.}

" The letters of Stephen Bordley document many of the statements in this paragraph; see especially, to Flowerdewe & Norton, Annapolis, October 31, 1750, Stephen Bordley Letterbook, 1749-52, Maryland Historical Society; to same, Annapolis, September 3, 1757, and to Wm. Perkins, Annapolis, December 7, 1757, Letterbook, 1756-59. For the losses on shipping at the peacetime freight of £7 per ton, see Maryland Gazette, April 15, 1729, quoting letter of November 7, 1728, from the tobacco merchants of London; and for the period after the inspection act, the letter of William Anderson cited in note 74.

FORT McHENRY: 1814 EDITED BY

RICHARD WALSH

It is with pleasure that the Maryland Historical Society publishes the description of Fort McHenry and the battle of Baltimore on September 13-14, 1814 under the title Fort McHenry: 1814. The chief significance of the battle is that out of it grew the national anthem composed by Francis Scott Key. Because of this event, Fort McHenry has been ever since an object of American pride and attention.

After the war of 1812, Fort McHenry continued as an active military post for more than a century, serving as a prison during the Civil War. In subsequent national emergencies, while Fort McHenry was never again under attack, it was utilized by the federal government, and therefore underwent several vital changes. Old buildings, during the course of the years, were either razed or renovated, and new ones constructed. By the time it was turned over to the National Park Service as a National Shrine—• fitting honor for an "old soldier"—the place was no longer recognizable for its " finest hour." A restoration took place in the 1920's and early 1930's which did great credit to the post, but there was still work to be done.

In May 1957, as part of the program, Mission 66, the National Park Service began a new study of the fort as it looked when under attack.** Dr. S. Sydney Bradford, who directed this research, Mr. Franklin R. Mullaly of the National Park Service, and the editor were aided by Mr. Lee H. Nelson, whose architectural findings were invaluable, and Mr. G. Hubert Smith, without whose archeological discoveries much would have remained unknown. Also, for their patient labors thanks must be extended to Messrs. Raymond Ciarrocchi and Kevin Arundel, the editor's assistants at Georgetown, and Mr. Jack Moore, graduate student at Johns Hopkins University.

Fort McHenry: 1814, which begins with Mr. Franklin Mullaly's "' Battle of Baltimore," will be published in three parts. The other two " The Outworks of Fort McHenry " by Dr. Bradford and " The Star Fort— 1814 " by the editor will be published in June and September respectively.

In his section, Mr. Mullaly takes up the importance of the general battle and sets the scene of the bombardment. His detailed information, on the

* Published with the permission of the National Park Service. Copyright, 1959, Maryland Historical Society.

* * See: S. Sydney Bradford, " The Restoration of Fort McHenry," AU. Hist Mag., LIII (September, 1958), 211-214.

60 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

battle, accounts by enemy personnel, and thorough examination of the documents, of which it is estimated the project used some 18,000 manuscript pieces alone, shed new light on the engagement. His conclusions that the bombardment of the Fort was secondary to the invasion at North Point, that Baltimore might have been taken had the British not erred in the invasion route, and that, in fact, the Americans gave an excellent account of themselves in the fight and were in the actual encounter outnumbered by the enemy, constitute exciting contributions to American history.

Dr. Bradford's painstaking work will describe many buildings and fortifications no longer existent at the Fort—like the old outworks, the water batteries which have long since disappeared. The editor's findings also, it is hoped, are interesting—his conclusions that the present-day fort belongs to the 1830's, not 1814, and that the builder was not Rivardi but several military architects, even including the people of Baltimore.

Thus begins Fort McHenry: 1814. It is sincerely desired that it will be informative and entertaining to our readers.

R. W.

i%«»t tsknwun to 9««il«

Original sketch of Fort McHenry in 1814 by James M. Mulcahy from information given him by The Historical and Archaeo- logical Research Proiect of the National Park Service. Courtesy of the National Park Service.

I. THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE

By FRANKLIN R. MULLALY

1 THE DEFENSES OF BALTIMORE

FROM the beginning of the War of 1812, all persons concerned were well aware of the fact that Baltimore was the prime

target of the British in the Chesapeake Bay area. As a base for large scale privateer sailings, as well as a center for substantial shipbuilding and mercantile activities, it was both a threat and a prize to the English high command. The Federal Government preoccupied as it was with the war on the northern frontier and remembering how well Baltimore had succeeded in resisting capture during the Revolution, showed little interest in the city's defense. In fact, only the immediate threat of invasion aroused the easy-going Baltimoreans to an awareness of the fact that they must contribute heavily from their own resources and labor, if the city was to be safe from assault and plunder.

In general, the various land and water approaches to the city were well suited to defense. Since the British possessed undis- puted naval superiority in the Chesapeake Bay and its various tributaries, the water approach from the southeast was of primary importance. As shown on the map, the Patapsco River from its mouth at North Point on the Chesapeake led directly into the harbor of Baltimore. There were, however, certain natural obstacles to be overcome by an invading fleet. From North Point to Hawkins Point, the River was too shallow for ships of the line, being not more than 19 or 20 feet deep with a favorable tide, but from Hawkins Point to the City the depth increased to 27 or 30 feet.1 The peninsula of Whetstone Point splits the River into two parts, the Northwest branch leading into Baltimore harbor and the Ferry Branch becoming the main

1 Smith to William Jones, Secretary of the Navy, April 9, 1813, Library of Con- gress, Samuel Smith Papers, Box 16: hereafter: S. S.

62 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

estuary of the Patapsco River. Fort McHenry at the tip of Whetstone Point was ideally situated to sweep with gunfire the narrow passageway between it and the Lazaretto on Gorsuch's Point. The Ferry Branch on the other side of Whetstone Point was much wider and opened into the mouth of Ridgely's Cove which gave easy access to the southern part of the city.

On the eve of the Battle of Baltimore, the water approach to the city had been secured as follows:

(1) At the entrance to the Northwest branch of the Patapsco River, a boom composed of ship's masts had been stretched from Fort McHenry to the Lazaretto.2 To further obstruct this passage a number of merchant ships were to be towed into position and sunk at the approach of the British fleet.3 To the rear of these obstructions and just inside the Northwest branch were eight barges under the command of Lt. Rutter (U. S. Flotilla). Each of these barges contained 34 flotilla men and was armed with eight or twelve pounder cannon.4 (Map)

(2) Defending the eastern end of the obstructions to the Northwest branch was the Lazaretto Battery (Map). This battery of three guns was mounted behind a parapet and operated by a force of 45 flotilla men under the command of Lt. Frazier (U. S. Flotilla). Also stationed at Lazaretto point were 114 other seamen of the Flotilla.5

(3) The keystone of the water defenses of Baltimore was Fort McHenry. From its position at the tip of Whetstone Point, its water batteries controlled the entrances to both the Northwest and the Ferry Branches of the Patapsco River. Fifteen of the thirty-six guns in the Water Batteries were large caliber, the remainder were twenty four and eighteen pounders. The Fort itself had mounted twenty one guns of varying caliber.8 The Water Batteries were commanded by Sailing Master Rodman of the Flotilla and were supported by Bunbury's and Addison's Com-

' Smith to Major Armistead, June 20, 1814, ibid. 'Smith to the Baltimore Commitee of Vigilance and Safety, Sept. 11, 1814, ibid. 'Lt. Rutter to Commodore Rodgers, Sept. 11, 1814, Library of Congress, Rodgers

Papers. " Commodore Rodgers to William Jones, Sept. 23, 1814, National Archives,

Record Group 45, Office of Naval Records, National Archives—hereafter, N. A.; Record Group, R. G.

'Captain Babco*ck to the Secretary of War, Dec. 1, 1813, Buell's Collection of Engineer Historical Papers, N. A., R. G. 77.

THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE 63

64 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

panics of U. S. Sea Fencibles, and the Washington Artillery and Baltimore Independent Artillery Companies of the Maryland Militia. The guns on the bastions of the star fort were manned by Captain Evans* Company of U. S. Artillery and Captain J. H. Nicholson's Baltimore Fencibles. Detachments of the U. S. 36th and 38th Infantry totaling 527 men and under the command of Lt. Colonel Steuart and Major Lane were placed in the outer ditch of the Fort to repulse enemy landing attempts. Major George Armistead, U. S. A., was in overall command of Fort McHenry and its Water Batteries.7

(4) The north bank of the Ferry Branch of the Patapsco River from Fort McHenry as far west as Ridgely's Cove (Map) was vulnerable to an attack by-passing Fort McHenry. In order to protect this area, a number of works had been constructed. One and one-fourth miles to the west of Fort McHenry was the Babco*ck Battery (Map), a small sod work mounted with six eighteen pounders with a furnace for heating shot.8 Sailing Master Webster, U. S. Flotilla, and 52 Flotillamen operated this work.9 Not far from the Babco*ck Battery was Fort Covington (Map) which was about l1/^ miles west of Fort McHenry. (This was a demi-revetted work containing perhaps ten guns.) Lt. New- comb, U. S. N., third officer of the USS Guerriere and 80 seamen defended this small fort.10 To complete the chain of defensive works along the north bank of the Ferry Branch, a small redoubt (Map) was established on Ferry Point at the entrance to Ridgely's Cove. This was defended by Virginia militia drawn from Douglass' Brigade and Taylor's Regiment which were encamped along the Ferry Branch.11 A boom similar to the one extending from Fort McHenry to the Lazaretto is shown on the map at the entrance to Ridgely's Cove between Ferry Point and Moale's Point. (Map). However, this was not constructed until after the battle.

The eastern land approach to Baltimore equalled the water approach in importance as a possible route of British invasion. Old Roads Bay near North Point (Map) was the best if not the

7 John Brannan, Official Letters of the Military and Naval Officers of the United States during the War with Great Britain in the Years 1812, 13, 14, and 1$. (Washington, 1823), pp. 439-441.

8 Babco*ck to Secretary of War, Dec. 1, 1813, Buell's Collection. 9 Rodgers to Jones, Sept. 23, 1814, Rodgers Papers. 10 Ibid. " Smith to Monroe [Secretary of War], Sept. 9, 1814, S. S.

THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE 65

only anchorage capable of holding ships of the line and troop transports. There was a good road leading from the beaches at North Point right into the City. The terrain on the east side of the City was well suited to defense. Anchored on the southern end by the waters of Northwest Branch (Map), the defense lines described an arc along a series of hills as far as Belair Road. The heart of these defenses was Hampstead Hill which covered a wide area of the center of the line. A large number of cannon of various caliber and types were dug in on this Hill and were supported by a network of trenches and redoubts. Starting at its southernmost point at the Sugar House on the Northwest Branch and running in a north and then northwesterly direction as far as Belair Road this defense arc was constituted as follows: 12

(1) Near the Sugar House and fronting the mouth of Harris Creek was a one gun battery in charge of Midshipman Salter, USN and 12 seamen. (Map) This position was relatively safe from attack since the opposite side of Harris Creek at this point was virtually impassable with heavy woods and no roads.

(2) A short distance to the left of Salter's Battery was a five gun battery served by Sailing Master Ramage of the USS Guer- riere and 80 seamen. This was located just to the right of Sparrows Point Road and effectively covered that road (Map).

(3) Fronting the Sparrows Point Road was a two gun battery manned by Sailing Master de la Roche of the USS Erie, Midship- man Field of the USS Guerriere and 20 seamen (Map).

(4) To the left of de la Roche's Battery was located the key defensive point of the Eastern defense lines. Here met the only two roads available to an invading force coming from North Point. A few yards to the east of the merging point of the Philadelphia Road and the Sparrow's Point Road was a seven gun battery under Lt. Gamble the first officer of the USS Guer- riere and about 100 seamen (Map). This battery was placed in such a way that it could provide a crossfire with other batteries on either road. In the rear of the gun emplacements was a trench extending from Gamble's Battery to Ramage's Battery. This was occupied by the Marine Detachment of the USS Guerriere under the command of Lt. Kuhn.13

12 Rodgers to Jones [Secretary of the Navy], Sept. 23. 1814, Rodgers Papers. " Ibid.

66 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

The preceding four positions covered the part of the defense line between the Northwest branch and the Philadelphia Road and the whole unit was called Rodgers Bastion after the commander of the naval detachment at Baltimore, Commodore John Rodgers. Colonel Steiner's 1st Maryland was formed in column in the rear of Rodgers Bastion during most of the Battle. Also under Rodger's command and used as a mobile unit were Major Randall's Pennsylvania Riflemen.14

The remainder of the eastern defense arc extending from the Philadelphia Road to Belair Road was held by militia infantry and artillery units. Gun emplacements were manned by the 1st Regiment of Artillery of the Maryland Militia which included 7 artillery companies averaging 60 to 64 men each. Each company had a standard equipment of 4 six pounders and the regiment maintained a lesser number of four pounders in addition to about 19 twelve and eighteen pounders loaned to it by the Federal Government.15 In the rear of the militia gun positions, Forman's and Stansbury's Maryland Brigades were established in earthworks. The combined infantry strength of these units was 5825 men.16

When it is realized that a frontal attack on this eastern defense position involved crossing a wide belt of land that had been cleared of buildings and trees and then climbing a steep hill that was thoroughly covered with direct and cross fire of both cannon and small arms, it becomes apparent that the city was well defended on the eastern land approach.

On its northern and western perimeter, Baltimore was almost entirely defenseless. This was principally due to the fact that it was commonly believed that the British Chesapeake Expedition lacked both the facilities and the inclination to engage in any long marches through the interior of Maryland and the District of Columbia. Their shortage of field artillery and cavalry made it dangerous for them to get too far away from the protection of the guns of their powerful fleet.17 Nevertheless, Baltimore was vulnerable to a land attack from the southwest, a fact that

" ibid. 15 Smith to Committee of Public Supplies, May 20, 1813, S. S. 16 Smith to Monroe, Sept. 9, 1814, ibid. 17 William James, A Pull and Correct Account of the Military Occurrences of the

Late War between Great Britain and the United States of America (2 vol.; London, 1818), II, 318.

THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE 67

became ominously evident after the Battle of Bladensburg and the capture of Washington. However, the equipment and man- power available were simply not sufficient to permit an extension of the powerful eastern defense line around the entire City, and the weakness of the southwestern approach had to remain a calculated risk for the remainder of the campaign.

It is necessary now to evaluate the men who were the City's defenders. The nature of the chain of command, the quality of leadership, the training, morale and equipment of the troops; these are the things that really determine the outcome of battles, campaigns and wars. Unfortunately, win, lose, or draw, everyone concerned with a battle attempts to put the most favorable interpretation on his own conduct in the affair and with the passage of time the individuals having the best biographers and apologists tend to receive the best treatment from history. It is fortunate that many of the defenders of Baltimore were copious letter writers and that before, during, and after the Battle they made a number of candid observations that did not appear in the official reports of the engagement.

From the beginning to end, the chain of command at Baltimore was a source of bitter controversy. Major General Samuel Smith of the Maryland Militia served as commander-in-chief of the defenses but he did so without legal authority. Baltimore and vicinity were part of the 10th United States Military District which was under the command of Brigadier General William H. Winder of the Regular Army. On March 13, 1813, Smith had assumed command of the defenses of Baltimore by order of Governor Levin Winder of Maryland.18 However, there were Federal troops quartered at Fort McHenry and in Baltimore under the command of Brigadier General Miller. General Miller did not believe that Smith had authority over him and expressed this view to Secretary of War Armstrong.19 The matter was then brought to Governor Winder's attention and he wrote to Smith stating: 20

. . . My General Order of the 13th of March last directing you to take

18 Governor Winder to Smith, May 10, 1813, S. S. 18 General Miller to Armstrong [Secretary of War}, May 7, 1813, Secretary of

War, Letters Received, N. A., R. G., 107. 20 Governor Winder to Smith, May 10, 1813, S. S.

68 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

the earliest opportunity of making the necessary arrangements of the Militia for the protection of the Port of Baltimore did not confer on you any authority beyond that which you possessed under the Militia Law. The meaning of that order was that you would proceed to compleat the organization of the Militia under your command and place them in the best possible state for defense, of course your command as Major General commenced from that period. . . .

In July 1814, Brigadier General W. H. Winder, nephew of Maryland Governor Winder, was placed in command of the 10th U. S. Military District which included Maryland and the District of Columbia. With a powerful British expedition in the Chesapeake threatening invasion. General Winder attempted to raise a combined force of militia and regulars for the defense of the area. When Smith seemed reluctant to provide his quota of militia for this force. General Winder wrote to Smith invoking his authority under the Act of 1795 and ordering the dispatch of the 3rd Maryland Brigade to his command.21 After a conference with the Secretary of War over the matter, the Governor of Maryland wrote to Smith on August 19, 1814, stating that the Secretary seemed to be of the opinion that a Regular Army officer never comes under the authority of a militia officer regardless of rank. The Governor did not agree with this view but suggested to Smith that the matter be set aside temporarily and that he honor General Winder's requisition for troops.22 Smith went along with this somewhat belatedly, but reiterated his view that he would hold the supreme command should Baltimore be attacked.23

On August 24, 1814, Winder and his army were routed at Bladensburg and the City of Washington captured. Since Balti- more was the next logical objective for the British, Winder went to Baltimore to take command. When Smith refused to recognize his authority, he wrote to the Secretary of War asking for his intervention.24 By now, however, the situation had gone beyond the issue of the legal authority of Smith vs. Winder. It was a matter of public confidence. Winder's record did not inspire this.

21 W. H. Winder to Smith, Aug. 18, 1814, ibid. 22 Governor Winder to Smith, Aug. 19, 1814, ibid. " Smith to Governor Winder, Aug. 19, 1814, Maryland Hall of Records, Adjutant

General Papers, Letters to Governor and Council, 1755-1830. 24 General W. H. Winder to Secretary of War, Aug. 27, 1814, Md. Hist. Soc,

W. H. Winder Papers.

THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE 69

On March 12, 1812, he had received the direct commission of Lieutenant Colonel in the U. S. Army, although he had had only limited militia service on the company level.25 In a little over a year, he had been promoted to Brigadier General on the Canadian front.26 Shortly after this, he was rather ignominiously captured by the British in the woods near Stony Creek, and remained a prisoner until the spring of 1814, when he was exchanged and given command of U. S. Military District 10.

Sam Smith, on the other hand, had a distinguished record in the Revolutionary War, was a very powerful U. S. Senator from Maryland and had been for several years the ranking officer in the Maryland Militia. Furthermore all of the military units in Baltimore, with the exception of Major Armistead's small garrison at Fort McHenry, had been for some time under Smith's direct command. General Winder's uncle, the Governor of Maryland, and Secretary of War Monroe both knew a fait accompli when they saw one. Over Winder's bitter protests, he was ordered to unite his forces with Smith's command, but as a sop to his pride he was permitted to keep his title of Commander of the 10th District.27

The problem of command was complicated still further when Commodore Rodgers, USN, and about 800 sailors and flotillamen arrived to assist in the defense of Baltimore. Although believing Winder to be rightfully in command, he took orders from Smith and compromised by sending his official reports directly to the Secretary of the Navy.28 This irritated Secretary of War Monroe who requested President Madison to place naval personnel under War Department authority when they were serving in a joint command on land duty.29 There is no record that the President took any action in the matter.

Within the naval detachment there was also serious friction over command. The officers of Commodore Barney's Flotilla who were attached to Rodgers command believed themselves to be outside of the regular navy establishment and Lt. Frazier of the Flotilla, who commanded the Battery at the Lazaretto oppo-

25 Secretary of War Eustis to W. H. Winder, Mar. 12, July 7, ibid. 2'Armstrong to W. H. Winder, Mar. 23, 1813, ibid. 27 Monroe to Smith, Sept. 11, 1814, S. S. 28 Rodgers to Secretary of the Navy Jones, Aug. 27, 1814, Md. Hist. Soc, Rodgers

Scrapbook, Item No. 139. " Monroe to Madison, Sept. 8, 1814, Library of Congress, Monroe Papers.

70 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

site Fort McHenry refused to take orders from Captain Spence who was Rodgers's executive officer. Spence demanded a court- martial for Frazier on the grounds of insubordination.80 At this point (September 3, 1814) General Smith got into the controversy by complaining to Commodore Rodgers that the flotilla men woudn't take orders from him, either. He asked Rodgers to get the Secretary of the Navy to declare them part of the Navy and put them under Rodgers's command.31

When word of Captain Spence's action against the flotilla men reached the ears of their redoutable ex-commander Joshua Barney, he was recuperating from wounds received in the single-handed defense put on by the flotilla men at Bladensburg. Barney wrote an angry letter to Secretary of the Navy Jones in which he accused Captain Spence of being an enemy of the Administration, and a former party to the Burr Plot. At the same time he recommended that the flotilla men be placed under Rodger's command in the interest of harmony. The dispute was settled on this basis only two days before the British fleet arrived at Baltimore.32

Turning from the tangled web of command difficulties to an analysis of the troop units making up the defense of Baltimore, we find an equally confused and unfavorable situation. On paper, Sam Smith had 16,391 men to garrison the city. This can be broken down as follows:33

Militia (Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia) . . . 14,683 U. S. Army Regulars 905 U. S. Flotilla 581 U. S. Navy 222 Total 16,391

The training, morale and experience of these troops varied sharply. Most of the militia had little training before July 1814, when the threat of British invasion of the Chesapeake area became acute. Of the three brigades of Maryland Militia at Baltimore,

80 Captain Spence to Rodgers, Sept. 1, 1814, Rodgers Papers. 81 Smith to Rodgers, Sept. 3, 1814, S. S. " Commodore Barney to [Secretary of Navy}, Sept. 7, 1814. Historical Society of

Pennsylvania, William Jones Papers, U. C. Smith Collection; see also Ralph Robinson, " Controversy over the Command at Baltimore, in the War of 1812," Md. Hist. Mag., XXXIX (Sept., 1944), 177-198.

" Smith to Monroe, September 9, 1814, S.S.

THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE 71

the 1st Brigade under Brig. General Forman had the least training and experience. This brigade included the 30th and 49th Maryland from Cecil County and the 40th and 42nd Maryland from Harford County.84 Some of the Cecil County troops of the 30th and 49th had limited battle experience on July 12, 1814 when four barges of British troops attempting a surprise attack on Elkton, Maryland were beaten off by the fire of an eleven gun battery.35 Most of Forman's Brigade were drafted militia for terms of 60 days or more and they felt little enthusiasm for defending Baltimore. Three Quakers were drafted into the 40th Maryland but refused to use weapons against the enemy.36 Desertion (and AWOLS) in this brigade were very numerous. On September 4, 1814, General Forman stated that he had approximately 2900 men in his brigade,37 yet on September 9, General Smith in a report to the Secretary of War listed the strength of this unit as 2609.38 Some indication as to the morale of this unit may be found in the fact that on September 5, a company commander. Captain Oldham, who was a friend of General Forman's was tried by court martial for being AWOL.39 Only Forman's direct intercession with General Smith saved him from conviction.40

General Forman appears to have been something less than an astute military commander. On September 8, three days before the British arrived, he informed his wife that his brigade would probably be discharged on September 13th or 14th.41 The next day, for the first time, he decided to institute a training program of some sort for his officers.42 On September 12, the day of the Battle of North Point, he considered the possibility that the British did not actually intend to attack Baltimore, but would strike instead at Wilmington, Delaware.43

" W. M. Marine, The British Invasion of Maryland (Baltimore, 1913), pp. 195- 198.

This is a table of organization of the Maryland Militia at the time of the War of 1812 based on sources not now available. It is very accurate in terms of sources that can be checked.

"General Forman, Elkton, to Mrs. Forman, July 12, 1814, Md. Hist. Soc, Forman Papers.

8a Adjutant of the 40th M. M. to General Forman, Aug. 31, 1814, S. S. 87 General Forman to Mrs. Forman, Sept. 4, 1814, Forman Papers. '8 Smith to Monroe, Sept. 9, 1814, S. S. ^ General Forman to Mrs. Forman, Sept. 5, 1814, Forman Papers. 10 Ibid., Sept. 6, 1814. 41 Ibid., Sept. 8, 1814. 48 Ibid. " Ibid., Sept. 12, 1814.

72 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

The 11th Brigade commanded by Brigadier General Tobias Stansbury was composed of the 7th, 15th, 36th, 4lst, and 46th Maryland regiments, all from Baltimore County.44 These units were about equal to Forman's Brigade in the matter of training, but had some combat experience. About 1400 members of the brigade had participated in the Battle of Bladensburg. Their battle experience was brief, however, for all but a handful took to their heels without returning the first British fire.45 Presumably, the attitude and morale of these Baltimore County troops would be better defending Baltimore, since their homes and places of business were in the area immediately surrounding the City. Brig. General Tobias Stansbury had had many years of experience in the militia, and at the Battle of Bladensburg he had shown considerable personal courage in remaining on the battlefield and trying to reorganize the fragment of his command that had not fled.46

The best of the three brigades of the Maryland Militia, from the point of view of training, morale and experience was the 3rd Brigade commanded by Brig. General John Strieker. In addition to the 5th, 6th, 27th, 39th and 51st Regiments, [Infantry], the brigade also included the 1st Artillery Regiment, the 1st Rifle Battalion, and the 5th Regiment of Cavalry.47 Since the spring of 1813, the 3rd Brigade had been training regularly. Notices of drill sessions and parades for the various units appeared in the Baltimore American and Daily Advertiser. A survey of the files of this newspaper during the War of 1812 indicated that drill sessions were frequently held on a weekly basis except during winter weather.48

When the 3rd Brigade was ordered into the U. S. service on August 19, 1814, an exacting daily schedule was set up. Since most of the troops had jobs or business to attend to, drill was held from sunrise until 8:00 a.m. and later in the day, from 4:00 p. m. to 7:00 p. m.49 The regiment of artillery had its own

" Marine, op. tit., 195-198. 45 W. H. Winder to Secretary of War concerning the command of District 10,

[Sept.], 1814, W. H. Winder Papers. 46 Ibid. 47 Marine, op. cit., 195-198. 48 Baltimore Arnerican and Commercial Daily Advertiser, No. 1, 1814, Dec. 22,

1814. "'Third Division Maryland Militia Orderly Book, Aug. 19, 1814, Md. Hist. Soc.

THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE 73

gun park and the ten artillery companies alternated drills with these cannon and those at Fort McHenry.

The cavalry regiment of the 3rd Brigade was composed of four troops which practiced regularly at a riding academy in Baltimore. They also performed regular reconnaissance duty between North Point and the City and provided men for vidette assignments between Baltimore and other places in the Chesa- peake area.50 Unfortunately, they had no combat experience and most of their officers were not familiar with the basic principles of cavalry battle tactics.

When we evaluate the 3rd Brigade, from the point of view of combat experience, we find that four units fought in the Battle of Bladensburg. The 5th Regiment under Lt. Colonel Joseph Sterett maintained its place in the line of battle when units on its right and left were fleeing. They followed orders well, even when the orders were ill-conceived and contradictory and were routed only at the point of British bayonets.51 The 3rd Brigade's Rifle Battalion held up the British advance at Bladens- burg for a short time before taking to the woods.52 Two artillery companies, the American Artillerists and the Franklin Artillery also participated in the battle, although there is no specific com- ment about their conduct in any of the official reports.53

The 2641 Virginia militia and the 1000 Pennsylvania militia volunteers were pretty much an unknown quantity. Both detachments had little, if any, battle experience and unlike the Baltimore units, they were not fighting for their homes.54 General Smith used them in a reserve capacity throughout the Battle of Baltimore.

In summary then, the militia units included about 90% of the total defense force at Baltimore. From past experience, it was safe to assume that they would hold their ground only if they were dug in with plenty of artillery and supported by at least a few disciplined and battle-hardened troops. The detachment of 905 U. S. Army Regulars of the 36th and 38th Infantry 55 could not be counted on in this latter respect, for at the Battle of

50 Thompson Diary, Md. Hist. Soc, passim. 111 The J. P. Kennedy MS, Peabody Institute Library, Baltimore, Maryland. S2 W. H. Winder to the Secretary of War Concerning the Command of District

10 [Sept.], 1814, W. H. Winder Papers. ** Ibid. " Smith to Monroe, Sept. 9, 1814, S. S. "Ibid.

74 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

Bladensburg, they had withdrawn without firing on the approach of the British column.56

As far as combat experience was concerned, there was little doubt that the most effective defenders of Baltimore were not soldiers at ail. A detachment of the U. S. Navy and Barney's Flotilla under the command of Commodore Rodgers had distinguished themselves in a number of encounters with the British. On August 26, 1814, by order of the Secretary of the Navy, 450 sailors and marines had been withdrawn from the Delaware Bay defenses and arrived in Baltimore.57 These sailors representing the crews of the USS Guernere and the late USS Essex, arrived too late to participate in the Battle of Bladensburg. Part of this unit was assigned to the District of Columbia and Potomac River defenses, but 222 were added to the defenses of Baltimore as artillerymen.58 The valiant men of Commodore Barney's Flotilla, who had bedevilled an overwhelmingly superior British fleet in the Bay and its tributaries, and then almost single handed held off the British Army at Bladensburg, joined Rodgers's command at the same time.59 At the time of the Battle of Baltimore, this force numbered 803 men.60 A final group of 280 trained U. S. Army Artillerymen and Sea Fencibles made up the garrison of Fort McHenry under the command of Major George Armistead.61

From the preceding evaluation of the defenses and defenders of Baltimore, it is not hard to understand why Major General Sam Smith grew increasingly apprehensive as the early days of September passed, and the attack of the powerful British expedition drew inevitably nearer. Although the physical defenses on the River and on the eastern side of the City were strong enough to hold off a frontal assault, there were many other ways of approaching and taking Baltimore that he could not guard against. He had enough sailors, flotilla men and regulars to man the guns on the Ferry Branch of the River, at Fort McHenry and in the Eastern Defense Line, but any attempt to meet a British out- flanking movement by moving militia out of their trenches would

66 W. H. Winder to the Secretary of War Concerning the Command of District 10 [Sept.}, 1814, W. H. Winder Papers.

67 Rodgers to General Winder, Aug. 26, 1814, Rodgers Papers. 58 Rodgers to Secretary of the Navy Jones, Sept. 23, 1814, ibid. 69 W. H. Winder to the Secretary of War Concerning the Command of District

10 [Sept.], 1814, W. H. Winder Papers. '"Rodgers to Secretary of the Navy, Sept. 23, 1814, Rodgers Papers. " Smith to Monroe, Sept. 9, 1814, S. S.

THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE 75

have dire results. Plagued by friction among the commanding officers, weakened by an increasing rate of desertion in most units and getting little or no cooperation from the Federal Government, Smith was soon to face the combined efforts of Major General Robert Ross and Admiral George co*ckburn, a team which had had little difficulty in capturing and burning the nation's capital against a force very similar to his. Only something approaching a miracle could save Baltimore from the same fate.

BRITISH CHESAPEAKE EXPEDITION OF 1814

The purpose now is to evaluate the attacking force in this engagement. To do this effectively, we need to know something of the origin and nature of the British Chesapeake Expedition of 1814.

From June 18, 1812, until March 31, 1814, the Government of Great Britain considered its war with the United States to be a matter secondary to the war with Napoleon in Europe. They could not spare the men or equipment necessary to bring the American conflict to a speedy and successful conclusion. Instead, they attempted to defend Canada against American invasion and conduct harrassing operations with the fleet against the Atlantic coastal areas. In these aims they were quite successful, although the results were due as much to American ineptitude as they were to British skill.

After March 31, 1814, however, the picture changed. On that date Paris fell and Napoleon left for exile on Elba. The British people and their Parliament were exhausted from years of bitter and costly warfare and wanted an end to the war with America. With a rising tide of opposition from wealthy mercantile interests, the Administration had to find a way to end the war expedi- tiously as well as successfully. In January 1814, it had taken two steps that pointed in this direction. First it concentrated more on attaining a peace conference and secondly, it ordered Sir Alexander Cochrane to replace the aging and ineffective Admiral Warren as commander of the North American Station of the British Navy.62

82 Admiralty to Cochrane, Jan. 25, 1814, Public Record Office, Admiralty 2, Vol. 933, 91-95.

76 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

During January and March 1814, plans were formulated for a combined army and naval operation against the United States for the Summer and Fall of the year. Intelligence concerning these plans fell into the hands of the American Prisoner of War exchange agent in England, a Mr. Beasley, and was forwarded to Secretary of State Monroe. Although this information was somewhat vague, it gave the United States an early warning of what was to come.63

On May 6, 1814, orders were given by the Admiralty to reduce the number of men on British ships in the south of France and move them to Cochrane's North American Station.64 This action was followed on May 20 by the organization of the Army expedition composed of veteran troops recently engaged in the fighting in Spain and under the command of one of Wellington's most able officers Major General Robert Ross.65 According to Ross's instruction from the War office, his primary objective was to create a diversion that would be helpful to British operations in Canada and on the northern frontier of the U. S. He was to work closely with Admiral Cochrane, the commander-in-chief of the proposed expedition, and he was to keep his activities within a short distance of the coastline. He was ordered not to attempt to maintain permanent control of any American district since he did not have adequate artillery and cavalry support for any such occupation. On June 27, Ross and his troops set sail from the Gironde for Bermuda, arriving there on July 24.66

The Admiralty in its instructions to Admiral Cochrane was not nearly as specific as the War Office had been with General Ross. In a secret dispatch of August 1, 1814, the scope of Cochrane's actions was extended significantly. He was now given the authority to send ships and men on assignments as he saw fit within the North American Station.67

In July, Cochrane had sent 900 marines to join Admiral co*ck-

°s Beasley to Secretary of State Monroe, Jan. 5, Jan. 25, Feb. 11, Mar. 18, 1814, Melville Papers, Clements Library, University of Michigan.

"^ Barron to Cochrane, May 6, 1814, Public Record Office, Admiralty 2, Vol. 1380, Part 2, 107-108.

eB Bathurst to Commanding Officer of Troops Detached from the Mediterranean for North American Service [May 20, 1814}, Public Record Office, War Office 6, Vol. 2.

69 Ibid. " Croker to Cochrane, Aug. 1, 1814, Public Record Office, Admiralty 2, Vol. 1380,

287.

THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE 77

burn, the commander of the Chesapeake Squadron, for the express purpose of keeping all American forces in Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania occupied and away from the northern theater.68

In a letter to the War Office reporting this action, he made it quite clear that the primary objective of his expedition went beyond the concept of diversionary action. He stated: 69

If troops arrive soon [Ross's expedition which joined him ten days later] and the point of attack is directed towards Baltimore I have every prospect of success and Washington will be equally accessible. They may be either destroyed or laid under contribution as the occasion may require. ... I have it much at heart to give them a complete drubbing before peace is made—when I trust their northern line will be circum- scribed and the command of the Mississippi wrested from them.

From this it seems clear that Cochrane saw the conquest of Baltimore and Washington as a powerful weapon to influence the Peace Conference at Ghent and bring the war to a close on British terms. By July 23, however, he had decided to postpone the attack on Baltimore and vicinity until October. The preva- lence of ague and fever in the Chesapeake region during the summer months, caused him to think of raids on the New England coast.70

One day later, on July 24, General Ross and his force arrived at Bermuda. Apparently this event caused Cochrane to discard his plans for action to the north, for on August 2, Cochrane, General Ross, and Rear Admiral Malcolm sailed for the Chesa- peake. On August 14, for the first time, the entire expedition was brought together near the mouth of the Potomac and Cochrane, Ross, and co*ckburn held a council of war.71

The three leaders of the expedition were well qualified for their posts. Sir Alexander Cochrane had had thirty-two years of command experience, attaining the rank of Captain in 1782 at the age of 24. Although he was one of Nelson's captains and had a good battle record, he was essentially an administrator and had even succeeded in getting elected to Parliament in 1802. As an admiral, he was not inclined to take unnecessary risks, and

"Cochrane to [Bathurst], July 14, 1814, Public Record Office, War Office 1, Vol. 141.

" Ibid. "Cochrane to Admiralty, July 23, 1814, Public Record Office, Admiral's Dis-

patches, Vol. 506, Part 5. 71 James, op. cit., II, 275.

78 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

he had a strong aversion to hurricanes which he had experienced during his tours of duty in the West Indies.72

Rear Admiral George co*ckburn had also been one of Nelson's captains, but in most other respects he differed from Cochrane. He was a specialist in hit and run and doing the unexpected. As commander of the Chesapeake Squadron during 1813-1814, he had methodically destroyed the will to resist of the inhabitants of both sides of the Bay. His technique was quite simple. He would appear before a coastal town without warning and land a party of sailors and marines. If there was no resistance, he seized all public stores and property, and forced the inhabitants to sell him such produce and livestock as he needed for the squadron. When the local militia attempted to make a fight of it, he retaliated by burning houses and seizing private property.73

This system won co*ckburn the hatred of all Americans in the area, but it worked and by the summer of 1814, he met little opposition wherever he went.

Major General Robert Ross was one of England's most able generals. A man of courage and imagination, he had been an officer for 25 years. His practice always of leading his men into battle produced high morale, but it also caused him to be severely wounded at the Battle of Krabbendam in 1799 and again in February, 1814 at the Battle of Orthes. He was still suffering from the effects of his most recent wound when he joined the Cochrane expedition.74 Ross and co*ckburn formed an excellent team for combined land and sea operations judging from the Battle of Bladensburg and the capture of Washington.

Turning now to the forces making up the expedition, we find that the naval unit was one of the most formidable yet seen in North American waters, including twenty warships, four of them of the line, as well as a large train of transports and supply ships.75

Sixteen of the warships were shallow draft frigates, bomb ships and a rocket ship.78 They were particularly well suited to an attack on Baltimore since they could get over the shallow bar at

"Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee (eds.), Dictionary of National Biography (21 vol.; New York, 1908), IV, 640-642.

" Ibid. ""•Ibid. "A. T. Mahan, Sea Power in its Relations to the War of 1812 (2 vol.; London,

1905), II, 340. '"'Theodore Roscoe and Fred Freeman, Picture History of the U.S. Navy (New

York, 1956), picture No. 318.

THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE 79

the mouth of the Patapsco River and bring the forts and the town under fire from their long range mortars. Also attached to the fleet were a large number of barges armed with cannon and suitable for night operations in streams not accessible to ships.77

Most of the frigates and bombships had seen action before in the rivers and inlets leading into the Chesapeake.

In addition to its regular naval duties, the fleet provided the expedition with a brigade of 600 seamen specially trained for land warfare. Captain E. Crofton of Royal Oak was in command of this detachment which was divided into four sections under Captains Sullivan, Money, and Ramsay, and Lieutenant Scott.78

Operating with this detachment of seamen were the 2nd and 3rd Battalions of Royal Marines,79 a detachment of marines from the ships and a corps of Colonial Marines recruited from runaway negro slaves.80 The Royal Marine artillery unit was in charge of a Congreve rocket battery which was used more for its psycho- logical effect than for the amount of actual casualties it produced.81

The army under Major General Ross consisted of detachments of Royal Artillery, Royal Sappers and Miners, the 4th, 21st, and 44th Regiments and the 85th Regiment of Light infantry.82 Its numerical strength at the time it left Bermuda for the Chesapeake was 3400 men.83 This force was composed of veterans who had served under Wellington in the Spanish campaign. Although it was more than a match for anything that the Americans could throw against it in the open field, it had two serious deficiencies. Field artillery was limited to only six field pieces and two howitzers, and there were no cavalry units included in the command.84 The small amount of artillery may have been due to the fact that the guns of the fleet and the rocket battery were considered to be adequate support.

Having evaluated the various components of the British expedition, we may now consider the manner in which it was to be

77 Public Record Office, Admiralty Dispatches, passim. T8Cochrane to Croker, Sept. 17, 1814, Public Record Office, Admiralty 1, Part 3. 79 co*ckburn to Croker, Sept. 15, 1814, Public Record Office, Admiralty 1, Vol. 507. 80 Proclamation of Admiral co*ckburn, May 19, 1814, Public Record Office, Ad-

miralty 1, Vol. 507, Pt. 1. Also Cochrane to Croker, Sept. 17, 1814, Public Record Office, Admiralty 1, Part 3.

"Ross to Bathurst, Aug. 30, 1814, Public Record Office, War Office 1. "Ibid. " Mahan, op. cit., II, 340. " James, op. cit., II, 318.

80 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

employed in the Chesapeake. The planning of tactical operations began some time before the arrival of Ross's army. On July 17, 1814, in a letter classified as Secret, Admiral co*ckburn submitted a detailed plan of operations for the ensuing campaign. He recommended that Ross's army be landed at Benedict, a short distance up the Patuxent River. He stated that this place " is only 44 or 45 miles from Washington and there is a high Road between the two Places which tho hilly, is good, . . . within 48 Hours after the Arrival in the Patuxent of such a Force as you expect [Ross's Army], the city of Washington might be possessed without Difficulty or Opposition of any Kind. . . ." He believed that the Patuxent near Benedict would be a safe anchorage for the ship in the event of a storm. A few weeks earlier he had conducted operations in the Patuxent, but intended to transfer his activities to another part of the Chesapeake area in order to avoid arousing any suspicion that a landing was contemplated there.

In an earlier letter, Cochrane had suggested Annapolis or Baltimore as good places to make the initial landing. co*ckburn argued against this saying,

Annapolis is tolerably well fortified and is the spot from whence the American Government has always felt Washington would be threatened. ... It is natural therefore to suppose Precautions have been taken to frustrate and impede our advance in that Direction, and to which Anna- polis being fortified, a Station for troops, and not to be Approached by our larger Ships on Account of the Shallowness of the Water, it is possible and probable the Occupation of it might cost us some little time, which would of Course be taken Advantage of by the Enemy to draw together all the Force at his Command for the Defence of Washington. . . . Baltimore is likewise extremely difficult of Access to us from the Sea, we cannot in Ships drawing above sixteen Feet approach nearer even to the Mouth of the Patapsco than 7 or 8 miles and Baltimore is situated 12 miles up it having an extensive Population mostly armed [the militia], and a Fort for its Protection about a mile advanced from it on a projecting Point where the River is so narrow as to admit of People conversing across it, [the entrance to the Northwest branch between Fort McHenry and the Lazaretto (Map)] and this Fort I am given to understand is a work which has been completed by French Engineers with considerable Pains and at much expense and is therefore of a description only to be regularly approached and consequently would require time to reduce, which I conceive it will be judged important not to lose in striking our first Blow, but both Annapolis and Baltimore are to be taken without difficulty from

THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE 81

the land side, that is coming down upon them from the Washington Road. . . . Baltimore having no Defence whatever in its Rear. . . .8r>

It is apparent from the later course of events that this plan of Admiral co*ckburn was approved by Admiral Cochrane. As a result of their conference of August 15-16, Admirals Cochrane and co*ckburn and General Ross made three important additions to co*ckburn's plan. Captain Gordon, HMS Seahorse 16, was sent with a small squadron up the Potomac to bombard Fort Washington (Map) while at the same time. Admiral co*ckburn was to proceed up the Patuxent River, after landing Ross's army at Benedict, and destroy Commodore Barney's Flotilla. Captain Parker with HMS Menelaus, 38 guns, and some marines had been sent up the Chesapeake Bay to conduct raids in the northern Chesapeake not far above Baltimore. All three of these naval uperacions were designed to confuse and divert the Americans from the landing of Ross's Army at Benedict.80 These diversions succeeded so well that General Ross, after landing at Benedict on August 19, was able to take four days to march his men leisurely toward Washington by way of Marlborough and Bladens- burg. On the evening of the 23 rd his march was delayed only temporarily by about 1200 militia who fired a few shots and then fled. The next day (August 24th), at Bladensburg, Ross met an army of militia and regulars under Brig. General Winder and routed it. At 8:00 p. m., that same day, he seized Washington and destroyed the public buildings.87

Up to this point, co*ckburn's plan of operations of July 17 had been followed in detail. Now Baltimore was open to attack on its undefended land side by way of the road from Washington. With the dispersion of Winder's army, there was no organized force within immediate marching distance of Ross. There was nothing to prevent him from pressing on and taking Baltimore, which was, after all, the prize most sought after by the British expedition. However, on the following day, August 25th, he withdrew to the south and four days later his army reached Benedict, where it was reembarked on August 30. According to

85 co*ckburn to Cochrane, July 17, 1814, Library of Congress, co*ckburn MSS, Secret Letters.

M Cochrane to Croker, Sept. 2, 1814, Public Record Office, Admiralty 1, Vol. 506. "Ross to Bathurst, Aug. 30, 1814, Public Record Office, War Office 1.

82 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

Ross's report, the decision to withdraw instead o£ moving on to Baltimore was his own. The only reason that he gave for this action was that he feared a larger force of Americans might be gathered.88 Perhaps the General remembered what had happened to other British forces at Saratoga and Yorktown. When we consider the fact that he had no cavalry for reconnaisance, his reluctance to remain in an exposed position fifty miles inland from the fleet is understandable. Nevertheless, Ross's failure to launch a land attack against the undefended rear of Baltimore then or later would seem to be the decisive factor in the successful defense of Baltimore. The poor showing of the American militia in the open field at Bladensburg was undoubtedly the main reason for the British command's decision to attack Baltimore on its strongly defended eastern side.

From August 30 until September 6, Ross's army remained aboard its transports under the guns of HMS Royal Oak in the Patuxent. On September 6, they left the Patuxent to join Admiral Cochrane's fleet which had been at anchor off Tangier Island. By September 10, the combined British expedition made its appearance at the mouth of the Patapsco River near North Point (Map). Throughout the 10th and 11th of September, the armada was occupied in taking position for a landing at North Point. At an early hour on Steptember 12, the frigates and vessels of small draft began to land the troops and sailors.89 The Battle of Baltimore had begun.

SEPTEMBER 12

Although the first units of the British fleet appeared at the mouth of the Patapsco on Saturday September 10, it was not until late on Sunday the 11th that the troop ships and their supporting vessels were ready to make a landing. During the previous week much time had been spent in drilling the soldiers and marines in the proper procedure for establishing a beachhead. At 3:00 a. m. on Monday September 12, the troops were assembled on the decks and the complicated business of getting them ashore in small boats and barges was begun. A light gun-brig had been

" ibid. "Cochrane to Croker, Sept. 17, 1814, Public Record Office, Admiralty 1, Part 3.

THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE 83

anchored, broad-side on, within a cable's length of the beach, in a position where it could cover the landings with grape and cannon shot. As each boat touched shore, the soldiers ran up the slope to the ridge overlooking the water, where they spread and took cover on the ground. Within half an hour after the landings had started, more than a thousand men had taken position on the edge of the beach, and by 7:00 a. m., the beachhead was accomplished.90

When scouts had determined that there were no American forces in the vicinity, the troops were assembled into assault units in a large field near the beach. Three companies of light infantry led the advance. They were followed by the light brigade consisting of the 85th Light Infantry and light companies from the 4th and 21st Infantry. Next in the line of march was the brigade of 600 seamen armed with muskets. The remainder of the infantry and the marines made up two brigades that brought up the rear. The British had covered about three miles when they came to a partially completed defense position across a very narrow neck of land (see Map). A number of Americans were still employed in the completion of this work, by means of deepening a ditch and strengthening its front by a low abattis, when they were surprised by the British advance unit. Most of these men escaped except a few dragoons that fell into the hands of the advance party. Not knowing whether the main American force was near. General Ross halted the column briefly until the rest of the army caught up.91

During the landing and movement toward Baltimore of the British army, the Americans under General Sam Smith had been taking their own countermeasures. On Sunday, September 11, while the British fleet was assembling off North Point, the 3rd Brigade, Maryland, which was composed almost entirely of Balti- more City men, was sent out to impede any possible British advance. Marching by way of the old Philadelphia Road and Long Log Lane, the 3rd Brigade reached the Methodist Meeting House near the head of Bear Creek by 8:00 p. m. Sunday night. The main body remained over night at this point while the Rifle Battalion went two miles further and the cavalry set up headquarters at

"0G. Gleig, A Subaltern in America (London, 1833), pp. 112-113. " Brooke to Bathurst, Sept. 17, 1814, Public Record Office, War Office 1, Vol.

141.

84 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

Gorsuch's Farm (see Map) .92 Videttes spread out within the area around the beach at North Point and detected the first movement of the British landing operation and sent word back to Strieker's Headquarters at the Meeting House. At 7:30 a. m. Strieker hurriedly sent this news back to General Smith in Baltimore. In this dispatch he stated his intention of occupying the unfinished entrenchments just past Gorsuch's farm with two regiments and some artillery (Map). He ended the message in a somewhat discouraged fashion: "" We are sadly off for provisions, having no means of cooking our meat or flour. The Committee [should] send us some tyle pots if Camp Kettles cannot be had—please send a fresh dragoon with any orders you may have—and let the bearer ride leisurely back—the enemy are advancing quickly, being already near Gorsuch's." 93

Not long after Strieker had gotten off his dispatch to Smith, the British had overrun the unfinished entrenchments east of Gorsuch's farm toward North Point (see Map). Realizing that the British were advancing much faster than he had expected, Strieker, at 9:00 a. m. ordered his baggage to the rear and set up a main line of resistance (hereafter, M. L. R.) across the peninsula between Bear Creek and a branch of Back River. At the extreme right of the line, he placed the 5th Maryland with its right flank secured by a branch of Bear Creek and its left resting on the main North Point Road. The 27th Maryland was formed on the other side of North Point Road in line with 5th Maryland with its left extending toward but not as far as a branch of Back River. The artillery was set up across North Point Road between the 5th and 27th. About 300 yards to the read of the 27th, the 39th Maryland was deployed, and parallel to it on the other side of the road the 51st Maryland was posted the same distance behind the 5th. Half a mile to the rear of the second line (39th and 51st), at Cooks Tavern, the 6th Maryland was held in reserve. The Rifle Battalion was ordered forward into the wooded area between Strieker's M. L. R. and the approaching British army with instructions to slow up the British advance. Before the riflemen actually made contact with the enemy, a rumor circulated among them that the British had already made a landing in their rear at Back

" Strieker to Smith, Sept. 15, 1814, S. S. " Ibid., Sept. 12, 1814.

THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE 85

River. Captain W. B. Dyer, who commanded the riflemen, ordered them to fall back on the main line and the British continued their march through the defensible, heavily wooded area without meeting resistance.94

When General Ross and Admiral co*ckburn, who were with the advance party, reached the Gorsuch Farm (see Map) they ordered a halt. For an hour, Ross and co*ckburn rested and messed there. During this time, Ross interrogated some American prisoners concerning the strength of General Smith's forces and defenses. According to a British officer who was a witness to this discussion, the Americans gave an accurate account of the number of men under Smith's command, but they said little or nothing about Strieker's 3rd Brigade which was only a short distance away near the head of Bear Creek.95 Apparently Ross assumed from this that only parties of skirmishers stood between his army and the land defenses of Baltimore. This would explain why he moved forward on North Point Road toward Strieker's position without taking any precautions against running into a sizable force.

In the meantime, cavalry videttes had brought back word to Strieker that Ross and a small advance party were taking their leisure at Gorsuch's house. This obvious contempt of the British toward any possible American attack on so small a group, together with the unauthorized withdrawal of the Rifle Battalion from its forward position enraged General Strieker. He called for volunteers to form a detachment to move forward to the Gorsuch house and wipe out the British advance party.86 This volunteer group was under the command of Major Heath, 5th Maryland and included 150 men from Howard's and Levering's Companies of the 5 th, about 70 riflemen under Captain Aisquith, one four- pounder under Lieutenant Stiles, and an undetermined number of cavalry.97 The detachment pressed forward and soon made contact with the British advance party which had left Gorsuch's not long after noon.

Fighting from behind trees and yielding ground stubbornly, the Americans were driven back by the advance party. General Ross was some yards in back of the advance party when the firing broke out. As it swelled in volume, Ross, becoming concerned,

"•Ibid. "'Strieker to Smith, Sept. 15, 1814, S. S. "Gleig, op. eit., pp. 119-120. "Ibid.

86 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

rode forward. Finding a larger force of Americans than he had expected, the General turned around and started back to order up additional light infantry. Before he had gone far, an unknown American rifleman shot him through the right arm, the bullet lodging in his chest.98 Ross died while he was being carried back to the beach, and there is no doubt that his death had an extremely adverse effect on the morale of the army. Even more important, perhaps, was the fact that the man who succeeded him in command was not qualified to lead an operation of this type.

Colonel Brooke, the commanding officer of the 44th Regiment, was next in line for command of the British forces. Although he had proved his courage in previous battles, he had not had the opportunity to exercise the top command in any engagement. Lieutenant G. R. Gleig who served under both men in the Battle of Baltimore referred to Brooke as " an officer of decided personal courage, but, perhaps, better caluculated to lead a battalion, than to guide an army. . . ."**

As soon as Colonel Brooke assumed command, the British continued their forward advance and the detachment under Major Heath returned to their respective units in Strieker's main line. At 2:30 p. m. the British advance units came within view of the 3rd Brigade in its position near Bear Creek.100 Brooke ordered the Royal Marine artillery unit which operated the Congreve rocket battery to throw rockets across Strieker's left flank.

Strieker's defense line at the beginning of this battle of North Point was somewhat changed from the formation set up at 9:00 a. m. that morning. He had placed the Rifle Battalion at the end of the right flank in such a way that that flank now extended to the edge of Bear Creek. Originally he had intended that the 5 th and 27th should receive the initial onslaught of the enemy and, if necessary, fall back through the 51st and 39th, and form on the right of the 6th which was the reserve.101 However, a large land gap existed between the left of his line (27th) and the bank of Back River. This gap was several hundred yards in width and ideally suited to a flanking attack of the type that the British liked to execute.

"Gleig, op. at., pp. 122-123; James, op. cit., II, 314; Brooke to Bathurst, Sept. \7, 1814, Public Record Office, War Office 1, Vol. 141.

M Ibid. •u"> Strieker to Smith, Sept. 15, 1814, S. S. ln Ibid.

THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE 87

When the British opend the battle, they immediately perceived the opportunity for such a movement around this exposed left wing of the American line. In order to prepare the way, the British directed the fire of their cannon on the American artillery in the center of the line and on the 27th which held the left flank. To counter the attack, Strieker moved the 39th into line on the left of the 27th and ordered the 51st to form at right angles with the main lines. The right angled formation of the 51st required a rather complicated wheeling movement of the regiment. This movement would have been difficult to accomplish for a well-trained regular army unit on a parade ground, but for the raw militia of the 51st, who were even then undergoing their first artillery barrage, it was impossible. Colonel Amey of the 51st did not understand the purpose of the movement and by the time it was explained to him, his men were milling around in utter confusion and terror.102

The British were quick to take advantage of the opening offered them. The light brigade under Major Jones consisting of the 85 th Light Infantry and the light companies of the other regiments, spread out in extended order along the whole front of the American line. The 4th Regiment commanded by Major Faunce moved off to the right of the British position and moved through a wooded area to turn the American left flank. A brigade under Lieutenant Colonel MuIIins made up of the 44th Regiment, a detachment of seamen, and the marines of the fleet, formed a line in the rear of the light brigade also parallel to the American line. A third brigade under Colonel Patterson including the 21st Regiment, the 2nd Battalion of Marines and a special detachment of marines under Major Lewis, remained in column some distance back on the road. They were given orders to deploy to the left and press the American right.103

At 2:50 p.m., fifteen minutes after the first arrival of the British in front of Strieker's position, the signal was given for the battle plan outlined above to be put into effect. Just as at Bladensburg the British movements were swift and well coordi- nated. The entire British line advanced firing a volley as it went. The whole American line answered with a volley of its own, but

103 ibid. 108 Brooke to Bathurst, Sept. 17, 1814, Public Record Office, War Office 1, Vol.

141.

88 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

after this first volley, the 51st fled from the field. Part of the 2nd battalion of the 39th, which adjoined the 51st at the right angle of the line, was carried along in this flight.104

The British 85 th Infantry and the other light companies were quick to exploit the collapse of the American left wing, and they were joined by the British 4th Regiment which had completed its flanking movement. The rest of the American line stood firm, however, and delivered a steady fire on the British units attacking their center and right.105 The British 21st Regiment had little success in its attack on the American right flank held by the 5th Maryland and the British 44th also suffered heavily when they advanced against the artillery and the 27th in the center of the line.106

At 3:45 p. m., approximately an hour after the British launched their attack. General Strieker gave the order to withdraw to the reserve position held by the 6th Maryland. There were only 1400 men remaining in his M. L. R., and he was in imminent danger of getting cut off by the British flanking movement on his left. Contemporary accounts vary considerably concerning the nature of that withdrawal. The British described it: ". . . enemy . . . obliged to fly in every direction. . . ." 10T

They lost in a moment all order, and fled as every man best could, from the field. Whilst the infantry, dashing into the forest, thought to conceal themselves among its mazes, the cavalry, of which a few squadrons had been drawn upon their right, scampered off by the main road; and was immediately followed by guns, tumbrils, ammunition waggons, and the whole materiel of the army.108

. . . [the Americans] gave way in every direction, and [were] chased by us a considerable distance with great slaughter, abandoning his post of the Meeting-house, situated in this wood, and leaving all his wounded, and two of his field guns in our possession.109

On the American side, there are not too many official eyewitness accounts. Strieker's is the most specific: 110

104 Strieker to Smith, Sept. 15, 1814, S. S.

""James, op. cit., II, 319. 10' Ibid. 107 Brooke to Bathurst, Sept. 17, 1814, Public Record Office, War Office 1, Vol.

141. 108 Gleig, op. cit., p. 134. ""Admiral co*ckburn to Admiral Cochrane, Sept. 15, 1814, Public Record Office,

Admiralty 1, Vol. 507. ""Strieker to Smith, Sept. 15, 1814, S.S.

THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE 89

... I was constrained to order a movement back to the reserve regiment, under Colonel M'Donald, which was well posted to receive the retired line, which mostly rallied well. On forming the 6th, the fatigued state of the regiments and corps which had retired and the probability that my right flank might be turned by a quick movement of the enemy in that direction, induced me after proper deliberation to fall back to Worthing- ton's mill.

Evidently, it would appear that Strieker's withdrawal was something less than deliberate. Probably the British accounts of the flight of the militia are accurate. However, there are other factors concerning the Battle of North Point and its outcome that need to be considered.

First of all, the strength, training, and experience of the rival forces were not at all equal. Official reports and eyewitness accounts of men involved on both sides differ greatly. Lieutenant Gleig estimated the American force to be about six or seven thousand men.111 Colonel Brooke, the British Commanding officer, gave the strength of Strieker's force as six thousand.112

Admiral co*ckburn commanding the naval detachment at North Point gave the Americans six or seven thousand men.113

In his official report. General Strieker included a specific enu- meration of the forces under his command, itemizing it by units and giving a total figure of 3185 effective men.114 "When the 3rd Maryland Division personnel records for the period just before the battle are checked, we find that Strieker's figure is quite accurate.115

None of the official British reports gives a total figure for the number of men involved in their side of the operation. William James, a contemporary English military and naval historian stated that the British force numbered 3270 men.116 General Sam Smith, the supreme commander of the American forces defending Balti- more, gave the British between seven and eight thousand men in his official report.117 Sir Edward Codrington who held the post

111 Gleig, op. cit., p. 125. 112 Brooke to Bathurst, Sept. 17, 1814, Public Record Office, War Office 1, Vol.

141. 118 Admiral co*ckburn to Admiral Cochrane, Sept. 15, 1814, Public Record Office,

Admiralty 1, Vol. 507. "'Strieker to Smith, Sept. 15, 1814, S. S. 115 Smith to Monroe, Sept. 9, 1814, ibid.; also, Third Division, Maryland Militia

Orderly Book, Aug. 8, to Nov. 11, 1814. "" James, op. cit., II, 318. 117 Smith to Monroe, Sept. 19, 1814, Niles Weekly Register, VII (Sept. 24. 1814),

26-27.

90 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

of Captain of the Fleet (somewhat similar in duties to chief administrative officer) with Cochrane's Expedition, stated that in August 1814 when the British arrived in the Chesapeake, they were able to muster a land force of 3340 men. This included infantry, artillery, marine battalions and colonial troops.118 When the British landed at North Point, they added to the land force listed above a brigade of seamen numbering 600 men and a detachment of marines drawn from the various ships (probably not more than 250) .119 This would give the British a force of about 4200 men at North Point. If, however, we deduct from this figure the 249 casualties sustained by the British at the Battle of Bladensburg, we come up with a final total of 3951.120

From the figures obtained above, it is possible to estimate that about 4000 British faced 3185 Americans at the beginning of the battle at North Point. During the battle all of the British troops were brought into action. If we subtract from the American total of 3185, the 925 men of the 51st Maryland and the 2nd Battalion of the 39th who fled at the first volley, as well as the 620 men of the 6th who were in reserve and did not see any action, we find that 1545 Maryland militiamen, not entrenched, held off about 4000 seasoned British regulars for a period of an hour of continuous combat. In this action, the Americans sustained casualties of 24 killed and 139 wounded,121 while the British lost 46 killed and 295 wounded.122

When the outnumbered American defenders were finally "' routed " by British bayonets, they moved only a mile and a half to the reserve position of the 6th Maryland where they re- grouped and awaited a further attack.123 The British did not

113 Lady Jane Bourchier, Memoir of the Life of Admiral Sir Edward Codrington, with Selections from his Public and Private Correspondence (London, 1873), p. 312.

"" co*ckburn to Cochrane, Sept. 15, 1814, Public Record Office, Admiralty 1, Vol. 507.

""Return of killed, wounded, and missing, of the troops under the command of Major General Ross, in action with the enemy on the 24th of Aug. 1814, on the heights above Bladensburg, Public Record Office, War Office 1. See also Col. Brooke's return of strength of his force as of Sept. 17, 1814, War Office 1, Vol. 141.

121 Brigade Major Frailey's return of " killed and wounded of the 3rd Brigade M. M. at the late engagement at Long Log Lane [North Point] Sept. 12, 1814," Niles Weekly Register, VII (Dec. 3, 1814), 201.

123 Return of the killed and wounded, in action with the enemy, near Baltimore, on the 12th of Sept., 1814, Public Record Office, War Office 1; also, a return of killed and wounded belonging to the navy, disembarked with the army under Major General Ross, Sept. 12, 1814, Public Record Office, Admiralty 1, Vol. 507.

138 Strieker to Smith, Sept. 15, 1814, S. S.

THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE 91

take up the pursuit but remained on the battlefield. The official reason given for not following up their costly victory was that " the day [was} now far advanced," but actually it was only a few minutes after 4:00 p. m. on a late summer day.124 The additional excuse was advanced that " the troops were much fatigued," 125 although it must have occurred to the British commander that the beaten Americans were even more fatigued after having " sprinted " a mile and a half with their weapons and other equipment.

Colonel Brooke, who was understandably cautious in his first independent command, was undoubtedly strengthened in his decision to defer further advance until the next day by a communication that he received from Admiral Cochrane. He was informed that the frigates and bomb ships of the fleet would, on the next morning, take stations as previously agreed upon.126 After supple- menting its usual army fare with such fowl and vegetables as could be gathered from the neighboring farms, the British army built campfires and settled itself for a much needed night's rest.127

In the meantime. General Strieker fearing a possible surprise attack by the British withdrew for the night to Worthington's Mill which was four and one half miles nearer to Baltimore.128

SEPTEMBER 13

Shortly after midnight on the morning of Tuesday, September 13, the weather intervened in the Battle of Baltimore. From that time until daybreak, there was a heavy downpour of rain which did much to dampen the enthusiasm of the British Army for the day's action.129 With the exception of the outposts and the men doing guard duty, most of the Americans were able to take cover.

At daybreak on September 13, the British fleet and army commenced the joint operations which they hoped would bring about the capture of Baltimore. Between 5:30 a.m. and 6:00 am., Brooke's army set out in columns with well-organized flanking parties to prevent surprise. Their progress along North Point Road and then Philadelphia Road was slow because the Americans

"• Brooke to Bathurst, Sept. 17, 1814, Public Record Office, War Office 1, Vol. 141. "'Gleig, op. cit., pp. 138-140.

"'Ibid. "'Strieker to Smith, Sept. 15, 1814, S. S. "' Ibid. "' Gleig, op. cit., p. 141.

92 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

had been busy during the night chopping down trees as obstacles across the roads.130 By 10:00 a. ra., Brooke had set up a command post on the Philadelphia Road a short distance from its intersection with North Point Road (see Map). From there he pro- ceeded to reconnoitre, " at my leisure," the defenses of the town.131

At about the same time that Brooke's army was starting its march toward Baltimore, the bomb ships Terror (10 guns). Meteor (18), Aetna (8), Devastation (8), Volcano (16), and the rocket ship Erebus, at a range of about two miles, opened fire on Fort McHenry.132 During the previous night, ten frigates and sloops had come up the Patapsco and taken a position about two and one half miles below the Fort. As the frigates came up the River, three of them ran aground on sand bars and had to be hauled off by main strength by their crews.133 One of the frigates, the Surprise, served as flagship for Admiral Cochrane who had taken personal command of the bombardment. After the capture of Washington, Admiral Cochrane had not been in favor of an attack on Baltimore at this time but had been persuaded to approve the operation by Admiral co*ckburn and General Ross.134 Now, on the morning of September 13, both Cochrane and his Captain of the Fleet, Admiral Codrington were pessimistic concerning their chances of reducing Fort McHenry and its outer works. Sometime during the first few hours of the bombardment, Codrington jotted down in his diary, the following estimate of the situation: 135

Last night we received the distressing tidings of General Ross being killed by a rifle-shot whilst reconnoitring the position of the enemy. The ball went through his arm into his body, and he died on his way towards the place of embarkation. He is a most severe loss to his country and to us at this most important juncture; and to his wife, with whom after long experience, he lived in the sincerest affection, the loss of all her earthly bliss! I pointed out to him {Ross} all the difficulties I saw in this attack, into which he was persuaded by [Admiral] co*ckburn and a Mr. Evans, who acts as quartermaster general in this army, and that the probability of which was gathered merely from the American papers. What the army may find the land-side I know not; but on this side the enemy is so

""Ibid., 149-150. 131 Brooke to Bathurst, Sept. 17, 1814, Public Record Office, War Office 1, Vol.

141. 132 James, op. cit., II, 322. 1,u Ibid. "'Bouchier, op. cit., pp. 319-320. "'Ibid.

THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE 93

well prepared for defense by nature and art, that we can do little either towards capturing or destroying the town. I told the General that in reality we had no information, for I could never consider the mere hearsay of people not responsible, as worthy of reliance; and we now find this a very different place from what that hearsay led us to believe. What I said and proposed was mere furtherance of the plan of the Admiral, which was built on the best foundation; and I was surprised that so sensible a man as General Ross should be led away by the opposite opinions. I have, however, belied my internal qualms by avowing a confidence in our success since the decision was made, and the hopes I had have now yielded to fears. Heroism will do wonders certainly, and there is that still to look to; but I believe there is too much on hand even for that, and I wish the job were well over.

However pessimistic the British leaders may have been in respect to the final outcome of the naval attack, they enjoyed an important initial advantage in their gun duel with Fort McHenry. The British bomb ships were equipped with a number of thirteen inch mortars which were capable of shelling the Fort from a distance of two miles. This was outside the range of the largest thirty-six pounders in the Fort and made is possible for the British bomb ships to maintain a continuous unopposed fire.136

This situation did not come as a surprise to Major Armistead, the Commanding Officer at For McHenry. As an experienced regular army artilleryman he knew from frequent target practice sessions at the Fort that the effective range of his guns was not much over a mile and a half.137 He was also familiar with the fire power and range of the British bomb vessels inasmuch as they had been active in the Chesapeake area since early in the summer. As early as April 15, 1814, Major Armistead had asked the War Department to send him some ten inch mortars. The Secretary of War had rejected his request on the ground that the French thirty- six pounders had a sufficient range to cover the Patapsco River approach. The Secretary added that General Sam Smith shared his point of view.138 Armistead was a persistent man, however, and continued his efforts to obtain mortars. Finally, on August 6, 1814, a little over a month before the Battle of Baltimore, the War Department directed that one ten inch mortar be forwarded

"'Armistead to Secretary of War, Sept. 24, 1814, Niles Weekly Register, VII (Oct. 1, 1814), 40.

117 Federal Gazette and Baltimore Daily Advertiser, April 20, 1813. "'Morton to Armistead, April 15, 1814, Office of Chief of Artillery, 1812-1825,

N.A., R. G. 156.

94 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

from the Greenleaf's Point arsenal at Washington to Fort McHenry.139 Armistead received the mortar on August 16, 1814, but wrote back to the War Department complaining that they had failed to send a base or fuzes.140 A final twist of irony in Armistead's futile struggle to obtain mortars capable of matching the range of British bomb vessels is found in the following item in a return of ordnance seized by the British army at Green- leaf's Point arsenal in Washington: '" August 25—three 13 inch mortars." 141

According to Major Armistead, the bombardment of Fort McHenry lasted for twenty-five hours (6:00 a. m., September 13 to 7:00 a.m., September 14) with two brief intermissions. Armistead estimated that from fifteen to eighteen hundred shells were thrown at the Fort. Of that number about four hundred fell within the works, but many burst in the air and caused fragmentation casualties. Despite this heavy volume of fire, only four men were killed and twenty-four wounded.142 There is an explanation for this low casualty rate. Not long after it became apparent that the British bomb ships were out of range of the Fort's guns, the order to cease fire was given and, for the greater part of the battle, all but skeleton crews manning the guns on the bastions took cover in the ditch outside the Star Fort where they were relatively safe from the bombardment.143

Although two buildings in the Fort were seriously, and others only slightly, damaged a most spectacular hit occurred at 2:00 p. m. on the 13th when a British shell blasted a twenty-four pounder on the southwest bastion. Lieutenant Claggett, in charge of the gun, was killed and the rest of the crew were wounded. When the British saw the surge of activity on the bastion to remount the gun, two of the bomb ships and the Rocket Ship Erebus were ordered closer to the Fort to take advantage of the momentary confusion that existed. For thirty minutes a vigorous

"'Ibid., Wadsworth to Armistead, Aug. 6, 1814. 110 Ibid., Armistead to Wadsworth, Aug. 6, 1814. 141 Return of ordnance, ammunition and ordnance-stores, taken from the enemy

by the army under the command of Major General Robert Ross, between the 19th and 25th of Aug. 1814, Public Record Office, War Office 1.

"• Armistead to Secretary of War, Sept. 24, 1814, Niles Weekly Register, VII (Oct. 1, 1814), 40.

11S"" Reminiscences of the Bombardment of Fort McHenry (the Star Fort) in Sept. 1814," the Md. Hist. Mag. (Dec, 1923), 371-373. This narrative is by Col. M. I. Cohen who was a member of Capt. Nicholson's Baltimore Fencibles which served in the star fort during the attack.

THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE 95

cannonade went on between the ships and the guns of the Fort. Then the British withdrew to their former position and resumed their unopposed long range shelling of the Fort.144

If we accept the opinion of Admiral Codrington as quoted above, it would seem quite possible that by 2:30 p. m. on September 13, the British naval commanders had given up any hope of bringing about the surrender of Fort McHenry through long range shelling. The bombardment had been launched in the first place, with the idea of creating a panic among the defenders of the Fort and causing its evacuation. After eight hours, the British had made their demonstration within range of the Fort's guns and been driven off. It was also quite apparent now that any direct assault in daylight on the Fort or its outer works could not succeed.145

On the other side of Baltimore, Colonel Brooke had finished his reconnaissance by about noon and the prospect facing him seemed even gloomier than the situation of the naval force. He estimated that the Eastern Defense Line was defended by about 15,000 men and 120 guns. The works were on hills with a wide area of cleared land in front of them which would have to be crossed by an attacking force.148 To oppose these strong defenses, he had an army which had been reduced to about 3600 men because of the 341 casualties of the day before, and for artillery he had only two light field pieces and a howit2er.147 Under these circ*mstances any sort of frontal attack was out of the question.

As has been stated in a previous chapter on the defenses of Baltimore, the left flank of the Eastern Defense Line extended as far as Belair Road (see Map), From that point on, the northern perimeter of the City was virtually undefended. Brooke decided to make a feint at that unfortified area, and about noon he put his army in motion toward Harford and York Roads. The American cavalry detected this movement and Smith ordered Strieker's Brigade and General Winder's command, which included some regular dragoons, to adapt their movements to those of the British. They took up a position just north of the city extending between York Road and Belair Road.148

1" Armistead to Secretary of War, Sept. 24, 1814, Niles Weekly Register, VII

(Oct. 1, 1814), 40. Ii6 Cochrane to Croker, Sept. 17, 1814, Public Record Office, Admiralty 1, Part 3. 116 Broke to Bathurst, Sept. 17, 1814, Public Record Office 1, Vol. 141. 147 James, op. cit., II, 318. 1" Smith to Secretary of War, Sept. 19, 1814, Niles Weekly Register, VII (Sept.

24, 1814), 26-27.

96 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

The countermove of Strieker and Winder caused Brooke to give up his attempt to attack the northern perimter of Baltimore. Between one and two o'clock in the afternoon of the 13th, the British army was concentrated in front of the Eastern Defense Line at the distance of about one mile. Smith anticipated that Brooke would wait until dark to make any further movement. Strieker and "Winder were ordered to take a position just to the left of the end of the entrenchments. Smith intended to have them fall on the right or rear of the British line should a frontal assault be attempted during the night.149

Shortly after 5:00 p.m., a heavy rain began to fall and continued on into the night making the range of visibility very low. Colonel Brooke had conferred with his officers and decided on a plan of action for a night attack. Lieutenant Gleig was present at the conference and gave the following concise description of the plan:

It had been explained to us, that as soon as a communication could be opened between the army and the fleet, of which all the bombs, and many of the lighter frigates were in the river, an attack upon the American lines would be made. This was to begin with a heavy fire on the right, for the purpose of drawing to that part the principal share of Jonothan's attack; after which the 85 th Regiment, and the seamen, supported by the 4th and 44th, were to penetrate the left silently, and with the bayonet. Having overcome all opposition, the column was to wheel up upon the summit of the ridge, to remain stationary until dawn; and then taking the whole of the works in flank, to carry them one by one in detail. But everything, it was understood, must depend on the ability of the fleet to cooperate. There was, upon the extreme right of the American position, a strong post, well supplied with heavy ordnance [Rodgers Bastion} [See map}. To pass it by unheeded, would be, our leaders conceived, to expose the attacking column, even should it succeed in the dark, to certain destruction, as soon as daylight enabled the artillery to play; whilst to attempt it by escalade, was esteemed a project too hazardous. To the fleet it was accordingly left, which, by bombardment, would, it was presumed, reduce it to ruins in a few hours; and the commencement of a serious cannonade from the river, to be the signal for a general movement in line.150

At some time during the evening, contact was made between Brooke's Army and the fleet.151 Admiral Cochrane expressed the

"• ibid. 150 Gleig, op. at., pp. 156-157. 151 Brooke to Bathurst, Sept. 17, 1814, Public Record Office, War Office 1, Vol.

141; also Cochrane to Croker, Sept. 17, 1814, Public Record Office, Admiralty 1, Part 3.

In these letters both Col. Brooke and Admiral Cochrane state that they were in

THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE 97

view that the fleet would not be able to penetrate the Northwest Branch of the Patapsco because of hulks sunk between Fort McHenry and the Lazaretto.152 However, there is good reason to believe that other arrangements for joint action were made. We know that Brooke's men remained in assault positions until 1:30 or 2:00 a.m. on September 14th. At or around midnight they expected some sort of signal from the fleet in the river that would mark the beginning of a joint attack.153

Just before midnight, the bomb ships increased the intensity of their bombardment of the Fort, which caused Sailing Master Webster who commanded the six gun Babco*ck Battery on the Ferry Branch, to order his guns double-shotted with eighteen pound balls and grape shot. Earlier in the evening Major Armis- tead at Fort McHenry had sent the following terse message to General Smith: 154

From the number of barges and the known situation of the enemy I have not a doubt but what an assault will be made this night on the Fort.

SEPTEMBER 14

Around midnight of September 13th, a flare bursting high in the air over the British fleet in the Patapsco River announced the final phase of the Battle of Baltimore. This was apparently a signal indicating that a division of boats was about to launch a diversionary attack up the Ferry Branch. Although the main water route to Baltimore was the obstructed Northwest Branch of the Patapsco River, there was also another "' back door " water route to the City by way of the Ferry Branch into Ridgely's Cove which led to within a half mile of the southern limits of the City (see Map). Until now (1958) it was commonly believed that a boom had been placed across the entrance of Ridgely's Cove. However, a letter from Sam Smith to the Secretary of War indicates that the boom was not constructed until after the Battle of Baltimore.155

communication on the night of Sept. 13. It is not known whether they conferred in person, but it is likely that they used messengers.

"2 Cochrane to Croker, Sept. 17, 1814, Public Record Office, Admiralty 1, Part 3. ""Gleig, op. cit., pp. 157-158. 164 Webster to Brantz Mayer, July 22, 1853, Md. Hist. Soc, Vertical File; Armis-

tead to Smith [Sept. 13, 1814], S. S. 155 Smith to Monroe, Sept. 19, 1814, Office Secretary of War, Letters Received

1814-1817, N.A., R. G. 107.

98 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

The attack up the Ferry Branch was led by Captain Charles Napier of the frigate Euryalus and included twenty boats with about 1200 officers, seamen and marines.156 The elements favored the venture for the night was dark and a heavy rain was falling. If the boats could pass by Fort McHenry and the other forts on the Ferry Branch, keeping close to the southern bank of the river, there was little to prevent them from entering Ridgely's Cove and making their way unopposed into the southern section of Baltimore (see Map).

Unfortunately for Captain Napier, the same weather conditions that protected him from American observation, also brought dis- aster to his expedition shortly after it left the fleet. As they approached Fort McHenry, eleven of the boats became separated from the rest and pulled into the Northwest Branch instead of the Ferry Branch of the river.157 These boats were detected approaching the Lazaretto by the flotilla men at the three-gun battery there. In the belief that this was a British attempt to seize the Lazaretto battery word was sent to Commodore Rodgers, who quickly ordered his aide, Mr. Stockton and Major Randall's company of Pennsylvania riflemen to the scene.158 By this time, however, the officers in charge of the eleven British boats had recognized their danger and ordered a withdrawal to the fleet.159

In the meantime, Captain Napier and the remaining nine boats continued on their way into the Ferry Branch. According to the contemporary English naval historian, William James, Napier's force now consisted of one rocket boat, five launches (or barges), two pinnaces, one gig and 123 men.160

The British had passed the Babco*ck Battery in the rain and darkness and were nearly abreast of Fort Covington when Sailing Master Webster at the Babco*ck Battery heard the muffled splashing of their oars and noticed " small lights " in several places about two hundred yards off Fort Covington. He opened fire with his battery and Fort Covington did the same.161 Several of the British boats which were armed with cannon returned the fire. One man was wounded among troops in the rear of Fort Covington,

1" James, op. cit., II, 324.

168

1"' Ibid

Rodgers to Jones, Sept. 23, 1814, Rodgers Papers. James, op. cit., II, 324-325.

1,1 Webster to Brantz Mayer, July 22, 1853, Md. Hist. Soc, Vertical File.

THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE 99

otherwise there were no American casualties since most of the British shells and rockets were aimed high and missed the forts entirely.162

There is considerable confusion concerning the damage done to the British in this action. Admirals Cochrane and co*ckburn did not even mention Napier's attack in their official reports and there is no evidence available concerning Napier's report, if, indeed, he wrote one. Major Armistead stated in his report that one boat with two dead men in it was found after the battle.163

Napier retreated back down the river, running a gantlet of fire at Fort McHenry, and returned to the fleet at approximately 2:00 a.m. on September 14th. The failure of this attack represented the end of any British hopes of capturing Baltimore. In order to cover the expected withdrawal of Brooke's army to North Point, the fleet continued the bombardment of Fort McHenry until 7:00 a. m. About 9:00 a. m. the British ships got under way and retired to the mouth of the Patapsco.164

Colonel Brooke's army had remained in its assault position opposite the Eastern Defense Line throughout the engagement in the Ferry Branch.105 From midnight until 1:30 a. m. the British troops expected at any moment to be ordered into action according to the plan previously agreed upon.166 At 1:30 a.m., however, the order was given to withdraw, and the army began the march back to North Point. Available sources of information do not provide any specific explanation as to the manner in which Brooke reached his decision to withdraw. In his report to the War Office, Brooke says the following: 167

. . . During the evening, however, I received a communication from the commander in chief of the naval forces £Cochrane}, by which I was informed, that, in consequence of the entrance to the harbor being closed up by vessels sunk for that purpose by the enemy, a naval cooperation against the town and camp was found impracticable.

Under these circ*mstances and keeping in view your lordships instructions, it was agreed between the vice-admiral and myself, that the capture

162 Newcomb [CO at Ft. Covington] to Rodgers, Sept. 14, 1814, Rodgers Papers. 163 Armistead to Secretary of War, Sept. 24, 1814, Niles Weekly Register, VII

(Oct. 1, 1814), VII, 40. "• Ibid. ""Gleig, op. tit., pp. 157-158. I0' Ibid. 1", Brooke to Bathurst, Sept. 17, 1814, Public Record Office, War Office 1, Vol.

141.

100 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

of the town would not have been a sufficient equivalent to the loss which might probably be sustained in storming the heights. . . .

The procedure followed by Brooke in his withdrawal seemed designed to draw the Americans out of their defense lines for a battle in the open. He retreated only three miles before taking another position which held until the afternoon of September 14th. At that time, he went three and a half miles further on the road to North Point before making camp for the night. Brooke's report of the withdrawal concludes by stating: " Having ascer- tained at a later hour on the morning of the 15 th, that the enemy had no disposition to quit his entrenchments, I moved down and re-embarked the army at North Point, not leaving a man behind " ^

The American version of the withdrawal differs somewhat from the British account given above. In his report. Major General Sam Smith states that, due to the dark night and heavy rain, the Americans in the Eastern Defense Line were not aware until daybreak that the British had retired from their position. Early in the morning, however. Smith sent General "Winder's command, including the Virginia militia and Bird's U. S. Dragoons in pursuit of the British army by way of North Point Road. Major Randall's Pennsylvania riflemen and all of the militia cavalry were sent out Trappe Road to attack the British right flank, if possible.169 Because of the fatigue of the militia who had little sleep for three nights and the fact that the British had a head start of several hours, only the U. S. Dragoons caught up with the British column. According to General Winder's report, the Dragoons skirmished briefly with the British rear guard and took six prisoners before superior numbers forced them to withdraw.170

Early in the morning of September 17, the British fleet finally set sail down the Bay and by 2:00 p.m. all of their ships had passed Swan Point near the mouth of the Patapsco.171 By that time the British commanders were in the process of preparing their final reports on the Battle of Baltimore. They were hard pressed to give a good appearance to the affair.

l" ibid. "'Smith to Secretary of War, Sept. 19, 1814, Niles Weekly Register, VII (Sept.

24, 1814), 26-27. ""Division Orders of General Winder, Sept. 15, 1814, Hilts Weekly Register,

VII (Sept. 24, 1814), 28. 171 Smith to Monroe, Sept. 17, 1814, S. S.

THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE 101

Admiral co*ckburn, who commanded the sailors and marines attached to the British army, in his usual terse, concise style, did not pretend that the operation was a success, but contented himself with praising the courage of units and individuals under his command. In order to explain the heavy British casualty rate in the battle at North Point, which he had described as an un- qualified victory, co*ckburn took liberties with the truth: " An advance of this description, against superior numbers of an enemy so posted, could not be effected without loss. . . ."172 As has been previously stated the British outnumbered the Americans at North Point by at least 900 men.

Colonel Brooke strained in his detailed report to Lord Bathurst of the War Office to explain why the Battle of Baltimore was a victory. He stated that he had " compelled " the enemy to sink upwards of twenty vessels in different parts of the harbor; " caused" the citizens to remove almost the whole of their property to places of more security inland; " obliged " the government to concentrate all the military force of the surrounding states; " harrassed " the militia, and " forced " them to collect from any remote districts; causing the enemy to burn a valuable rope walk, with other public buildings, in order to clear the glacis in front of their redoubts, besides having beaten them and routed them in a general action.173

It is difficult to see how the "War Office could have overlooked the simple fact that all of these inconveniences suffered by the Americans were designed to prevent the capture and destruction of Baltimore by the British. Mentioning them in his report only tended to emphasize the fact that he had not succeeded in that purpose.

Admiral Cochrane's report as Commander of the expedition was essentially a summary of the facts set forth by co*ckburn and Brooke. He described the Battle of Baltimore as a ". . . demonstration upon the City of Baltimore which might be converted into a real attack should circ*mstances appear to justify it. . ." 17i

More honest and perhaps typical of the real feelings of the 173 co*ckburn to Cochrane, Sept. 15, 1814, Public Record Office, Admiralty 1,

Vol. 507. 178 Brooke to Bathurst, Sept. 17, 1814, Public Record Office, War Office 1, Vol.

141. 174 Cochrane to Croker, Sept. 17, 1814, Public Record Office, Admiralty 1, Part 3.

102 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

British soldiers and sailors in the expedition was the hurriedly written remark of Lieutenant Pascoe of HMS Melpomene, one of the ships used in the Battle of Baltimore; in a letter addressed to a friend in London from "" Chesapeak, September 16, 1814 " he stated: "... We were very sanguine in our expectations before the attack on Baltimore which unfortunately fail'd with an irrepairable [sic~\ loss on our side (Gen: Ross) . . ." 176

On the American side, the first emotion felt by all persons concerned was one of great and overpowering relief. Before the battle, almost everyone had believed that the British would take Baltimore just as they had Washington. However, there was determination to fight to the last ditch. During the hours just before the attack, the military engineer in charge of the defenses had given directions for the use of the newly completed Cathedral as a fortification inside the city, and had ordered the collection of materials to barricade the avenues.1'6 The defense at the Fort indicated stubbornness and courage.

From the morning of September 14, when the British withdrew their fleet to the mouth of the Patapsco River, until September 17, when the last British ship departed down the Bay, everyone from Sam Smith on down feared another attack. So strong was this apprehension, that on the night of the 14th, General Smith ordered several units in the Eastern Defense Line to march through Baltimore to a hill in the rear of Fort Covington. This movement was designed to strengthen the Ferry Branch defenses in case the British tried again to reach the City by this route. These troops, which included the 3rd Maryland and the Frederick Volunteers, were passing through Baltimore Street when, in the darkness, a runaway team of horses approached them. Under the mistaken impression that they were being attacked by British cavalry, the 3rd broke and fled in disorder through the City discarding weapons and knapsacks as they went.177

When it was definitely known that the British expedition had gone down the Bay and Baltimore was no longer in imminent danger of attack, the mood of the defenders underwent a notice-

175 Letter from Lieutenant Pascoe, H. M. S. Melpomene, to Charles Cox, Sept. 16, 1814 (a part of the private collection of Mr. James Clements Wheat of Bay City, Michigan).

178 Capt. Babco*ck to Smith, Sept. 6, 1814, S. S. 1,7 Diary of M. E. Bartgis, Sept. 14, 1814, Maryland Room, Enoch Pratt Library,

Baltimore.

THE BATTLE OF BALTIMORE 103

able change. Many people criticized General Winder and his command for not making a more vigorous pursuit of the retreating British army.178 Although the British expedition still remained within striking distance of Baltimore, General Smith's forces began to melt away. By September 19, only two days after the British expedition started down the Bay, 800 Virginia militia whose terms of enlistment were up insisted on returning home.179

1200 Pennsylvania militia and almost as many Maryland militia had already left for home.180 On the same day, Commodore Rodgers and all but a small detachment of his seamen received orders from the Secretary of the Navy to proceed to Philadel- phia.181 Desertions and sickness also thinned the ranks of the troops that remained, and within a week after the battle, there were not enough troops left to man all of the fortifications in the Ferry Branch and in the Eastern Defense Line.182

Fortunately for Baltimore, the British leaders were not aware of the City's weakness. On September 19, Admiral Cochrane with the Tonnant and the Surprise sailed for Halifax to superintend the construction of flat bottomed boats for the forthcoming attack on New Orleans. Admiral co*ckburn, on the same day, left for Bermuda with most of the larger ships in the Chesapeake squadron. Admiral Malcolm remained in the Patuxent with the frigates, bomb ships, and Brooke's troops until October 14 when he departed for Jamaica.183 By the middle of October, the once powerful British Chesapeake Expedition had dwindled to HMS Dragon, 74, the Hebrus and Havannah frigates and four smaller supporting craft, together with a detachment of 200 colonial marines (formerly refugee slaves).184 This small force under the command of Captain Barrie was based on Tangier Island near the mouth of the Potomac and no longer constituted a threat to the port of Baltimore. The Battle of Baltimore was now a subject for the historians.

"'Federal Gazette and Baltimore Daily Advertiser, Sept. 22, 1814. "• Smith to Monroe, Sept. 19, 1814, S. S. ""Ibid. 181 William Jones to Rodgers, Sept. 19, 1814, Rodgers Papers. 182 Gen. Forman to Mrs. Forman, Sept. 20, 1814, Forman Papers. 183 James, op.cit., II, 331. 18* Ibid., 332.

SIDELIGHTS

LOT NUMBER 71, ANNAPOLIS, A BRIEF HISTORICAL SKETCH

By RUBY R. DUVAL

A little less than an acre in old Annapolis, a section bordering on Church Circle and extending west between West and Northwest Streets, is of paramount interest. Many rumors and considerable conjecture have prevailed about early owners and residents in this area. The challenge to investigate it is thus rewarding.

In the heart of Annapolis the lot, identified as No. 71 in an early survey, has an intriguing background that ties in with a galaxy of residents many of whom were closely allied with the history of not only Annapolis but also the colony and later the State of Maryland. There -were Colonel Francis Nicholson, a Provincial Governor; John Slaughter, townsman; George Valentine, gentleman; Samuel Stringer, chirurgeon; Jonathan Pinkney, Senior, father of the distinguished William Pinkney; John Ball, innholder; William Whetcroft, silversmith; Allen Quynn, cordwainer; William Brewer, Senior; Thomas Harris; John Johnson, eminent jurist, last Chancellor of Maryland; Mary Tyler Johnson, widow of the Chan- cellor; Henrietta Harwood Johnson, and her son James Iglehart Johnson. Also, there were Richard B. Watts, owner of a blacksmith's shop " contiguous to Church Circle "; Joseph Bellis who purchased the commodious red brick Johnson residence in 1857, and, with a few changes, operated it as the " National Hotel"; as well as the Gassaways who acquired the brick house which is now an office building owned in part by Congressman Richard E. Lankford of Annapolis.

Richard Beard made a map of Annapolis in 1695, but, unfortunately, it was destroyed by fire in 1704. A few years later James Stoddert was commissioned by the General Assembly of Maryland to make a plat of the City of Annapolis—and this map, dated July 25, 1718, is preserved in the Land Office.

According to Stoddert's plat, the lot lying between Northwest Street and West Street and bordering on Church Circle is identified as No. 71. The surveyor's original notes, which may be seen in the Land Office in Anna- polis, state that this lot was in the possession of John Slaughter and that it contained 42,260 square feet, more or less.1

A deed book in the Hall of Records indicates that on April 8, 1710 George Valentine purchased from John Slaughter a lot, later identified as a portion of No. 71. This is described as nearest the Church and extending

1 Slaughter or Slater—the spelling differs in the old records. See Stoddert Map, July 25, 1718, and his original notes in Land Office, Annapolis.

104

SIDELIGHTS 105

50 feet on Northwest Street and 50 feet on West Street.2 In his will, September 10, 1718, Valentine devised this property as follows: "All right and title that I have to the house built by me on land said to have belonged to Colonel Francis Nicholson former Governor of this Province " to Elinor Clinton. He further directed that Elinor Clinton sell his estate which included other holdings.3

On October 14, 1718, in settling the estate of George Valentine, Elinor Clinton sold the house and lot nearest the Church to Charles Cole.4

By late August 1739, Samuel Stringer, physician of Annapolis, had acquired Lot 71 in its entirety from the various persons who were in possession of parts thereof. Anne Arundel County records reveal that on April 16, 1728, Anne Street, spinster, sold to Samuel Stringer, surgeon, her interest in the lot " together with all and singular the houses, improvements, etc." for £35.5 On February 7, 1735, Robert Jones, planter of Prince George County, sold, for £12, to Samuel Stringer of Annapolis " all that part or piece of Lot No. 71 lying between Northwest Street and West Street and bounded on one end toward the Church Circle by a small part of said lot formerly conveyed by John Slater to a certain George Valentine, and now belonging to John Smith, carpenter of this city, and on the other end by the remaining part already in the possession of the said Samuel Stringer, together with two little houses or tenements "; 6 and on August 18, 1739, John Ramsay, merchant, and wife, for £12, sold to Samuel Stringer, Physician, " all the rights of Ramsay and his wife to that part of Lot No. 71 next adjoining Church Circle between Northwest and West Streets, devised by George Valentine to Elinor Clinton—afterwards Eleanor Carr the wife of Peter Carr—together with the improvements thereon." T

Whether the sums indicated in these transactions which total £59 reveal the real cost to Samuel Stringer or whether they were mere considerations is not known but thirty-one years later when Stringer sold Lot No. 71 to Jonathan Pinkney for £660 the vast difference in price suggests that Samuel Stringer may have erected one or more dwelling houses which later transactions disclose.

On January 29, 1770, Samuel Stringer, physician, living in Albany, New York, appointed William Coale of Anne Arundel County, attorney, to sell Lot No. 71 to Jonathan Pinkney " now in possession of the property";8 and on April 6, 1770, the final sale was made for £660 current money of Maryland for the lot and messuage or tenement with the appurtenances.9

By 1775, Jonathan Pinkney found himself involved in debt and on

2 Anne Arundel County Deeds, Liber P. K. 1708-1712, f. 478, Hall of Records, Annapolis.

8 Anne Arundel County Wills, Liber W. B. No. 6, 1714-1718, f. 716. (H. of R.) 4 A. A. Co. Deeds, Liber I. B. No. 2, 1712-1718, f. 511. (H. of R.) *Ihid.t Liber S. Y. No. 1, 1724-1728, f. 427. (H. of R.) 'Ibid., Liber R. D. No. 2, 1733-1737, f. 370. (H. of R.) 1 Ibid., Liber R. D. No. 3, 1737-1739, f. 227. (H. of R.) 8 Ibid., Liber D. D. No. 4, 1765-1770, f. 680, Land Office. "Ibid., Liber D. D. No. 4, 1765-1779, f. 682, Land Office; also Annapolis Mayor's

Court Proceedings, Liber B, f. 323. (H. of R.)

106 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

September 8, 1775 he agreed to have Thomas Harwood, Jr. and John Bullen sell his property, Lot No. 71 in Annapolis and all tracts on the north side of the Severn River, together with buildings and improvements, to discharge his obligations to William Roberts and cover charges for cost of suit and claim.10

The Maryland Gazette of early September, 1775, carried an advertise- ment of the impending sale of the Pinkney property on September 30, 1775—in part'" A lot of land lying in the City of Annapolis distinguished by the Number 71, on which are a brick dwelling house and other improvements, lately in the occupation of Mr. John Ball, innholder." The sale was put off for a time. However, at the public sale on February 19, 1776, William Whetcroft, silversmith, was the highest bidder, and Lot No. 71 with all buildings and appurtenances was conveyed to him for £440.11

Allen Quynn, cordwainer (shoemaker), became the next owner of Lot No. 71. On August 12, 1778, Quynn purchased the lot "with dwelling house or tenement—all and singular improvements" from William Whetcroft for £l,500.l:i The increase in selling price from £440 to £1,500 reflects the general rise in prices characteristic of the Revolution- ary period because of the over abundance of state and continental currency.

Eighteen years earlier, July 21, 1760, Quynn had purchased the adjoining Lot No. 70, with dwelling house, from Charles Carroll and that house continued to be his place of residence.13 When he died in 1803 his will, probated in November 1803, provided for the division of his property which included Lot No. 71 with dwellings and improvements.14 However, by a decree of the Court of Chancery, February 18, 1805, Quynn's property was offered at public sale. According to an advertisem*nt in the Maryland Gazette of Wednesday, January 4, 1809, the following items are of interest: "... A large and commodious two-story brick home in which Captain John Kilty now resides. ... A large three-story brick house, in the possession of Captain John Gassaway. ... A frame house in which Mr. Thomas Wilmer resides. Also a lot or parcel of ground adjoining the city, formerly called Swan's Tanyard."

This sale was set for January 7, 1809, and John Johnson was named as trustee. While John Kilty, John Gassaway, and Thomas Wilmer indicated that they wanted to purchase the properties where they resided, they failed to make the payments required, and the estate remained in Chancery Court for a number of years.

A portion of the Quynn Lot No. 71 was sold to Richard B. Watts by John Johnson, Trustee, on September 2, 1812, for $225. This was duly ratified and the purchase is described as " contiguous to Church Circle and lying between Northwest and West Streets ... on which a blacksmith shop was erected." 15 But the remaining portion of the lot remained in

"Ibid., Liber I. B. No. 5, 1774-1778, f. 248. (H of R.) "Annapolis Mayor's Court Proceedings, Liber B, 1721-1784, f. 405. (H. of R.) "A. A. County Deeds, Liber N. H. No. 1, 1778-1784, deed 11. (H. of R.) 13 Ibid., Liber B. B. No. 2, 1757-1763, f. 364. (H. of R.) "A. A. Co. Wills, Liber J. G. No. 2, 1797-1813, f. 257. (H. of R.) "A. A. Co. Deeds, Liber W. S. G. No. 1, 1811-1812, deed 585. (H. of R.)

SIDELIGHTS 107

litigation and was administered under the Chancery Court directives until April 6, 1821 when William Brewer of Annapolis became the purchaser. According to the description of this transaction, the tract with dwellings and appurtenances contained approximately 28,880 square feet.16 On the following day, April 7, 1821, William Brewer sold the larger portion of his purchase, approximately 17,420 square feet, with dwelling and appurtenances to Thomas Harris of Prince George's County for $1,200.17

Ten years later, September 7, 1831, the heirs of Thomas Harris sold his property to the Honorable John Johnson, Jr., the last Chancellor of Maryland, for $3,000.18 The same year John Johnson purchased the lot and dwelling on State Circle—the residence of his father, the late John Johnson, Sr. (1770-1824), who also had served as Chancellor of this State. The State Circle property, identified on Stoddert's Map of Anna- polis as Lot No. 73, was occupied by his mother, Deborah Ghiselin Johnson, and his younger brother George, then a minor.19 His elder brother, Reverdy Johnson, born in 1796, resided in Baltimore.

After remodeling the brick residence facing West Street on a part of Lot No. 71, John Johnson, Jr. and his wife, Mary Tyler Johnson, took up residence there. Their home is described as " a commodious brick house with fourteen rooms, cellar, and a detached brick office." There was a deep front yard and a garden in the rear which extended through to Northwest Street where a quaint small frame house with gambrel roof occupied a section of the lot.

A lawyer by profession, this distinguished last Chancellor of Maryland was born August 5, 1798, the second son of John and Deborah Ghiselen Johnson and a grandson of Robert and Ann Johnson from whom his father had inherited the State Circle property mentioned as a part of Lot No. 73. It is rather ironical that the West Street residence, which he and his wife and children called " home " for a number of years, is still standing—not preserved as many fine old Annapolis homes have been preserved—but hidden from view by business structures, Nos. 20 and 22, of recent years erected in the front yard of the one-time desirable domicile.

This old home of Chancellor Johnson's possibly may be the long-sought- for birthplace of William Pinkney, Maryland's eminent lawyer who became Attorney-General of the United States in 1812. According to the Land Office Records, Jonathan Pinkney rented or leased this property prior to his purchase of it, in 1770, and it is very probable that he was residing here when his son William was born, March 17, 1764. Other houses in Annapolis offered as the possible birthplace are of a much later date of construction.

Chancellor Johnson, because of ill health, had taken residence in Baltimore to be in close proximity to his physicians a short time before his death on October 4, 1856.20 His widow and minor children continued to

18 Ibid., Liber W. S. G. No. 7, f. 585. (H. of R.) 17 Ibid., Liber W. S. G. No. 7, f. 602-604. (H. of R.) •lhid., Liber W. S. G. No. 16, 1831-1832, deed 509. (H. of R.) 1, Land Office, Annapolis, Chancery Records, No. 125 (1824), f. 424-438; also

A. A. Co. Deeds, Liber W. S. G No. 16, 1831-1832, deed 516. (H. of R.) "Obituary notices in Baltimore Sun, Oct. 6, 7, 8, 1856; also obituary notices in

Maryland Gazette, Annapolis, Oct. 6, 7, 8, 1856.

108 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

maintain residence there, while Laura, the elder daughter, had married Lieutenant John Van Ness Philip, U. S. Navy, and was occupying the West Street, Annapolis, homeplace.

George Johnson, Esq., younger brother of the Chancellor, had married Henrietta E. Harwood and was occupying the late Chancellor's property on State Circle where their mother, Deborah, had resided until her death in November 1847.

Sketch of present end wall of house at one time owned and occupied by Chancellor John Johnson, Jr., showing how changes in brickwork reveal the three stages in the development of the dwelling. ^^ of Mrs 0rlando Ridout IV

Mary Tyler Johnson was granted letters of administration by the Register of Wills, Baltimore City, April 14, 1857, on the personal estate of her husband; and it was recommended upon complaint of all heirs through Nicholas Brewer, judge of the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County, that the real estate in Annapolis be sold.

An advertisem*nt in the Annapolis and Baltimore newspapers announced a Trustees' Sale of Houses in Annapolis, on Saturday May 23, 1857, as follows:

No. 1, Dwelling on West Street, for many years the residence of the Chancellor. Double brick—14 rooms, with cellars. Garden planted with fruit trees. Also brick office detached from the house. Handsomely finished—a desirable residence.

SIDELIGHTS 109

No. 2, Frame house and lot on Northwest Street, now occupied by Samuel Evans. No. 3, Brick three-story dwelling on State Circle now occupied by George

Johnson, Esq. The lot extends to a brick wall on Church Street. Possession given immediately.

It is of interest to point out that Item No. 2, the frame house on North- west Street, is the house which in after years was removed to the southwest campus of St. John's College.

The West Street dwelling, the home of the late John Johnson, was purchased by Joseph Bellis for $5,000; the Northwest Street frame house was purchased by Mary Tyler Johnson, widow of John, for $675; and the State Circle property was purchased by Joshua Brown for $2,555.21

Mary Tyler Johnson survived her husband less than a year. Her will, Erebated September 29, 1858, provided for generous gifts to her sister,

rothers, and a niece. She designated that her children receive valuable items from her household—a large parlor mirror and china set of green and gold to Laura, the two chandeliers in the parlors and the plated dinner set to John, an old china set of red and gold to Flora as well as a large silver pitcher, the old family tea set of silver and the parlor clock to George, and one of the large parlor mirrors and a small silver pitcher to Harry. All the rest and residue of her estate was bequeathed to all her children to be divided share and share alike. A codicil to her will, however, bequeathed |500 to St. Anne's Parish of Annapolis; and devised the frame house and lot on Northwest Street to her sons John III and George M. " trustees for the convenience of her sister-in-law, Henrietta E. Har- wood Johnson, through her lifetime and afterwards for her children." 22

Title to the little house and lot was duly transferred in compliance with her wishes.23 The deed reveals that the property was at that time occupied by the recipients of her benefaction, and that it adjoined the properties of Joseph Bellis and William Brewer.

Upon the death of Henrietta E. Harwood Johnson, December 29, 1895, one of her sons, James Iglehart Johnson, purchased this family home on Northwest Street from the other heirs—his cousin, John Johnson III of Baltimore, the surviving trustee, and his three surviving brothers, George, John, and Charles, who, according to the will of their benefactress Mary Tyler Johnson, were entitled to share the property with him sare and share alike.24

After considerable renovation and restoration of the old home, James Iglehart Johnson married Emma Catherine Duval of Annapolis and brought his bride—20 years his junior—to share the quaint residence with him. When he died, February 7, 1917, his will admitted for probate in the Anne Arundel County Court February 20, 1917, indicated that he bequeathed everything he owned—real, personal, and mixed property—to his wife, Emma C. Johnson, for her lifetime and that anything left after-

21 A. A. Co. Old Equity No. 159, Dec. 21, 1857, in Court House, Annapolis. M Baltimore City Wills, Liber I. P. C. No. 28, f. 293. (H. of R.) "A. A. Co. Deeds, Liber N. H. G. No. 9, 1860-1861, f. 384. In Court House,

Annapolis. "Ibid., Liber G. W. No. 2 (1896), f. 234. In Court House Annapolis.

110 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

wards should be divided among his brothers or their heirs. He named his wife to serve as executrix.26 However, after conferring with her husband's brothers, Emma C. Johnson was impressed by the younger brother's infer- ence that he would like to purchase the old homeplace as a residence for his immediate family. As she had no children to carry on the family name she elected to renounce all claim to the provisions of her husband's will and to take in lieu only her legal share of his real property according to the laws of Maryland. This renunciation and a deed of trust to Nicholas H. Green and Robert Moss, attorneys of Annapolis, paved the way for her brothers-in-law to share immediately in the settlement of the estate.26

On May 12, 1917, Charles Johnson purchased the little frame house and lot at No. 9 Northwest Street for $2,375, and shortly after he and his immediate family took up residence there.27 But they soon decided to sell the old homeplace, and according to the records of Anne Arundel County Court Charles Johnson and wife sold this property to Emma A. Wilen of Martinsburg, West Virginia, May 29, 1918, for $4,500.28 Mrs. Wilen and certain of her relatives moved into the house, but five years later the property was purchased by Eugene W. Iglehart of Annapolis for $5,350.29 Mr. Iglehart did not live there however—his purchase was merely an investment. The next purchaser was Ernestine Bigelow, wife of Joseph S. Bigelow, Jr. of Annapolis, as recorded by deed of May 2, 1925, but the purchase price is not named.30

Twelve years later the lot and little frame house at No. 9 Northwest Street were destined to change hands again. The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Baltimore, which already had a lot and building adjoining this property on Northwest Street, needed room for expansion. The sale, according to a deed from Ernestine and Joseph S. Bigelow, Jr., was made in September, 1937,31 and negotiations were opened with historic St. John's College to have the house moved to the college campus where it could be preserved for posterity, and at the same time serve as a useful acquisition. The quaint residence has been referred to as the '" Reverdy Johnson House," an appellation which found receptive ears, for the name " Reverdy Johnson " somewhat overshadowed that of his brother " John " who was also a brilliant lawyer and jurist. The State and County Records clearly reveal, however, that Reverdy did not own this property or any part of Lot No. 71 at any time nor did he reside there.

The eventful journey of the house from Northwest Street to the campus of St. John's was made early in December, 1937.32 What more fitting setting for the quaint structure—a typical small house of the late

25 A. A. Co. Wills, Register of Wills Office, Court House, Annapolis. " Equity No. 4188, dated 30 Mar. 1917, in A. A. Co. Court House, Annapolis. STA. A. Co. Deeds, Liber G. W. No. 134 (1917), f. 309. In Court House,

Annapolis. 28 Ibid., Liber G. W. No. 139 (1918), f. 289. In Court House, Annapolis. "'Ibid., Liber W. N. W. No. 73 (1923), f. 87; also Equity No. 4824. In Court

House, Annapolis. "Ibid., Liber W. N. W. No. 105 (1925), f. 352. In Court House, Annapolis. 81 Ibid., Liber F. A. M. No. 172 (1937), f. 54. In Court House, Annapolis. 82 Baltimore Sun, and Evening Capital of Annapolis, Dec. 1-15, 1937.

SIDELIGHTS 111

17th or early 18th century—a home which had meant so much to its various occupants throughout the years. Mary Tyler Johnson little dreamed, when making her will in August, 1858, that the house, which she devised so generously for the use of her sister-in-law, would eventually come to rest on the campus of the old college which had been her husband's and his brothers' Alma Mater.

Lot No. 71 of old Annapolis today presents little semblance to its appearance in years long gone by. The fourteen-room brick residence once owned and occupied by Jonathan Pinkney and some years later by Chancellor Johnson is obscured by buildings erected in its former front yard. Half of it is owned and occupied by the family of Luigi Calabrese,33

a thrifty barber, while the other half is vacant and sadly in need of repair. The Brewer residence, later the Gassaway home, now houses the offices of architects and lawyers; and the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company's extensive brick building extends far along the northwest boundary obliterating the former site of the small house now reposing on the campus of St. John's College.

A MARYLANDER VISITS PRESIDENT JACKSON, 1832

The following excerpt from the diary of Mrs. Thomas Marsh Forman (1788-1864), describes a trip to Baltimore and Washington during the spring of 1832, and is reprinted exactly as written by that charming but erratic speller. Mrs. Thomas M. Forman, the former Martha Browne Ogle Callender, married General Forman May 1st, 1814, and that same day moved to Rose Hill, on the Sassafras River, Cecil County, Maryland. General Forman (1758-1845) was a leading citizen and large landowner in Cecil County who had served with distinction in the Revolutionary War and in the War of 1812 where he commanded a brigade of militia in the defense of Baltimore. Rose Hill, their lovely plantation of over a thousand acres, still exists today, although reduced in size.

On the day of her marriage Mrs. Forman began a diary that she was to continue with only brief interruptions throughout her life. Interspersed among the everyday events of plantation life are accounts of trips such as the one reprinted here when the General, Mrs. Forman and her maid Harriet, one of forty Forman slaves, visited friends and relatives along the Eastern seaboard. The diaries are in the possession of the Maryland Historical Society through the courtesy of Mrs. Forman's great-niece, the late Mary Forman Day.

May 27 Sunday the General Harriet and I left this in the Steamboat [1832] Washington for Baltimore left at around lOCIock and arrived

"A. A. Co. Deeds, Liber F. S. R., No. 39 (1928), f. 273. In Court House, Annapolis.

112 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

at Barnams hotel at 5 in the evening found our parlor and chamber ready for us on the first floor

28 Monday Mrs Skinner 1 and I went out a shoping. Mrs Charles Carrol2 called.

29 Tuesday Mrs Skinner Doct McLane 3 the General and I went out to the races; very warm and durty a beautiful coars a very jenteel essemblage of people all conducted with great propriety 5 horses run Mr Craig 4 won the two beautiful silver pitchers which was made for the occasion and my husband placed them in the brides hands Mrs Gilmore 5 formerly Miss Ellen Ward to present to Mr Craig which she done very handsomely M18 Carrol brougt me back to Barnums in her carriage, Mrs McLane called

30 Wednesday M1^ Carrol called and took me out to Homewood to spend the day a beautiful spot it is she has five lovely children

May 31 Thursday I went on to Washington in M" McLanes carriage had a very pleasant ride reached thair about 5 in the evening

June 1 Friday Mrs McLane took me to the capitol it is a splendid building I was much pleased with the senite chamber great taste displayed in the arrangement of the hanging, and much more

1 Elizabeth Glen Davies of Baltimore married John Steuart Skinner of Annapolis Tuesday, March 10, 1812: Baltimore American and Commercial Daily Advertiser, March 12, 1812. John S. Skinner was appointed Postmaster of Baltimore by President Madison and served in that capacity for twenty years until removed in 1837 by President Van Buren. Skinner is best known as the pioneer of the American agricultural press, and as editor-publisher of the first American sporting journal. The American Turf Register and Sporting Magazine, whose first number appeared in August, 1829. For an interesting account of John Steuart Skinner and his descendants, see Harry Worcester Smith, A Sporting Family of the Old South (New York, 1936).

' Mrs. Charles Carroll was born Mary Digges Lee, June 9, 1799. She married Charles Carroll (1801-1862), grandson of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, October 4, 1825. Mrs. Carroll died December 23, 1859. Kate Mason Rowland, The Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton 1737-1832, with His Correspondence and Public Papers (2 vol.; New York, 1898), II, 439.

3 Probably Louis McLane (1786-1857), an intimate friend and neighbor of the Forman family, who is mentioned throughout the diary. In 1832, McLane was Secretary of the Treasury in Jackson's cabinet. In 1812, he had married Catherine Mary Milligan, eldest daughter of Robert Milligan of Maryland. Dictionary of American Biography, Edited by Dumas Malone (22 vols.; New York, 1933-1958), XII, 113-115.

4 According to Mr. Skinner's account of the Spring Meeting at Baltimore's Central Course, which commenced May 29, 1832, Mr. J. C. Craig's Pirouette took second in the first race on the opening day. That same day Mr. Craig's five year old mare, Virginia Taylor, won the second race. " The Ladies Cup," which consisted of three two-mile heats. Virginia Taylor finished second in the first heat, and won the last two with times of three minutes fifty-eight seconds and four minutes five seconds: J. S. Skinner, ed. American Turf Register and Sporting Magazine III (Baltimore, 1832), pp. 574-576.

" According to records in the Dielman File at the Maryland Historical Society, Ellen Ward married Robert Gilmor, Jr. on May 21, 1832. Robert Gilmor (1808- 1875) was known for his estate in Baltimore County, " Glen Ellen," and as the father of Colonel Harry Gilmor, the Confederate raider.

SIDELIGHTS 113

decorum than in the house of reprisentitives. I was shocked at the indecorum asperity and vehemence of the manner of several of them, particularly Mr M0Duffy 6 all lounging with thair hats on some laufing and, talking, some reading newspapers, not the least attention paid to the speaker. I was at the presidents and was much pleased with his agreeable conversation and manners it is an eligent establishment and furnished with great taste and splendor. I went to the diferent departments of war state, and treasury and was much gratifyed

June We road round the town to see all that was to be seen and we was to go to Mount Vernon but the Generals business would not allow us to stay which I regretted very much as I was very ancious to see it.

June 2 After an early dinner we left Washington and reached Baltimore at dusk, found Barnums house full to overflowing could only get a chamber Sunday June 3 it rained all day. . . . Monday we left for Rose Hill with our sisters and Miss Emory Stiles, had a very pleasant time up and found our carriag waiting for us reached here about 5 in the evening.

C. A. P. H.

8 George McDuffie, a Representative from Edgefield, S. C., was born in Georgia, 1790, and died at Cherry Hill, S. C., March 11, 1851. Biographical Directory of the American Congress, 1774-1949 (Washington, 1950), p. 1533.

REVIEWS OF RECENT BOOKS

Politics in the Border States. By JOHN H. FENTON. New Orleans: The Hauser Press, 1957. vi, 230 pp. $5.50.

The neglect of American political history which characterized the post- World War I generation of historians, who preferred to devote their attention to the relatively newer fields of social and economic history, has ended in recent years. Political historians have come into their own once again, but now it is expected that they will make use of the information and techniques derived from social and economic history, in order to produce a broader and more realistic view of the nation's political development than we have had before. Politics can no longer be seen as the unfolding of a "" manifest destiny," nor exclusively as the doings of great statesmen. And increasingly, the modern political historian performs his work through intensive investigation of developments on a regional or state basis-—thus giving due recognition to the diversity of conditions that govern the conduct of political life in these far-flung United States. Through such investigations, alone, can we gather the basic material necessary for wider generalizations concerning the history of the nation as a whole during a given political era.

A noteworthy addition to the type of study described above is the work of John H. Fenton, a political scientist by profession. In Politics in the Border States, Fenton examines closely the political evolution of Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Maryland, with special emphasis on contemporary (post-1932) trends. Each state is studied independently, and then a series of general characteristics, felt to be applicable to the region as a whole, is set forth in the author's concluding chapter. For the earlier parts of his story, the author apparently relies heavily on secondary sources, but for the more recent era of Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower, he has skillfully employed the techniques of interview, and statistical analysis of ethnic, economic, and election return data.

As Fenton demonstrates, the early pattern of settlement of the Border States was of crucial importance to their political development, making them a meeting ground of Southern slaveholder. Southern mountaineer, and Northern yeoman farmer. Consequently, they became a meeting ground of Bourbon Democrats versus Northern and mountain Republicans in the post-Civil War years, with the Bourbons generally supreme. In the twentieth century, however, the accelerated influx of Republican-oriented Northerners, urbanization, and the political realignments that accompanied the New Deal, have grossly undermined the Bourbons' control of the Democracy, and have encouraged the G. O. P.'s hopes of augmenting its

114

REVIEWS OF RECENT BOOKS 115

power in the Border States. Franklin Roosevelt cemented the urban, labor, and coal miner vote to the Democratic Party, and converted the Negroes from the Republican standard, to such an extent that these " liberal " elements have in most instances successfully displaced the conservative Bourbons as the decisive power in Democratic party aifairs. The latter development has shifted many Bourbons to the Republican cause, however, while the suburbanized populations surrounding the large cities have also exhibited a Republican affinity. Meanwhile, the G. O. P. has been able to count more than ever on the allegiance of the lowest economic strata of the population—the mountaineers—who have been Republican since Civil War days, who have not benefited from New Deal farm policies, and who have in fact become resentful of the New Deal's inflationary boons to organized labor and city-folk. (The author's clear delineation of the mountaineers' attachment to the G. O. P. is a healthful antidote to the over-generalized statement that the New Deal won the support of " common people," or " poor people," throughout the country, and serves to demonstrate again the importance of the regional or state-level approach to political history). The further development of this complicated situation is a question for the future, but the author has done a good job of pointing out the trends to be watched—as far as the Border States are concerned.

On the other hand, his contention that the Border States' experience sets the probable pattern for future developments in the deeper South is tenuous, to say the least, and he does not seriously try to prove it. The simple fact is that the deeper South's background, and its reaction to post- 1932 developments, have not been similar to those of the region which Fenton studied. Furthermore, his suggestion that Border State politicians like Truman, Barkley, Neely, and Clements are peculiarly apt at com- promising North-South differences, because of their training in bridging such gaps in their home states, is also open to question. On the matters that really count—that is, the Negro's status and civil rights—Border State spokesmen, like all Americans, have been forced to choose one side or the other—witness the case of Mr. Truman. In any event, on such contemporary issues, as in 1860, it is doubtful whether compromisers are of real service to the nation.

From a literary standpoint, this book leaves much to be desired. It suffers from what historians regard as symptoms of the political scientists' "occupational disease": a too antiseptic use of statistics, charts, and graphs; a tendency toward " jargonese "; and the overly-routine enumera- tion of " factors," " influences," and "" causes." Nevertheless, historians (especially, perhaps, the most literate ones) must not overlook works like this one. Indeed, they would do well in the future to cultivate the statistical and analytical methods utilized by political scientists, before making sweeping generalizations about the New Deal or other eras of our political history.

J. JOSEPH HUTHMACHER Georgetown University

116 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

The Public Buildings of Williamsburg, Colonial Capital of Virginia. By MARCUS WHIFFEN. Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg, 1958. 286. $12.50.

This comely volume represents the first of a projected series on the architecture of Williamsburg, and it is a welcome relief to find at long last something on the subject which is not in the common run of superficial pictorial albums put out in the last few years.

Written by the architectural historian of Colonial Williamsburg, the work is largely based on research and records made by and for the architects of the Restoration in the last 31 years. It is unfortunate that the architects themselves did not write this story, to make it absolutely first- hand.

It is, first of all, as the author points out, a book about the buildings as they existed in the 18th century, not as they stand today. He has ably used the mammoth amount of source material, especially the typescript copybooks of historical notes and the research reports. The work reads something like a diary: it is stated in one place that " a dozen years and more went by, with nothing to record in these pages." There is wit, too, as in the description of the " woman of parts." It is a well-documented tome and good as a reference work.

But the most serious error occurs in the first sentence of the book, wherein is the ex-cathedra statement that the colonial architecture of Williamsburg is the same as that of Tidewater Virginia. On the contrary, there was much tidewater architecture in the 92 years before the founding of Williamsburg in 1699; and even afterward in Tidewater there were local building schools independent of the Capital.

The ten chapters are arranged chronologically, so that the reader is made aware of what is going on in the buildings at one time or period— an excellent method of presentation. For instance, chapter 4 deals with the " Palace before 1710," and chapter 7 with the " Reign of George II," wherein the addition of the Ball-room and Supper-room to the Palace is described. In the last chapter, '" Since 1780," there is an outline of the work of the Restoration even to itemizing the bouquets given the architects. " The fact that [the Reverend} Dr. Goodwin's backer was Mr. Rocke- feller," states the author, " was a well-kept secret" in 1928. As a matter of fact. Dr. Goodwin first told publicly at the University Club in Baltimore in 1933 the story of how he interested Rockefeller in Williamsburg and of the amusing incident of the bedroom slippers.

The chief value of the book lies in its contribution to the English background of Williamsburg architecture; but on the other hand it must be admitted that credit is not given to the American builders who created a fine architecture on their own account and adapted it to local conditions. The author has already written a study of Stuart and Georgian churches in England and is at home with the Georgian style in Great Britain. One of the able comparisons which is brought out is that of the Williamsburg Palace with the '" apparently rather earlier" Edial Hall, Staflfordshire, which it resembles externally, because of common antecedents in England.

REVIEWS OF RECENT BOOKS 117

There is in the book no awareness of the exterior semblance of the Palace to the earlier Governor's Castle in St. Mary's City—another prototype. The author believes, too, that the College and the Capital are first examples in America of new building types; that the Court House of 1770 was the forerunner of the porticoed courthouses of rural Virginia; and that Bruton introduced the cross plan into church architecture in the Old Dominion.

When particular American buildings are discussed outside Virginia, the ground is more unfamiliar. There is no cognizance of Maryland's early Palace of St. John's, the first known in the Colonies, when that "" other colonial Palace," Tryon's, is compared to the Williamsburg Palace. The buttresses of the Jamestown Brick Church are medieval, not " a medieval survival," as stated—a viewpoint old enough to be Kimball-ish. And then of course Old Trinity Church in Dorchester County, Maryland, is not "eighteenth century," as claimed; reference to the M. V. Brewington research report on the subject, made for the Maryland Historical Society, would have cleared up that point. There are some, too, who believe Governor Sharpe's temple-formed Whitehall antedated Jefferson's temple- form design of 1780 for the Williamsburg Palace, which the book asserts would have been " the first temple-form house " in the country.

The text is cluttered with many long quotations in fine print with unexplained words like " Lop," " Mundelian," and " Foot lesses." Long lists of itemized disbursem*nts in pounds and shillings, worthy of footnotes, and a plentiful use of parentheses make for tedious reading. Aside from these comparatively minor criticisms this is a work which every library should have. And the superb ink drawings by Moorehead, who modestly forgot to sign or initial them, are about the best thing in the volume.

HENRY CHANDLEE FORMAN East on, Md.

The Uncivil War: Washington During the Reconstruction, 1865-1878. By JAMES H. WHYTE. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1958. 316. 15.00.

The author tells us that in writing this book his purpose is to produce a more comprehensive account of the Reconstruction period in the District of Columbia, to focus on the question of Negro suffrage, and to place all this in a larger frame than local historians have heretofore used. Having reexamined the facts " fully and objectively " he hopes to " sweep away the cobwebs of heresay and prejudice."

This laudable ambition has been achieved only in part. The author has industriously gone through a great deal of source material and has undoubtedly added to our factual knowledge, but he has not added appre- ciably to our understanding of the meaning and significance of the

118 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

material. In spite of his valiant efforts, some cobwebs remain. The trouble seems to lie in a lack of historical perspective and want of experience in dealing with large masses of historical data. Instead of confining his efforts to issues basic to his purpose, he wanders over a wide field and in some instances loses himself and the reader in a mass of detail. Not only is the book weak from the point of view of interpretation, it shows a lack of expertness in historical craftsmanship. Incorrect and obsolete methods of citation are used in a system of documentation that is fragmentary only. Numerous manuscript and archival collections are listed in the bibli- ography with little or no reference in the footnotes so far as this reviewer has been able to determine.

Logically at least, we would expect the story of reconstruction in the District of Columbia to present interesting points of contrast with the story in the rest of the South. Here the Congress by constitutional guaran- tee possessed unlimited powers and was in a position not only to exercise direct control but to observe first hand the social and economic conditions of the freed men. And yet the story is not vastly different from other parts of the South. The Negro was freed and for a while possessed the vote. But nothing was done for him economically if we except the opportunity to be deported to a foreign land. (The act of 1862 freeing the Negro in the District provided funds for the compensation of slaveholders and for the colonization of Negroes.) Jim Crowism operated in fact if not in law and the Negro never possessed any considerable degree of social equality. The Negro vote was exploited in the District, as elsewhere, by unscrupulous politicians. The main difference, in short, between the District and other southern states was that in the District all voters, not just Negroes, were disfranchised.

The story of how the residents of the District lost the vote is interesting but very complicated. Briefly, until after the Civil War both Georgetown and Washington City elected their own mayors while Washington County was administered by the Levy Court whose members were appointed by Congress. In 1871 the charters of both municipalities were set aside and a territorial type of government for the entire district was established. President Grant appointed Henry D. Cooke, brother of the famous banker, as the first governor. The legislation of 1871 also set up a Board of Public Works headed by Alexander Shepherd, a young and energetic business man and confidant of President Grant. Under Shepherd the Board embarked on an ambitious program of public improvement designed to transform Washington from a dreary Southern town into a capital worthy of a great and growing country. In doing so the Board engaged in high- handed tactics, wasted a great deal of money, and ran up the public debt far beyond the statutory limit. When the panic of 1873 hit, Cooke closed the doors of his bank and resigned from the District government. Shep- herd was then appointed Governor. In treating the activities of Grant's crew in the District Mr. Whyte seems inclined to excuse a great deal for the sake of "progress." Congress in 1874 abolished the territorial system and set up a commission form of government in which district residents were without the franchise. The large Negro vote in the District was one

REVIEWS OF RECENT BOOKS 119

of the elements that led to this outcome, and it remains one of the difficulties in recovering home rule for the District today.

HARRY L. COLES

Ohio State University

The Green Dragoon: The Lives of Banastre Tarleton and Mary Robinson.

By ROBERT D. BASS. New York: Henry Holt, 1957. 489. $5.75.

In Dr. Bass's The Green Dragoon we have, at last, a full dress biography of an important British officer during the American Revolution. Banastre Tarleton has been long neglected by American historians because of the strong feelings engendered by his actions during the War of Inde- pendence: actions which gained him the well-earned sobriquets " bloody " and "" butcher." Tarleton's military campaigns are traced in great detail and fill nearly half of the book. The style of the author's narrative is lively and at first leads one to believe that this biography may be fiction- alized, but such an impression is not born out by a close reading. It is evident that Dr. Bass has pursued his research with great diligence and apparent delight. There are numerous quotations throughout the book, many of good quality and well worth reproduction, but their effect is often marred by their frequency. Many of the letters, on occasion strung together by no more than a line or two of narrative, could better have been summarized. The brief notes on sources gathered at the end of the volume are, perhaps, a publisher's compromise with printing costs, but serious students would prefer specific citations at least for direct quotations.

The title of the book suggests some of the difficulties encountered between the covers. A single " Dragoon " can scarcely lead this bi-sexual double life. Although Mary Robinson—attractive, urbane, witty—is worth a biography in her own right, and her long relationship with Tarleton necessarily makes her figure prominently in any work about him, she is never really a co-equal in the book. The early chapters of the work move haltingly, often impeded by the alternation of chapters between the two figures which, as yet, have nothing to do with one another. The picture drawn of Tarleton is a good one: advocate of the bloodiest forms of all- out warfare, consummate egotist, gambler, wastrel, roue and yet apparently possessed of some sort of infectious charm. The years after his return to England, with its picture of the decadent and debauched life of the upper classes in late eighteenth century London, may prove to be the author's most important contribution to our knowledge of that turbulent era.

In his discussion of Tarleton's political life as a Member of Parliament from Liverpool, the author on several occasions uses that dangerous word " radical" to describe the Dragoon's political activities. Since Tarleton's most pronounced political stand was probably his defense of the lucrative slave trade of his shipper constituents in opposition to the efforts of Wilberforce to have that trade abolished, and since that stand would

120 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

not normally be regarded as " radical " the term does deserve a specialized definition if it is to be used at all. Published in an attractive format and accompanied by handsome and informative illustrations, this work can be useful either to students of the American Revolution or of the society of late eighteenth century England.

Colorado State University CARLOS R. ALLEN, JR.

The Plantation South. By KATHERINE M. JONES. Indianapolis: The

Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1957. 412. $5.00.

Understanding the South is a task that confronts every generation of Americans. Life in these United States has been cast in the image of the leveling democracy of the urbanized North. Yet the special traditions of the South have been involved in the great crises of the Republic. The shapers of the Constitution, as well as the architects of the Revolution, were Southern men. Thus knowledge of the South in its formative period is essential to grasping the meaning of life in this country.

Miss Jones' book should help Americans understand this most dis- tinctive of regions. Indeed this sort of book, which is an anthology of writings about the South set down in ante-bellum times, is the best of possible ways to reach an understanding of the Southern states. The earliest account is dated 1799, the year in which the new nation mourned the death of the greatest Southerner of them all, George Washington, and the last one was penned in 1861 by a British journalist who had come to report the news of the infant Confederate States of America.

That the South has always been different is abundantly demonstrated in this book. Perhaps nowhere is this more clearly revealed than in an account by G. W. Featherstonhaugh, a British geologist. On a visit to South Carolina College in 1834, Featherstonhaugh dined with a group of pro- fessors and other Columbia gentlemen. " A stranger dropped in amongst them from the clouds," wrote the Englishman, " would have hardly supposed himself amongst Americans. ... It was quite new to me to hear men of the better class express themselves openly against a republican government, and to listen to discussions of great ability, the object of which was to show that there never can be a good government if it is not administered by gentlemen."

The book is by no means a collection of writings by and about a small minority of great planters. The plantation, as defined in this anthology, may be a vast estate or it may be a small, rough and unprofitable farm operated by a small work force. The image of the agrarian civilization that shines through these pages is, however, essentially the image of the South seen over the years. There is no myth-making in this collection of accounts. Nor is there any need to create myths, for the writings make clear that men of wit and women of charm were a historical reality in the South, not simply excerpts from a Hollywood scenario.

This is the complete South of plantation days—Jefferson's library of

REVIEWS OF RECENT BOOKS 121

7,000 books at Monticello; country meals of cold roast turkey and opossum washed down ""with milk and whiskey"; a grim account of a slave auction and the trader advertising "" a rattiin' good breeder "; Joel Poinsett, the statesman, listening to a Swedish woman read Emerson's essays as they sat under a magnolia at the edge of South Carolina's Pee Dee River; a slave burial at night, with the dead woman's baby being passed from one person to another across the coffin.

The overall impression left by this book is of the fantastic diversity of life in the plantation South of the 19th century. This book tells the good and the bad, the amusing and the tragic concerning the South. The region appears in these pages as one to which no other section can compare in human interest.

„_. v, ,- . „ ANTHONY HARRIGAN The News and Courier

Charleston, S. C.

The End of North's Ministry, 1780-1782. By I. R. CHRISTIE. London: Macmillan and Company, 1958. xiii, 429 pp. |8.50.

This study is in the tradition of Sir Lewis Namier's famous study: The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George 111. This application of the Namier technique, one which has become quite productive, brings out all of the strengths and weaknesses of the method. The strengths are obvious; a detailed study of the politicians of the time, both great and small, and a rigorous analysis of their motives in supporting and/or opposing crucial political questions of the day. The weakness of such a study involves actually one's conception of history; to this reader what is lacking is the placing of political issues in the broader framework of history. This is a matter of choice obviously, for it was the author's intent to make the study narrow.

Mr. Christie, Lecturer in Modern History at University College, London, gives the reader a greater understanding of the workings of the King's government in the last two years of North's ministry. His precise, almost day to day account of events in Parliament and Cabinet left this reader awestruck at the great mass of detail and the painstaking research involved. But it would also be advisable to point out that the reader gets quite involved and sometimes loses his way in the small backwaters of British politics. These backwaters are indeed important but this reviewer at least became slightly impatient before the book was finally read in its entirety. The information and analysis was within itself illuminating and informative; but such a work as this persuades this reader that, although the biographical approach is certainly important (and here Mr. Christie has performed an outstanding service), when so many " little " names are included it is like being at a huge reception, knowing few people, and having real difficulties in being properly introduced to a portion of the guest list.

_ , ^ „ GEORGE A. FOOTE Goucher College

122 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

Names on the Land. A Historical Account of Place-Naming in the United States. By GEORGE R. STEWART. Revised and enlarged edition with illustrations. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1958. xii, 511 pp. $6.00.

The first edition of Mr. Stewart's Names on the Land was published in 1945. This, the second edition, contains the original text of 389 pages and new material of over one hundred pages including a group of maps, charts, and pictures illustrating place-names, chapters on Alaska, Hawaii, Current Affairs, and a section of "" Notes and References." This last covers not only the new material but also the original chapters which were not annotated in the first edition.

Names on the Land is not a dictionary of place-names, but rather a narrative telling the story of our country through the evidence of place- names. Events and people dating back to the first explorations of the New World have been commemorated in place-names. Some are easily recognized, others have been changed through the years and only a historian and linguist such as Mr. Stewart can trace out the why and when of these changes. This story of our country is not limited to political history. Place-names give tangible evidence of varying social customs and linguistic additions and changes. Some of these changes were phonetic attempts at pronouncing Indian or foreign names. Others were the product of folk etymology resulting in names as people thought they should be. One of the difficulties in tracing place-names is that of sifting these legends and conjectures to arrive at the fact.

An isolated example of the origin of a place-name hardly does justice to Mr. Stewart's work, but some idea of place-name tracing may be had from his paragraph on Yonkers (N. Y.). p. 71.

Still a little farther north was the settlement known officially as Colen Donck, ' Donck's Colony.' But this Adriaen van der Donck bore a countesy title ' Jonkheer,' meaning about the same as ' Squire.' By that title his tenants usually addressed him; before long they began to call Colen Donck merely ' the Jonkheer's, and so came Yonkers."

Names on the Land is leisure reading only in the sense that it is highly entertaining. It contains a wealth of well organized information holding the interest but not easily assimilated at one sitting. An excellent index adds to its value as a reference book.

J. Louis KUETHE ]ohns Hopkins University

REVIEWS OF RECENT BOOKS 123

Days At Cabin John. By EDITH MARTIN ARMSTRONG. New York: Vantage Press, Inc., 1958. 224. $3.50.

Days At Cabin John is a novel depicting the life of Maryland neighbors in the late 1920's living along the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal in the area of Cabin John below Great Falls on the Maryland side of the Potomac River. This area borders on a stream rich in legend and history. Cabin John Branch, which winds its ways over the rocks and through a deep ravine to join the river. One of the largest bridges of its kind, with a single stone arch of 220 feet, spans the stream. Though the bridge was officially named Union Arch, it has always been known as Cabin John Bridge. It was begun in the year 1853 at the time Franklin Pierce was President of the United States.

The dialect of the "" old-timey " folks is amusing and interesting as it portrays sayings and anecdotes characteristic of persons who learn from wild-life, hard work and Christian living, the true meaning of life. The stories of the principal character, Mrs. Myrtle Hebbs, with gossiping gusto, are vividly presented. Mis' Rosey, another interesting character, was a member of the Hermon Church on Persimmon Tree Road. The little white-painted church with the traditional steeple and long narrow glass windows nestles on a small green knoll with its adjoining cemetery.

Mrs. Lilly C. Stone, founder and first President of the Montgomery County Historical Society, is at the present time (January 1959) the oldest living member of Hermon Church and is no doubt one of its members who gave the author the '" homey-feeling " referred to on page 42. In the early years of the Society, the author was Vice President. Colonel Willis Bergen, minister of the Hermon Presbyterian Church since 1947, is Chaplain of the Society.

MRS. JOHN G. MCDONALD Montgomery County Historical Society

A Family Lawsuit. By SIDNEY MITCHELL. New York: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1958. xi, 210 pp. $4.00.

It is seldom that a reviewer is presented with a piece of historical writing which reads like a fascinating novel, but is invested with reality by the presence of well-known historical characters.

A Family Lawsuit is handled in three parts: Part I contains background information about Betsy Patterson and Jerome Bonaparte and events leading up to their marriage in 1803; Part II is a translation of Betsy's pleadings in the lawsuit for a share in her husband's estate after his death in 1861, probably with a forlorn hope of having Betsy's son, as the eldest son of Jerome proclaimed by Napoleon III second in succession; and Part III depicts Betsy after the annulment of her marriage, an un- happy "" divorcee," living alone or with her son in lodgings all over Europe, returning finally to live out in Baltimore what remained of her ninety-four years, an embittered old lady.

124 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

Every one thinks of Betsy as a charming, beautiful belle, but to a picture of beauty this book adds a lively wit which dominated many a social gathering, with also a flair for financial transactions, inherited doubtless from her father who had amassed one of the largest fortunes in Maryland. Indeed, a remarkable tribute came from Ambassador Gal- latin who felt that had Betsy joined forces with Emperor Napoleon, " the fate of Europe might have been different."

The book is based on French as well as American sources, including the Patterson-Bonaparte Letters in the Maryland Historical Society, which are liberally quoted in the text. It is also enriched by several illustrations of famous paintings of Betsy, Jerome and others and by geneological tables of the American and European branches of the Bonaparte family.

ELLA LONN St. Petersburg, Fla.

Calendar of Maryland State Papers, No. 3, Executive Miscellanea. By GUST SKORDAS and ROGER THOMAS. [Publications of the Hall of Records Commission, No. 11.} Annapolis: Hall of Records Com- mission, 1958. xii, 198 pp.

Readers of the Maryland Historical Magazine are already familiar with the " Rainbow Series " of the Maryland State Archives and the seven calendars of these documents previously published by the Hall of Records. This eighth and last calendar contains materials of the same period which were not included in the earlier compilations. Most of the materials are the records of the several executive bodies which governed Maryland, viz., the Governor and Council (both provincial and state), the Con- vention of Maryland and the Council of Safety. Over two-thirds of the 1,116 entries fall within the 1775-1778 period, although the overall span of years is 1684-1821.

The materials in this calendar consist of papers in the Blue Books which are not related to the Bank Stock Papers, to which that series is dedicated; a few papers in the Red Books which were inadvertently omitted when those calendars were issued; the records in Portfolios III and IV; and records in Boxes I, II, and VII of the Executive Papers. The papers in Portfolios III and IV consist of papers which obviously were supposed to have been bound in the Rainbow Series but instead, for some unknown reason, were placed in portfolios. The records selected from the Executive Papers for inclusion in this calendar are important papers of the period, most of which have not been printed. Boxes I, II, and VII contain documents of the Convention of Maryland, 1775-1776; papers relating to the Council of Safety, 1775-1777; and documents of the Governor and Council, March-June 1777, respectively. The documents in Boxes III to VI of the Executive Papers were not calendared because most of them have been printed in the Archives of Maryland.

REVIEWS OF RECENT BOOKS 125

The style of calendaring used has been described in Morris L. Radoff's " Practical Guide to Calendaring," American Archivist, XI (April-July 1949), 123-140, 203-322. The abstracts are arranged chronologically, but each calendar number is followed by the specific citation to the original document. There is an index to names and places and a finding key giving the location of any item in the bound volumes, the Port- folios, or the Executive Papers.

Dr. Radoff and his staff deserve rich praise and the highest commenda- tion for having completed the calendaring of the very valuable Colonial and Revolutionary documents in the custody of the Hall of Records. Such detailed calendaring, of course, is expensive. That this extravagance was fully warranted is manifested by the orders for the calendars by libraries of major research institutions. Historians throughout the country have recognized the importance of these documents and are grateful that these rare papers are now completely usable through the aid of the calendars.

National Archives, MABEL E. DEUTRICH Washington, D.C.

Recollections of a Confederate Staff Officer. By Brig. Gen. G. Moxley Sorrell, C. S. A. Edited by BELL IRVIN WILEY. Jackson, Tenn.: McCowat-Mercer Press, Inc., 1958. xxii, 322 pp. 15.00.

Kentucky Cavaliers in Dixie: The Reminiscences of a Confederate Cavalry-

man. By George Dallas Mosgrove. Edited by BELL IRVIN WILEY,

Jackson, Tenn.: McCowat-Mercer Press, Inc., 1957. xxvi, 281 pp. $6.00.

Both of these books are handsome, liberally illustrated reissues of lively reminiscences that have been difficult to obtain in recent years except at collectors prices. (In The South to Posterity the late Dr. Freeman included the Sorrel volume in his very select '" Distinguished Personal Narratives " list of outstanding books on the Civil War.)

Sorrell, a Georgian, at the age of twenty-six was chief of staff of Long- street's First Corps, ANV, and also commanded a brigade under A. P. Hill in the closing months of the War. He wrote easily and with an intimate knowledge of the major field officers of the Army of Northern Virginia and the various engagements in which it took part.

Mosgrove, derk, orderly, copyist and messenger of the Fourth Ken- tucky Cavalry and its parent brigade, saw service under the famous John Hunt Morgan as well as in Virginia under General Early. One of the more interesting accounts is Mosgrove's description of the battle of Saltville, Virginia, where wounded U. S. colored troops were massacred by enraged Tennesseans. It was at Saltville, incidentally, that the last surviving Eastern Confederate veteran of the War, John W. Sailings, of Slant, Va., served.

126 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

All in all, the -well-known Bell Wiley has done another attractive job of editing these two volumes, and both can be highly recommended.

C. A. PORTER HOPKINS Aid. Historical Society

Irish Families: Their Names, Arms, and Origins. By EDWARD MAC-

LYSAGHT. Dublin: Hodges Figgis and Co., Ltd., 1957. 366.

(Barnes & Noble. $20.00).

This beautifully illustrated, scholarly volume will be particularly useful to students of family history in Maryland, where traditions of aristocratic Irish lineage are numerous. The author, who is Chairman of the Irish Manuscripts Commission, has made an exhaustive study of Irish Christian names and surnames, their historical origins and geographical distribution. There is a chapter on distortions, and a section which explains the meaning and use of armorial bearings and crests, which will be helpful in this country where there is often confusion on these two points. The book contains twenty-seven plates in color, each containing nine individual armorial bearings, painted by the Heraldic Artist in Dublin Castle, and accompanied by the technical heraldic descriptions. It is a pleasure to read, and later to refer to this book, the publishers of which are justifiably proud, since, among other things, it is an excellent example of contemporary Irish industry.

DOROTHY MACKAY QUYNN Frederick, Maryland.

The Home Team: 100 Years of Baseball in Baltimore. By JAMES H. BREADY. Baltimore: the Author, 1958. 67. Illus. $4.50.

It's been a long time—right after the depression and home brew— since we squinted between the slats in the left field fence at Oriole Park and looked in on Cliff Melton, George Puccinelli, Les Powers, Woody Abernathy and Bill Lohrman. Heroes all.

There was a preferred location down near the foul line where the boards had warped or else it was a case of bad carpentry. It made for the best peep show in town. Kids in short pants and some in knickers, too, used to fight each other for preferred position. It was part of growing up—when wars, television sets, space ships and atom bombs seemed as unrealistic as touching the moon.

We found ourselves back peering through the old knot-hole with a new book that's all about Baltimore and the game of baseball. The two have been synonymous for 100 years.

As for this literary and pictorial report of a century of baseball progress in Baltimore, it's all wrapped up in a bright volume written and published

REVIEWS OF RECENT BOOKS 127

by James Bready and released under the name of " Home Team." The growth, heritage, and history are all there. Names out of the glorious Oriole past, like Willie Keeler, John McGraw, Ned Hanlon, Jack Dunn, Babe Ruth, Lefty Grove, Max Bishop, Joe Hauser and Tommy Thomas, are once again in the starting lineup.

Bready brings them back into focus as he recounts 100 seasons in remarkable style and detail. In fact, according to Bready, Baltimore has won 6,032 games and lost 5,518 over that long haul.

The birth of the game in Baltimore is recorded as July 12, 1859, which is 20 years after Abner Doubleday supposedly invented the sport at Cooperstown, N. Y. A. Henry Pohlemus organized a team known as the Baltimore Excelsiors.

Since then, Baltimore has been represented in eight different professional leagues and played in as many parks—from the old Madison Ave. Ground of the Excelsiors to the showplace Memorial Stadium home of the new American League Orioles.

The "" Old Orioles," said to be so tough they spit tobacco juice in spike wounds, fought among themselves when they weren't battling the opposition. Keeler and McGraw once carried an argument which started on the field, into the locker room.

They pounded each other with their fists and shouted salty insults. Then along came Wilbert Robinson, the Oriole captain. He pulled them apart and pitched both into a huge vat of water. It was the team bathtub. They didn't have shower rooms in those days. Keeler and McGraw got a drenching besides cooling down their tempers.

Bready recalls the time in 1923 when Chief Bender and Lena Styles were both suspended from the team for exhibiting bad table manners in public. At a banquet in the Emerson Hotel honoring the team, Bender and Styles threw rolls at each other. It put baseball and the Orioles in a bad light and Dunn decided he had to discipline them.

In his long, rich and documented book, Bready devotes two pages of text to Babe Ruth, his boyhood, discovery by the Orioles and ultimate climb to the highest pinnacle of stardom. As a little known fact, Bready points out that Ruth never hit a home run as an Oriole. But he hit 714 over a 21-year span in the major leagues with the New York Yankees and the two Boston clubs.

The Bready production is as much a picture presentation as it is a literary effort. Hours of endless research and probing went into the book. Many of the photographs are reproduced for the first time.

How do you tell the story of Baltimore baseball, 100 years, in review? The writer has culled the important developments and spotlighted the more prominent personalities. He has pushed aside the insignificant so as to emphasize the essential.

It's like looking through a knot-hole at a golden century of Baltimore baseball and the storied Orioles. May their future 100 years be as successful as those previous have been eventful and romantic.

" The News Post " JOHN STEADMAN Baltimore, Md.

NOTES AND QUERIES

House and Garden Pilgrimage: The headquarters of the Society will be included in the Mount Vernon Place tour of the Pilgrimage to be spon- sored this spring by the Federated Garden Clubs of Maryland, the Society for the Preservation of Maryland Antiquities, the Baltimore Museum of Art and the Maryland Historical Society. The date of this tour will be April 29, when the Women's Committee of the Society will hold open house 10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P. M. The Society will also exhibit important papers relating to the history of the Mount Vernon area.

Society of The Ark and The Dove: Through the continued generosity of the Society of The Ark and The Dove, the Maryland Historical Society has been enabled to continue with the important work of collection and preservation of materials relating to Maryland's Seventeenth Century background. Under the provisions of a recent grant, the important notes relating to the Calvert family in England, made by the late Charles "W. Bump, and which have been in the possession of the Society since 1908, are now being photocopied, thus insuring their preservation and avail- ability to scholars in the years to come.

Parker Genealogical Contest: Seven entries for the Sumner and Dudrea Parker Genealogy Contest were received during 1958. These are now in the hands of the judges and announcement of the winners will shortly be made. The contest was established in 1946 by Mrs. Sumner A. Parker and is intended to encourage the preparation in useful form of pedigrees of Maryland and related families. Entries for the 1959 contest should be received by December 31 of this year. Cash prizes will, as usual, be awarded.

Hagley Museum: The Hagley Museum is again offering two fellowships in American History. The program is of two years duration, upon completion of which the fellow is awarded the Master of Arts degree. The course of study is conducted jointly by the University of Delaware and the Museum. Hagley Fellowships carry an annual stipend of $1800 and are awarded in April for the following academic year. Inquiries may be addressed to: Eleutherian Mills-Hagley Foundation, 101 West Tenth Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

128

NOTES AND QUERIES 129

The Longwood Library announces its sponsorship of a proposed edition of selected correspondence of Rear-Admiral Samuel Francis Du Pont for the years 1861-1865, prepared by Rear-Admiral John D. Hayes, U. S. N. (Ret.), 1970 Fairfax Road, Annapolis, Md. Du Pont commanded the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron, and led the memorable naval attack against Charleston in 1863. Though the bulk of his letters is included in the large collection of Du Pont family papers now at Longwood, Admiral Hayes and the Director of the Longwood Library would welcome com- munications from anyone having knowledge of materials which exist elsewhere, and particularly letters from Du Pont to his fellow officers.

The South Carolina Archives Department announces publication of the very important colonial source material. The Colonial Records of South Carolina: Documents Relating to Indian Affairs, 1750-1754. In 1955, the Archives Department published a volume containing a carefully edited text of the Journals of the Commissioners of Indian Affairs, 1710-1718. The second volume, now published, presents the documents appearing in three additional " Indian Books." The third, and final, volume in the series is already in the process of being printed. The series is under the editorship of William L. McDowell, Jr., of the Archival staff.

Information Reach: Information is requested about the Keach family. Who were the parents of John R. Keach, b. Mch. 1795, d. May 2, 1826, at Mt. Sterling, Ky? Methodist Circuit Rider. Address: H. J. Baker, 1412 W. Main, Crawfordsville, Ind.

130 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

CONTRIBUTORS

EDWARD P. ALEXANDER is Vice President and Director, Division of Interpretation of Colonial Williamsburg. He is author of several articles on the interpretation by museums and historical societies of their local history. " New Faith in the American Heritage " was presented at the Second Annual Conference of Historical Societies of Maryland in 1958.

JOHN M. HEMPHILL, II is at present a member of the history department of Southwestern College at Memphis, Tennessee. He was formerly a Research Associate at Colonial Williamsburg and has edited " Docu- ments Relating to the Colonial Tobacco Trade," Md. Hist Mag., LII (June, 1957), 153-156.

FRANKLIN R. MULLALY is a member of the National Park Service and was one of the three historians for the Historical and Archeological Research Project conducting the investigation into the appearance of Fort McHenry at the time of the Battle of Baltimore. He has contributed several reviews to the Magazine.

WILLIAM B. MARYE is Corresponding Secretary of the Maryland His- torical Society and an authority on Maryland place names on which subject he has written many articles for the Magazine.

RUBY R. DUVAL is one of the founders of Historic Annapolis, Inc. She has published articles in the United States Naval Institute Proceedings. Her story " The Frigate Constellation " in the Proceedings of December, 1935 was quite influential in arousing interest in saving the vessel for posterity. Shipmate of February, 1959 contains her latest work: '" Matthew Fontaine Maury—Man of Genius."

TRADITIONAL FURNITURE From America's outstanding sources . . . in wide

open stock selection.

Our workroom offers complete restoration service . . . cabinet- work, refinishing and reuphol- stering.

FALLON & HELLEN 11 and 13 W. Mulberry St.

Baltimore, 1, Maryland LExington 9-3345

Paul J. Eisel Old and Desirable Books

MARYLAND

AMERICAN SCENE

GENERAL

BOUGHT & SOLD

•M

THE JONES HOUSE

LlBERTYTOWN, MD.

Catalogues Issued

CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING

BOOKBINDING FRANK W. LINNEMANN

212 East Lombard Street

Magazines, medical books, Old books rebound

PHOTOGRAPHY Since 1878

Copy and Restoration Work a Specialty.

Black and White or Color.

HUGHES CO.

C. GAITHER SCOTT

213 W. Monument Street MU 5-7566 BALTIMORE 1

PHOTOSTATS % PHOTOGRAPHS Baltimore Photo 8C Blue Print Co. 211 E. Baltimore Street

Photo copying of Portraits, Old Photographs, Genealogical Charts, Records, Coats of Arms.

LE 9-6881

PLUMBING — HEATING

Established 1909 BE 5-2572

M. NELSON BARNES

3 West 23rd St.

TONGUE, BROOKS

& COMPANY

INSURANCE

(All Coverages

213 Saint Paul Place

Baltimore

SMITH'S BOOK STORE

Established 1876

Special attention to inquiries

for books relating to Baltimore

and Maryland.

LIBRARIES OR SINGLE BOOKS PURCHASED

805 N. HOWARD STREET

MU 5-2823 BALTIMORE 1

JL nc\o iLn

for Xroai

Mravmd5

i nuns

— VJ»t»Uds

and J\)a

3 3 azmes

ADVERTISERS ENGRAVINO COMPANY

501-509 EAST PRESTON STREET MUlberry 5-2357 5-2358

GENEALOGIST AND HISTORICAL RESEARCHER

will

complete applicant's papers j

for patriotic societies and )

conduct general genealogi- )

cal and historical investiga- )

tions in Maryland or else- i

where. i

DANIEL BURKS CRAIG !

718 WASHINGTON PLACE )

BALTIMORE 1, MARYLAND (

JLM

IN 1899 when we reached the age of 20

Henry Walters gave $45,000 for public baths in Baltimore.—

]une 5.

Elihu Root was appointed Secretary of War on the resignation

of General R. A. Alger.—]uly 19.

Admiral George Dewey arrived from Manila in New York

where he received a homecoming ovation.—September 26.

War began between the British and the South African Re-

publics.—October 11.

Thomas G. Hayes was inaugurated Mayor of Baltimore.—

November 15.

MOVING, local and long- distance, by skilled personnel experienced in handling everything from household furnishings to priceless works of art.

STORAGE, in a sprinkler- protected, concrete building where carefully trained work- men assure safe handling of your possessions.

Call on the combined experience of 141 years.

onumental -

ec*nty STORAGE co., inc. MOVING DEPT: 1110 PARK AVE.—SAratoga 7-3480 - MUlberry 5-7900

RUG CLEANING DEPT: 1915 WINDSOR AVE.—lAfayelfe 3-3771

* ••• ••••••••••••.*

* "^^ 0^~ Consecutive * * ^ V^^* ^^^ semi-annual

^c •

* ^V", n\ \ DIVIDEND *

has been declared to

* holders of SAVINGS or INVESTMENT *

-^ ^u^ accounts in

* ^fl^M FRATERNITY * * *^|l|r FEDERAL * * SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION * * 764-770 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD * w BALTIMORE 3, MARYLAND ^

LE-9-1313

$ Share in the 93rd DIVIDEND $

-K ^ Open YOUR Account Today $ *

-K ^ INSURED • DRIVE-UP SERVICE M

^ if Speedy SAVE-by-MAIL * CUSTOMER PARKING ^

M Economical MORTGAGE LOANS *

t. Safe Deposit Boxes .

M ****************

(PDF) Maryland Historical Magazine, 1959, Volume 54, Issue No. 1msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5800/sc5881/000001/000000/... · Monumental-Security Storage Company combines two - PDFSLIDE.NET (2024)

References