Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Water, Water, Everywhere, but is it safe to drink?




Preserving and Accessing the Records of the Gunpowder Watershed of Maryland and Pennsylvania


Edward C. Papenfuse, Archivist of Maryland (Retired)


With apologies to Samuel Taylor Coleridge and the Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner, the title of this essay on  preserving and making accessible the sources of history was chosen because the history of the Gunpowder watershed is both a triumph of the reversal of human degradation of the environment, and a cautionary tale about the failure of humans both  to sustain the accomplishment and to care for the records that document its story for the instruction and enlightenment of future generations.



I.  The Triumph:
Baltimore City’s effort to acquire a sustainable water supply between 1830 and the 1950s led to the rehabilitation of a watershed that had become developed and polluted.  With paper mills (the Hoffman Mills), manufacturing (Warren) and Iron mines (Ridgley Iron Works), not to mention agricultural runoff and quarrying, the water of the gunpowder was suspect as a source of water  for the city, its people, and to a lesser extent, its industry.  Over the course of about 150 years, using eminent domain powers acquired by 1908 and bond money authorized by the Maryland legislature, a considerable portion of the lands of the watershed  along the river were acquired by the city and turned back to nature.  It was a triumph of the public good for the welfare of the majority.

II. The History:
A) Who are its keepers?
There have been a number of people over the years who have been responsible for altering the course of the history of the Gunpowder watershed and promoting the keeping of its history.   I will only mention a few:



1) Thomas H. Buckler




Thomas H Buckler is best known for his acid tongue when it came to the slowness with which Baltimore addressed its health problems. Writing from the comfort of a European Spa, possibly paid for in part from income from the Gunpowder lands of his wife’s estate (she was a Ridgely), he opined that the best solution to the contamination problems of Baltimore harbor were to level Federal Hill into the basin, filling it up. He may have had another ulterior motive than public health as well. Federal Hill was the symbol of Union occupation of the city with its canons trained on the populace to keep order (they are still there today), Buckler was an ardent supporter of the South and fled to Europe to avoid the war.

Except for Nancy Shead’s biographical work on Buckler as a physician, there is no readily accessible biography of him.  Yet , he more than anyone person was responsible for both advocating the Gunpowder as a source of water for the city and advancing the public health reasons why pure water was necessary for public health.  He began his advocacy as physician at the Baltimore County alms house before the Civil War.  As late as 1885 the first daily newspaper in California, the Daily Alta, sang his praises:


 THE CHOLERA.
No Certain Cure but Cleanliness a Preventive.

SOME THEORIES TESTED.

The Harm Done by Drs. Ferran and Koch— Pure Air, Pure Water and Wholesome Food Required to Combat the Disease.
In recent conversations Dr. Thomas H. Buckler cf Baltimore, has had considerable to say in regard to the prevention of cholera. Most of what follows was said in particular reference to the City of Baltimore, but applies to all intents and purposes equally well to the City of San Francisco. Of the cholera epidemic he says "In 1832 when the population did not exceed 90,000, the number of deaths reported from epidemic cholera was 853. In May and June, 1849, preceding the edvest of cholera, an epidemic typhus made its appearance among the free negroes of the city. It was confined almost exclusively to this race, only two cases having been noted in whites. In rows of houses occupied by Germans, Irish and free blacks, it would invariably single out the latter, in many instances seizing an entire family. It came alike from all sections of the city, and invariably from filthy and unwholesome localities. This disease was highly infectious in character, and in its pathological lesions corresponded in almost every essential particular with yellow fever which occurred at Gibraltar, and is described by Louis. Many of these cases were taken to the Almshouse and a large number to the old smallpox hospital, fitted up for the purpose." After describing the old Almshouse, where the cholera epidemic of 1849 occurred, the topography of the surrounding country, (the western outskirts of the city,) the hygienic conditions of the Almshouse, which he said "seemed to be, of all other places, the field, not only for the spontaneous origin, but also for the growth and spread of disease," and the inefficiency of existing systems of quarantine, Dr. Buckler states that during the prevalence of the epidemic typhus before referred to as occurring among the free blacks of the city in June, 1849, eighty-three cases in all were sent to the Almshouse. Thirty-nine proved fatal. Of these all but one were colored people.
THE CITY WAS CLEANED UP.
Fearing that the typhus might become general, and in view of the fact that the city was threatened with an invasion of cholera, the physicians of the Almshouse, Drs. Buckler and Willis H. Baxley, gave notice to the public of the malignant character of the disease, and advised that the municipal regulations relating to cleanliness and public hygiene be rigidly enforced. In accordance with this recommendation all the lanes, alleys and byways were put in a thoroughly wholesome condition. The merchants had the wharves, then in a very filthy condition, cleansed and sprinkled with lime at their own expense. On the first of July the first case of cholera occurred at the Almshouse. It seems to have originated there, as did several other cases following in quick succession. In the meantime the Almshouse had been thoroughly cleansed. It was discovered by Dr. Buckler, however, that a cesspool had overflowed and was in a very filthy condition. Other sources of impurity were also discovered outside the north wall of the enclosure, and Dr. Buckler finally satisfied himself that a large space of ground "was one putrid and pestilential mass, capable of generating under the ardent rays of a midsummer sun the most poisonous and deadly exhalations.' Of the inmates of the Almshouse, 155 were attacked with cholera and 86 died. The proportion of deaths was much larger among the blacks than among the whites, a large number of the colored patients, however, had already been broken down by typhus. From the fact that while nearly one half of the male inmates were seized with cholera, more than four fifths of the opposite sex escaped, Dr. Buckler deduces the conclusion that this was precisely what might be expected if the malarial influence already alluded to exercised any control over the disease, for the men, having outdoor occupations, were most exposed to atmospheric influences. During the month of July, when the cholera prevailed, 76 persons eloped and 56 were discharged by the Board, most of whom went to the city to hide. In several instances they wera seized with cholera, and in this condition carried back to the Almshouse. These facts indicate that notwithstanding this constant and unrestricted intercourse, the disease confined itself to its favorite haunts. "It is fair to conclude." adds Dr. Buckler, *that but for the existence of the local impurities, cholera would never have visited the Almshouse." With the entire restoration of the establishment to a proper sanitary condition, the disease entirely ceased.  The malaria acting probably as the strong predisposing cause of ill-health,”' says Dr. Buckler, *'exerted its influence by depressing the nervous system and lowering vitality, to as to interfere with a healthy performance of all the different functions. Thus predisposed, the inmates were rendered not only more susceptible to the imposition of morbid poisons, or to the action of any other exciting causes of disease, but at the same time their chances of recovery were greatly diminished, owing to the weakened state of their vital powers of resistance."
CLEANLINESS THE ONLY PREVENTIVE.
The appearance of epidemic cholera at the Almshouse gave a fresh impulse to the work of purification and induced a strict adherence to the sanitary measures previously adopted, so that all the avenues of the city were kept in the most perfect order. In accordance with Dr. Buckler's suggestion, committees of citizens were appointed in every ward to examine the premises connected with the various blocks of buildings and to see to the prompt removal of impurities. - The result was there were only four cases of cholera in the city, although it had been raging at the Almshouse. Mild cholerine, however, prevailed in almost every section of the city, showing that the cholera atmosphere pervaded this region. The conclusion, therefore, is inevitable that, to quote Dr. Buckler's words, " the immunity which Baltimore experienced in 1849 was owing entirely to the thorough purification which the city underwent in anticipation of the advent of cholera. Admitting the conclusion to be just, the inhabitants of Baltimore may enjoy the comfortable assurance that they have nothing to fear from future epidemics of this much-dreaded disease, provided they will see that judicious sanitary measures are properly carried out; but if they refuse to profit by their past experience, they must only expect to suffer a well-merited rebuke for their negligence." In other words, pure air, pure water and wholesome food, are the only conditions required to combat the disease. Baltimore's experience in 1849 has been the experience of communities all over the world. In .Europe the cities which have suffered most were in a filthy condition. At Naples and Toulon, where the epidemic raged most virulently, but little attention was paid to cleansing the streets. In Spain the disease has been prolonged because of the universal disregard of sanitary laws. Dr. Ferran, by inducing the people to believe that inoculation was an efficacious preventive, has done great harm by causing them to turn their attention- from the only real preventive — cleanliness. Dr. Koch's investigations have had a similar tendency. They have proved nothing, and on the other hand have encouraged persons to think that cholera can' be cured, and that sanitary precautions are comparatively useless. The germ theory of Koch is not a new thing, as it was partially investigated by Dr. Buckler and Dr. Christopher Johnson during the Almshouse epidemic in 1849,
VARIOUS CHOLERA THEORIES.
In his pamphlet under the heading "Theories Tested," Dr. Buckley says : "Before the removal of the nuisances (at the Alms House) the various cholera theories were tested as far as practicable. Saucers containing solutions of acetate of lead, nitrate of silver and other delicate re-agents were placed on the margin of the pond and at various other points back of the north wall, and numerous strips of chemically-pure paper wet with solutions of these salts were hung out at night over the different pools. Paper prepared with Sconbine'e solution of iodide of potassa and starch were also used to test the presence of ozone. Duplicate experiments were instituted in the city at the same time, but without any very satisfactory results in either of the trials, the changes which occurred being nearly alike at the two places.
"With a view of testing the cryptogamic and animalcular theories, plates of microscopic glass attached to threads by means of sealing-wax, were dipped in solutions of sugar, starch and gum acacia, and hung back of the north wall and in the cholera hospital. Other plates of glass were covered over with glycerine, remarkable for its property of remaining fluid for a long time .when exposed to the air, and these, like the former, were suspended in various places about the establishment. Sugar, and starch were selected because of the known tendency to vegetable germs to form on these compounds,and it was supposed if animalcula existed in the air, that some of these would of necessity be caught on the moist and tenacious glycerine. These. plates of glass having been thus treated, were carefully examined by Dr. Christopher Johnston, aided by powerful lenses, but he was unable to detect' the slightest trace of vegetable germe,animalcula or microscopic organisms of any sort.
NO CERTAIN CURE FOR CHOLERA.


The only true course, in Dr. Buckler's opinion, is to bend all energies to the prevention of the disease. When we get perfect sanitation, says Dr. Buckler, cholera will become a disease of the past. When there was universal ignorance and disregard of sanitary laws, and every city and town was a pig-sty, the black death, the plague and the sweating disease, which are now diseases of the past, ravaged many communities. Cholera will also become, like them, an obsolete disease if due regard is paid to sanitary laws. There is no certain cure for cholera, but it can be prevented, as was shown in Baltimore in 1849. Quarantine, Dr. Buckler thinks, is of no value if the city is in good sanitary condition. A number of cases might be brought here and they might die, but nobody would take the cholera. Dr. Buckler cays cholera is such a mysterious disease that it cannot be safely predicted whether it will or will not appear in this country next year. Baltimore, however, the Doctor stated, has nothing to fear if a rigid system of sanitation is enforced.


In view of the ravages of cholera abroad, the cleansing of the city cannot be begun too soon. Once cleaned, the city should be kept clean. As Dr. Buckler shows in his history of the almshouse epidemic in 1849, the thorough cleansing of the city of Baltimore in that year resulted in a marked decrease in zymotic diseases of all kinds, so that even if the cholera fails to come, any city will reap a sufficient return in the general benefit resulting from the scheme of the sanitation proposed.











2) John McGrain




John McGrain’s work on mollinography is internationally recognized (Louis Bergeron for example) and his career as a preservationist in Baltimore County is legendary.  His most recent publication is on the history of Charles Street.  His research on the Gunpowder is available on and off line at the Maryland State Archives and is indispensable for anyone interested in the mills and manufacturing in the gunpowder watershed..
3) Ron Parks


I strongly urge anyone interested in the history of Baltimore’s water supply to purchase Ron’s books, particularly this one which is a guide to all the good work he has done over the years to preserve the history of Baltimore’s water supply.  Included is an extensive time line relating to efforts to acquire water for the city that is invaluable to the study of the Gunpowder watershed.



4) Teri L. Rising
                   



Teri L. Rising
Historic Preservation Planner, Baltimore County Department of Planning
Over a hundred years ago, Baltimore City proposed building a dam that would bring water from the Gunpowder River to Baltimore City. While the reservoir would accomplish this goal, it would also destroy homes, communities, and create controversy between Baltimore City and County. As a historic planner and historian, I am often asked for the story behind Loch Raven reservoir. “History Underwater” is a brief summary of the project that would change the landscape of Baltimore County forever.
Baltimore City had long struggled to supply its citizens with clean water, but the increasing population caused natural sources to disappear and water contamination to increase.  A drought in 1869 convinced city officials to look beyond the Jones Falls for sources of water and the Gunpowder River had been identified in 1853 as a possible choice.
“This matter of water supply cannot be overestimated in its importance, and when the water of the Gunpowder shall have been conducted into the city, as it must of necessity be in the lapse of a few years, no city on this continent or in Europe will be able to boast of so great a bounty.”Mayor of Baltimore - 1872
Construction began December 3, 1875 and the Loch Raven lower dam was completed by 1881.  The works consisted of a dam, which formed the reservoir, a tunnel connecting the reservoir with Lake Montebello, and a conduit connecting Lake Montebello to Lake Clifton. That water tunnel is still used today.  Officially named in 1877, “Loch Raven” was inspired by area landowner, Luke Raven, along with the addition of  “Loch”, as Scottish for Lake.  William Gilmor, owner of the "Glen Ellen" estate, has been credited as the source of the name.  
A polluted Jones Falls convinced officials to expand Loch Raven by adding an upper dam.  Knowing that Baltimore City was scouting for land, the Warren Company secretly sold the town to the city in 1908 for a confidential price. The City Council conducted an investigation and concluded the acquisition was inappropriate and price too high.  Negative press coverage resulted in serious criticism for officials and the deal was nullified by the Court of Appeals in 1913.
After the upper dam was completed, the city implemented the next phase and raised the spillway to the 240 feet maximum.  In response, nearly 50 square miles were annexed in 1918.  The annexation consumed many farms and mills and forced residents to relocate. City inspectors assigned values to the properties and negotiated their acquisition.  Many sites were demolished and flooded; others were partially demolished and left to deteriorate within the watershed’s boundaries. Those affected had names like Morgan’s Mill, "Furnace Farm", "Vauxhall", and "Glen Ellen".
Amidst lawsuits and accusations of impropriety, the last lands purchased for the final phase of the Loch Raven Reservoir included the towns of Warren and Phoenix.  When they were finally condemned in 1922, it cost the City one million dollars. Spectators made the trek and documented the dismantling and demolition of the village making Warren’s demise the best known and documented.
If you are interested in learning more, or would like information about the sources I used for this blog, feel free to contact me at trising@baltimorecountymd.gov.
Further Reading





5) Dr. Charles Stine

.

.
and the mysterious 

6) “Gargonzola”. Note that his article is about Warren and that some of the web sources he cites no longer exist.



Warren began its life in 1750 when King George III granted a certain Richard Britton land in the Gunpowder Falls Valley (the "Valley of Jehosophat"). The place was sustained by two grist mills, but probably couldn't properly be called a "town" until 1814, when a group of investors leased some of John Merryman's land to build a cotton mill. The investors included James A. Buchanan and a local Revolutionary War hero, General Samuel Smith. It is probably Smith we have to thank for the naming it after another Revolutionary War general, Joseph Warren, who was killed at the Battle of Bunker Hill. If you have read my writeup on Smith's estate Montebello you will recall that Buchanan was embezzling from the Second Bank of the United States at the time; enough to cause a financial panic in 1819. Smith and the other investors were ruined. The Warren mill continued to produce cotton ducking and calico cloth on and off through the booms and busts of the antebellum business cycle, and the company town was a sort of eastern Hell's Half Acre. That is, until Summerfield Baldwin acquired the mill beginning in 1864. The Baldwins, devout Methodists, managed to put the mill and community on a firm footing, building a schoolhouse and forbidding alcohol.






All but Buckler and Stine have an easily findable presence on the web, but I will caution that that presence is not sustainable unless related to a permanent electronic archives maintained in perpetuity by public support.  Already at least one very good website devoted to the history of the Gunpowder has disappeared into the ether (as Joseph Priestley might have referred to it).





B) Where are there untapped resources and who will make them available on line and in perpetuity?
When the AP history students of Western Technical School of Technology and Environmental Science in Catonsville produced their thoughtful and pioneering  study of the history of the Baltimore Water Supply in 1999,  their introduction pointed out the difficulty in finding the necessary sources to write the history of the communities that populated the watershed:
Finding proper primary sources was quite difficult. This information was
locked away and kept in places that were inaccessible to our needs. The use of maps were helpful throughout the process, however, at times the accuracy of the maps were suspect due to the map making techniques of the period studied.  
What they did not know and had no easy way of finding out at the time was that, in addition to the work that Ron Parks had undertaken to preserve the Baltimore city records relating to the history of the water supply, there is an abundance of detailed and visual information about the efforts to acquire the watershed among the court records of the State.
Beginning in 1975, the Maryland State Archives began a program to save as much of the surviving court records in Maryland, particularly those relating to land ownership, as possible.  For the purposes of exploring the history of the Gunpowder watershed, there are many examples, three of which have been placed on line as part of the virtual collection at the Maryland State Archives devoted to documenting and expanding the efforts of Ron Parks to make the sources of the history of the Baltimore City  water supply accessible and permanently preserved.
I will begin first with a volume preserved by Ron Parks, the companion of which disappeared before he began his efforts to collect the surviving record:



To understand the process by which Baltimore city acquired the water rights to the Gunpowder watershed and the State came to establish parkland along it, the court records provide an unparalleled window of observation and analysis.




1) THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE vs. THE WARREN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, and SUMMERFIELD BALDWIN., 59 Md. 96 (1882)

BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket) Volume 8 Page 164 [MSA C 326-8, 2/49/8/7]
2) Warren Manufacturing Company of Baltimore County v. The Mayor & City Council of Baltimore et al., 119 Md. 188, 1911-1912

BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket, Index) 1853-1982, MAV-MEN [MSA CM 1295-20, CR 69,129]
BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Docket A, Miscellaneous) Volume 51A pp. 322, 445, 452 and 459 [MSA T 55-51, 3/4/1/34]
BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT (Equity Papers A, Miscellaneous) Boxes 2813 & 2814 Case No. A6166 [MSA T 53, 3/8/8/26 & 3/8/8/27]
3 )William H. Hoffman v. Warren Mfg.

62 Md. 162, 1884
Trial Court Records
Appellate Court Records
Scanned as msaref 5458-51-4035
4) Acquisition of Hoffman Property by Baltimore City
2 July 1901:

Hoffman lands sold to Rockdale Powder Co.
BA Land Records, MBM 245, p. 476-488; Carroll Land Records JHB 93, p. 266-285 (note that both deeds are the same).
Land sold for $100,000. 7 tracts of land, totaling 1160 acres.
30 December 1924:
Rockdale sold lands to Title Guarantee & Trust Co.
7 tracts of land, totaling 1160 acres. Sold for $5.00 and "other valuable considerations."
14 January 1925 Title Guarantee & Trust Co. sold land to Mayor & City Council, 14 January 1925
The city bought the land for $5.00 and "other valuable considerations" (i.e. a player to be named later). Land purchased for the construction of Prettyboy Dam.
Hoffman & Sons owned Gunpowder, Clipper, Rockdale, and Hoffman (at Silver Run) paper mills. Not shown on the map is the Hoffman's Marble Vale mill, located on Paper Mill Road, near Cockeysville, which burned in 1888.
Map from McGrain, From Pig Iron to Cotton Duck, p. 269.

Secondary Sources:

John W. McGrain, From Pig Iron to Cotton Duck: A History of Manufacturing Villages in Baltimore County, vol. 1, p. 274-279.

Mary A. Seitz, The History of the Hoffman Paper Mills in Maryland, p. 51-53.

III. The Challenge:
A) sustaining the triumph
The only way that the success of preserving the Gunpowder watershed can be sustained is by the public realizing that the resources represented by the watershed (tree cover, naturally ‘clean’ water, etc) must be preserved from development and managed by public entitities paid for by tax dollars.  I leave that discussion to others
B) keeping the memory of what transpired


If we don’t pay attention and allocate adequate resources to the care, preservation, and access of the memories of the past as represented in the surviving public and private records (including newspapers), much of the lessons of the Triumph will be lost and our understanding of the human experience on the land and its instructive power for the future will we lost.  We will be condemned as  George Santayana  warned us, to repeat the sins of the past.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. George Santayana







Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Furnishing the Restored Maryland Senate Chamber of 1783




From light into darkness?


by Edward C. Papenfuse, State Archivist, retired

The story of how Congress came to reside in  Annapolis in 1783-1784 is well known and well documented in http://mdstatehouse.net.  Some recent commentary has attempted to suggest that what they found in the way of accommodations in the State House and how they might have arranged themselves to accept General Washington’s resignation as Commander in Chief was rather spartan, without individual desks for the Congressmen and no lighting from a chandelier during one of the coldest, darkest winters on record.[14] Architectural historians and restoration architects of this ilk would do well to better verse themselves in the history of the communities in which the structures they are attempting to restore and interpret were built.  Annapolis is no exception.

In the summer of 1776, Maryland launched a new model of bicameral legislature that proved so inspiring as to have the upper house become the model for the United States Senate as envisioned by the Constitutional Convention of 1787.[1]


From its first meeting in the Armory behind the old State House, both adjacent to the one under construction by Charles Wallace in February of 1777, the Maryland Senate took equal, perhaps even a superior stand, to the House of Delegates resident in the large assembly hall, “the old one”, seen in Charles Willson Peale’s 1788 drawing.[2]

[3]

From its first session in 1777 when under the requirements of the 1776 Constitution at least 8 members needed to be present to conduct business, the Senate functioned according to its journals of proceedings with often as many as 11 members in attendance at any one session.[4]


The Senate met during the shortest days of the year and at one point, in its first year of existence, held its sessions after sunset.[5]  In the old Council chamber, which doubled as the Armory, they met with sufficient lighting from a twelve candle chandelier.[6]


Fortunately the Old State House (referred to by 1777 as the Assembly or the “Old One”) not only had sconces on the walls but at least one, and probably three chandeliers to provide sufficient lighting for the dark days of deliberation.[7]


The Maryland Senate prided itself from its first days of organization on proper procedure and protocol  with its fifteen members  ultimately drawn from the wealthiest citizens indirectly by the ballot of electors, but able to replace itself when duly elected members resigned or declined to serve.


How the Senate organized itself and provided working accommodations for its members beginning in 1777 is not known for certain, apart from following standard parliamentary procedure and having a doorkeeper, a secretary, and  a messenger.  Given the strict sense of order and the formality of public discourse, it is probable that considerable care was given to seating arrangements with every member of the Senate provided with a writing table/desk and chair suitable to his station.[8]


From the first day that the Senate convened, all fifteen members were expected to make their appearance at one time or another.  This was no longer the club of councilors selected by the proprietor to do his bidding as the upper house, but an elected (albeit indirectly elected) body of supposedly wise individuals intended to act as a break on the exuberance of the lower house.   As the Constitution of 1776 intended (to quote  Carl Everstine) “Members of the Senate were to be “men of the most wisdom, experience and virtue.”  [9]


Unfortunately we do not know for certain what those furnishings were like, but we can make a very good guess based upon what may be the only surviving example of that period of the Senate’s history.



William Voss Elder and Lou Bartlett first identified this desk in 1983 as ca. 1780 by John Shaw or John Shaw and Archibald Chisholm. It would have been the perfect size for a Senator accompanied by a chair that would have been the same or similar to those with which William Paca apparently lent for the use of Congress for additional seating at Washington’s resignation ceremonies on December 23, 1783.[10]  William Paca was a member of that first Maryland Senate in 1777 from the Western Shore.  It is difficult to contemplate that he and his wealthy brethren would sit on or at anything less than a chippendale chair before a finely made, but simple desk with candle slide.


In all likelihood the presiding officer (the Senate President who was chosen from among his peers) did not have a desk but sat on a raised platform just as the Speaker of Parliament was seated.  Before him would have been a double clerks desk, possibly like the one made by Shaw and Chisholm for the Loan Office  or currently owned by the Masons.  Both Richard Ridgely, the first Clerk, and James Maynard, the first messenger would have sat at such a desk, the one taking down the minutes, the other ready to take whatever the secretary or the President (in that case the future Intendant of the Revenue, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer)  handed him for delivery to the House of Delegates and the officers of government. [11] 


When the Senate first met in the old Armory in February 1777, one of the first orders of business was to elect the Governor and his council (five members) to whom the furnishings of the old Council would have been allocated.  It is possible that they first convened at the Governor’s Mansion on what is now the Naval Academy grounds and where, by 1783, governor Paca was also holding forth with what the Maryland Journal described as the “Nursery of the Long Robe”.


Annapolis is a nursery of the long robe.  Its lawyers would do honor to any bar in Europe. The Governor [William Paca], who is of this profession, has instituted a society composed of students of the law, who meet at his house at stated periods to discuss law questions and questions in political economy.  He proposes the subject, sits as President and give judgment in conjunction with his council, the Chancellor and the Judges of the General Court.  When the debates are finished the company sup with the the Governor. [12]


By 1779 the Governor and Council had its own room over the Senate Chamber in the new State House, but the table called for in 1728 apparently was no longer extant in the State House, and more likely, remained at Government House to accommodate the “nursery” for discussion and dinner.


In 1779, when the Senate at last was able to move into its new quarters in the nearly finished State House (Stadthouse), it is likely that they took their writing table/desks and chairs with them.  The documentation for how any furnishings were acquired for both the House and the Senate in 1777 is obscured by summary journal entries, but the significant payments to John Shaw in 1777 leave no doubt in those who know the history of that cabinetmaker and cabinet making in Annapolis that he would have had a hand in crafting the furnishings for the Senate and the House.[13]


The story of how Congress came to Annapolis is well known and well documented in http://mdstatehouse.net.  Some recent commentary has attempted to suggest that what they found in the way of accommodations in the State House and how they might have arranged themselves to accept General Washington’s resignation as Commander in Chief was rather spartan, without individual desks for the Congressmen and no lighting from a chandelier during one of the coldest, darkest winters on record.[14]


For protocol for the ceremony and the furnishings on that day it is better not to have  recourse to a ceremony welcoming the representative of a King who needed to be treated with a higher level of respect and attention than a retiring General who was at all times, as he himself acknowledged, subservient to the Civil Authority.  It would be far more sensible to pay closer attention to the Journal of the Congress for December 1783,  and the ceremonial session it held on the eve of their move to Annapolis in May of 1782, in which the members of Congress sat at their “small” tables to celebrate the birth of the Dauphin, all of which is well documented in http://mdstatehouse.net:  


13 May 1782 - Public Audience for the announcement of the birth of the dauphin by a minister of France:
On May 2nd Congress had set Monday, May 13, for an audience to the minister of France for the purpose of reading a letter from the King to Congress announcing the birth of a dauphin, and on May 7 had adopted the ceremony for the occasion.
9 May - Letter from the Secretary of Congress to the Superintendent of Finance: "Sir, It is the desire of Congress that the table before the president and the tables before the Members be covered with green cloth on the day of the public Audience..."
12 May - Seating arrangement of the guests drawn up by Secretary Livingston:
"The Order in which the Guests shall sit at the entertainment given tomorrow by Congress shall be as follows...The president of Congress on a Chair in the center. The Minister of France on his right hand on a Chair; the Members of Congress in equal divisions on each side of him. The president and executive Council of Pennsylvania on the right of Congress, on the left, the Principals of three great executive Departments, (except the Secretary for foreign Affairs, who as Master of the Ceremonies shall sit opposite to the President of Congress). The Secretary of the United States in Congress assembled. The Secretary to the Legislation, shall sit on the left hand of the Secretary for foreign Affairs, and the Counsel of his left. The eldest General Officer on the right of the Secretary for foreign Affairs. The Genl. Officers Treasurer, Comptroller, and the Auditor General, and foreigners of distinction on his right and left without designation of Rank. The remainder of the Company seating themselves without and particular attention to rank. Governor Morris Esq. will do the honors at the Table at one end, Major Jackson at the other, Lewis Morris Esq. at the side of the table which is opposite and the farthest from the President." -- Papers of the Continental Congress, no. 79, vol. II, f. 197.
13 May - The Secretary of Congress, Report. Report contains descriptions of the arrangement of the room and details the protocol of the formal ceremony.
  • House arrangement: "The house was arranged in the following order--The President in a chair on a platform raised two steps from the floor with a large table before him. The members of Congress in chair son the floor to his right and left with small tables before them. The tables were all covered with green cloth...[Referring to the number of delegates present] The whole in a semi-circle...Next to the Members of Congress on the left of the chair stood the principals of the three executive departments namely the Superintendant of finance the Sec'ry at War and the Sec'ry for foreign affairs. The Secretary of the United States in Congress assembled stood on the right of the president on the first step of the platform. At his right on the floor stood the interpreter behind the chairs of the Members. The president and council of the State of Pennsylvania stood within the bar on the right as they entered and facing the president. The rest of the audience stood without the bar.
  • Protocol: "The Minister was conducted into the Congress Hall by the two members who had received him at the foot of the steps of the outward door. As he entered the bar the president and the house rose, the president being covered. The Minister as he advanced to his chair bowed to the president who took off his hat and returned the bow. The Minister being uncovered. The Minister then bowed to the members, on each side of the chair, who were standing uncovered but did not return the bow. The Minister then sat down and put on his Hat. A chair was prepared for him on the floor directly opposite the president and before it a table covered with green cloth. On each side of his chair was placed for the members and the Minister all took their seats at the same time..."[15]


It is my considered opinion based on the probable seating arrangement (with desks/writing tables provided by the Senate (in their possession since 1777-there were 15 Senators) that made for the “prettyest room”  in America) that the desks and chairs remained in the room with the observers above in the balcony and lining each side of the room.[16] The seated congressmen probably were arranged geographically with the states allotted one desk, seats as needed grouped around, lining each side of a central aisle in a room that was said by Charles Willson Peale to be about 45 foot square.  Following the congressional protocol of  voting by state and signing such important documents as the Articles of Confederation in geographical sequence, New Hampshire would have the lead desk to the left of the President, ending with Pennsylvania at their desk on the President’s right.  The desks may have been angled towards the central aisle, but there would have been only two rows with a center aisle.  Such an arrangement coincides with New Jersey Congressman Samuel Dick’s account of his own seating assignment the following summer, although he meant southwest corner and not northwest:


-I have not wrote any thing these two Minutes--my station at this Northwest Window of the Congress Room is not favourable to such a strict adherence to this Important Subject as it Merits. Any Digression you will do me the Justice I am perswaded with your usual Candor to attribute to the great variety of alluring Objects which prevent. That Young Lady with the Crimson [...] and that with the Green, [...] another blast and [...] the colour of her Garters walk this Windy Day on purpose to distract my attention.[17]


As the protocol created by the protocol committee required, Washington would have sat in a chair directly in front of the clerk’s desk flanked by two aides, with the President on the dias (seated) and the Secretary standing at his side.


The two best accounts of the actual ceremony are well known and available off of http:/mdstatehouse.net.  Congressman Tilton’s is the fullest and James McHenry’s (himself a member of the protocol committee and a former Aide to whom Washington gave the manuscript copy of his address now owned by the Maryland State Archives) the most moving.  From them it is clear that Washington arrived at noon and went directly to his chair following the protocol to the letter.  After giving his remarks, handing in his commission, and listening to the rather stilted response from President Mifflin, he retired to the Committee Room until all visitors were cleared, returned to the room, and left for an afternoon meal at South River before heading back to Mount Vernon.



Notes:

1.  See http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed63.htm, Federalist No. 63: If reason condemns the suspicion, the same sentence is pronounced by experience. The constitution of Maryland furnishes the most apposite example. The Senate of that State is elected, as the federal Senate will be, indirectly by the people, and for a term less by one year only than the federal Senate. It is distinguished, also, by the remarkable prerogative of filling up its own vacancies within the term of its appointment, and, at the same time, is not under the control of any such rotation as is provided for the federal Senate. There are some other lesser distinctions, which would expose the former to colorable objections, that do not lie against the latter. If the federal Senate, therefore, really contained the danger which has been so loudly proclaimed, some symptoms at least of a like danger ought by this time to have been betrayed by the Senate of Maryland, but no such symptoms have appeared. On the contrary, the jealousies at first entertained by men of the same description with those who view with terror the correspondent part of the federal Constitution, have been gradually extinguished by the progress of the experiment; and the Maryland constitution is daily deriving, from the salutary operation of this part of it, a reputation in which it will probably not be rivalled by that of any State in the Union.

2. Thomas Johnson was elected the first Governor of Maryland prior to the completion of the third state house. The General Assembly was still meeting in the second, or "old" state house at the time of Johnson's election. Confirmation of this is evident in the reference to the use of the "conference room" for counting the votes. The official declaration of the first Governor of Maryland took place in the second State House. The first inauguration of the Governor of Maryland took place on the grounds of the State House Hill near the location of the South Portico of the current State House. It  has long been argued that both of the Peale illustrations do not show the "Old Armory" as some have claimed, but rather the second State House with the armory barely visible behind.. Analysis of the first inauguration of Governor Thomas Johnson provides support for this assessment.  See: http://statehouse.msa.maryland.gov/description.cfm?item=7&serno=1,  When the order was given to John Shaw to tear down the Armory in 1796, it is clear that it was formerly the old council chamber that had been given for the use of Anne Arundel County and Annapolis, leaving the Old State House as the Anne Arundel County Courthouse. See: http://statehouse.msa.maryland.gov/description.cfm?item=32&serno=1,
 

4. See the proceedings for 1777.  The comings and goings of the Senators is apparent from the proceedings.  They generally, but not always maintained a working majority as required but the total number rose and fell during the course of the session.  For example see: http://aomol.msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc4800/sc4872/003185/html/m3185-0078.html

 5. During the war members of the Senate were also members of the Council of Safety and both could not be in session at the same time so the Senate convened between 3 and 5 p.m. at a time when the sun set at 5 p.m. (see: http://aomol.msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc4800/sc4872/003185/html/m3185-0016.html).

6. see http://aomol.msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000025/html/am25--504.html, cited by Morris Radoff, Buildings of the State of Maryland at Annapolis, 1954, p. 51.  Dr. Radoff confuses the second statehouse with the old Armory.  The Armory was added to the back of the second statehouse and served as the upper house chamber when the Council  to the governor served as the upper house.

7. http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5200/sc5287/000006/000000/000021/restricted/mhm_14_v3_rebecca_key.pdf. Note that Dr. Papenfuse has found Rebecca Key’s memories to be accurate in most
details including her story of the ‘re­discovered’ charter of Annapolis which confirmed the palimpsest which
he discovered  and documented.  The old state house was not initially torn down when the Assembly moved
to its new quarters in 1779 and was used as the Arundel County courthouse until the new one was built on
Church Circle.  She is also the eyewitness who relates her father’s incorporation of the two chandeliers into
the ‘Assembly’ or Old State House when they were confiscated from Governor Eden’s storage at the
Governor’s residence on the Naval Academy grounds. 

 8.  see the proceedings of the Senate available on http://aomol.net 

9. Carl N. Everstine, The General Assembly of Maryland 1776­1850, 1982, p. 15.

 10. William Voss Elder III and Lou Bartlett,  John Shaw Cabinetmaker of Annapolis, Baltimore: Baltimore
Museum of Art, 1983, pp. 66­67, Robert Wilson, “Wye Island,” Lippincott’s Magazine for Popular Literature
and Science,  vol. 19, April 1877, p. 470, and William Voss Elder, III, Maryland Queen Anne and
Chippendale Furniture of the Eighteenth Century, Baltimore: Baltimore Museum of Art, 1968.

 11.  http://aomol.msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc4800/sc4872/003185/html/m3185­0015.html.

 12. see http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/stagsere/se1/se14/000014/html/ecp10_278.html.  The quote is
from the Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser for Tuesday, September 30, 1783.

 13.   8 November [1777] ­ John Shaw paid 254 pounds 11 shillings and 3 pence. One of many such entries.
(GOVERNOR AND COUNCIL (Proceedings) 1777­1779. MSA S 1071­23. Archives of Maryland Volume 16, Page
412.) http://statehouse.msa.maryland.gov/description.cfm?item=7&serno=1

14.  see: FURNISHING THE RESTORED SENATE CHAMBER, [2014] for details.  The report is available on line at mdstatehouse.net, a research web site that I designed and contributed to over my years as Archivist.  As to the weather, it was so cold, dark, and dreary that the supply of windsor chairs ordered for the use of Congress got held up by the ice in the Bay.

15  http://statehouse.msa.maryland.gov/description.cfm?item=2&serno=69.

16. http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5200/sc5287/000001/000000/000009/unrestricted/congress_letters_williamson_to_blout_1783.pdf.

17  http://statehouse.msa.maryland.gov/description.cfm?item=12&serno=68.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)