(PDF) Maryland Historical Magazine, 1957, Volume 52, Issue No. 1msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5800/sc5881/000001/00… · NOTES AND QUERIES, 89, 170, 260, 363 KENT ISLAND, PART

MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

Design for the Chapel of St. Mary's Seminary at Baltimore, 1807

By Maximilian Godefroy

MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY

March • 1951 BALTIMORE

You CAN JUDGE FOR YOURSELF

If you are considering a trust for the future benefit of your family, why not place some of your assets in a Living Trust with the First National Bank—while you are here to watch our per- formance?

The income may be paid to you or to anyone you name. You can change or end the agreement at any time. Meanwhile, it will give you an excellent opportunity to observe and judge for yourself how satisfactory such an arrangement is.

Ask your lawyer to explain the legal requirements. One of our Trust Officers will gladly talk with you about the financial and business aspects of such a trust. We believe you will find it well

worth investigating.

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BALTIMORE

Capital and Surplus $20,000,000 Member: Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

/>?5/? 5c <5%gl~l-ao5

MARYLAND

HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

PUBLISHED BY

THE MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY

VOLUME LII

BALTIMORE

1957

CONTENTS OF VOLUME LII

PAGE

MAXIMILIAN AND ELIZA GODEFROY. Dorothy Mackay Quynn, .... 1

OLD WYE MILLS, 1690-1956. Edwin M. Barry, 35

THE BATTLE OF SOUTH MOUNTAIN. Warren W. Hassler, jr., 39

THE CHESAPEAKE POTTERY COMPANY. Nancy R. FitzPatrick, 65

SIDELIGHTS, 72, 153, 245, 343

REVIEWS OF RECENT BOOKS 81, 157, 252, 349

NOTES AND QUERIES, 89, 170, 260, 363

KENT ISLAND, PART I: THE PERIOD OF SETTLEMENT. Erich Isaac, ... 93

HENRI HERZ' DESCRIPTION OF BALTIMORE. Edited by Henry Bertram Hill and Larry Cara, 120

REMINISCENCES OF JUDGE RICHARD ALVEY. Alexander Armstrong, . . . 124

THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT IN ST. MARY'S COUNTY IN THE WAR OF

1812. Arthur Hecht, 142

GEORGE WILLIAM BROWN AND HIS INFLUENCE ON THE JOHNS HOPKINS

UNIVERSITY. Hugh D. Hawkins, ^173

GUNPOWDER PRODUCTION IN POST-REVOLUTIONARY MARYLAND. Arlan K. Gilbert, 187

EVESHAM, A BALTIMORE VILLA. Bryden Bordley Hyde, 202

KENT ISLANTD, PART II: SETTLEMENT AND LAND HOLDING UNDER THE

PROPRIETARY. Erich Isaac, 210

KENT ISLAND, PART III: KENT FORT MANOR. Erich Isaac, 225

LAFAYETTE'S LETTERS TO ELIZA RIDGELY OF HAMPTON. Edited by James

W. Foster, 233

MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY REPORT FOR 1956 263

BRANTZ MAYER, MAN OF LETTERS. ]erry E. Patterson, 275

UNION MILLS, THE SHRIVER HOMESTEAD. Frederic Shriver Klein, . . . 290

DANIEL DEFOE AND MARYLAND. George E. Gifford, Jr., 307

JOHN SURRATT AND THE LINCOLN ASSASSINATION PLOT. Alfred Isacsson, . 316

ILLUSTRATIONS

PAGE

Design for the Chapel of St. Mary's Seminary at Baltimore, 1807, By Maximilian Godefroy, Cover, March

(The original sketch in water color of St. Mary's Chapel by Maximilian Godefroy is owned by the Maryland Historical Society. The plan was modified in execution. The tower was not built, brick was used instead of stucco, and the statues were never placed in the niches.)

Maximilian Godefroy, by Rembrandt Peale opp. 1 Wye Mills before Restoration (1950), opp. 35 South Mountain, 44

Majolica Made by the Chesapeake Pottery Company, .... opp. 70 Kent Island, Winchester Creek, Cover, June Kent Island, opp. 104 Judge Richard Henry Alvey, opp. 128 Evesham, A Baltimore Villa, Cover, Sept. Evesham in 1895, betw. 206-207 Entrance Hall, betw. 206-207 Living Room betw. 206-207 The Library in 1900 and 1957, betw. 206-207 Front Stairway, betw. 206-207 South Bedroom, betw. 206-207 Second Floor Hall Showing Cast-iron Spiral Stair, About 1850, . betw. 206-207 First Floor Plan of Evesham, betw. 206-207 Holdings on Kent Fort Manor, 227 Union Mills, Carroll County, Cover, Dec. Union Mills, betw. 302-30} Views of Union Mills, Looking North and West betw. 302-30} Rear of Union Mills, betw. }02-}0} The Mill, betw. 302-30} Fireplace in West Wing, betw. 302-30} Parlor or " Dance Hall," betw. 302-303 Franklin Stove, betw. 302-30} Sundial, betw. 302-303 Post Office Room betw. 302-303 Second Floor Hallway, betw. 302-303

IN 1897— when we were 18 years old

400 merchants from North Carolina arrived in Baltimore to do their fall shopping—August 25. Next day 1100 more from various Southern states reached the city, all "" hospitably enter- tained."

The Juniata of the Merchants and Miners Line was launched at Wilmington, Del.—Sept. 2.

A protest against annexation of Hawaii, signed by 20,000 residents of the islands, reached Washington—Dec. 10.

Congress appropriated $200,000 for the relief of gold hunters in the Yukon and Klondike regions. The War Dept. was to send provisions by the reindeer express lines—Dec. 18.

The Relay Hotel, at Relay on the Patapsco River, burned— Dec. 24.

Now as then, with 60 more years of experience behind it, Monumental is equipped to handle all kinds of packing, moving and storing.

Modern vans and trucks, together with experienced personnel, insure the competent handling of all orders.

Monumental's plant has kept pace with the times . . . A large, daylight plant is devoted exclusively to rug cleaning and storage, with departments for repairing and dyeing.

A reinforced concrete, sprinkler-protected warehouse contains vaults for household effects . . , storage and burglar-proof vaults for art objects and silver.

Rely on the experience and integrity of 7} years

onumentai STORAGE AND CARPET CLEANING COMPANY 1110 PARK AVE. » SARATOGA 3480 MOVING • STORAGE « RUG CLEANING

One of t oldest

MS BSST ways

to save!

\ IS

Popular since 1831, this safe and more profitable plan is the fastest growing meth- od of building personal say- ings in Amer- ica today.

Try it yourself -—you'B see!

PLUS

MODERN CONVENIENCE

SAFETY and

HIGH EARNINGS

•fr THREE DRIVE-IN-WINDOWS

it 3 minutes from downtown traffic

it FREE PARKING LOT

•& SPEEDY SAVE-by-MAIL

it SAVINGS INSURED to |I0,000

-£r LIBERAL DIVIDENDS twice yearly

FRATERNITY FEDERAL

SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION 764 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD

BALTIMORE 30, MARYLAND

X mo tin

TOf XfOfll

nflravmfl;

iratns

And JV)fl

\jtialoas 3 3' azmes

n. ADVERTISERS ENGRAVING COMPANY

501-509 EAST PRESTON STREET MUlberry 5-2357 5-2358

Flatter your home with truly dU- tinctive creations for less money than you ever dreamed.

TRADITIONAL FURNITURE

* CURTAINS

DRAPERIES

SLIP COVERS

Decorator service without cost.

Estimates without obligation.

Wm. P. Stein Inc.

409 North Charles Street

Phone: LEx. 9-3384

A Sequel to

Early Manor and Plantation

Houses of Maryland

Illustrated with photographs,

drawings and floor plans sketched by the author.

<LA delightful illustrated record of old Maryland homes

TIDEWATER MARYLAND

ARCHITECTURE AND GARDENS ''Phis beautifully designed book, by an historian and

architect, presents a vanishing civilization which flourished on both sides of the Chesapeake Bay for the past 300 year*. A wide range of structure* is depicted, from manors and churches to gaols and dairies and belvederes. Early styles of lovely old Maryland homes are illustrated —the Medieval, Jacobean, Transitional and Georgian— as are some of the loveliest gardens in America. Architects and antiquarians, historians, and all who love the charm of authentic Americana will want to own this unique and authoritative volume. $10.00

At your bookseller, or write

ARCHITECTURAL BOOK PUBLISHING CO, INC. 883 First Avenue, New York 22, N. Y.

Will complete papers for applicants

SONS OF THE REVOLUTION^

SONS OF THE

AMERICAN REVOLUTION

DAUGHTERS OF THE

AMERICAN REVOLUTION

and

conduct related investigations

|| JAMES GRAHAM MARSTON, M. D. I 516 CATHEDRAL STREET

BALTIMORE 1, MD.

SPECIALIZING IN

AMERICANA BOOKS ON

AMERICAN HISTORY CENEALOGY-LOCAL HISTORY

BOUGHT AND SOLD

i CATALOGUES ISSUED {

FREE UPON REQUEST |

SOUTHERN BOOK CO. ST. JAMES HOTEL

CHARLES STREET AT CENTER

BALTIMORE 1, MD.

SAratoga 7-2445

Paul J. Eisel Old and Desirable Books

M A R Y L A ND

AMERICAN SCENE

GE N E R A L

BOUGHT & SOLD

1015 N. CHARLES ST.

PL 2-5374 BALTIMORE 1, MD.

Catalogues Issued

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

BENEFACTORS AND CONTRIBUTORS TO THE FUNDS OF THE SOCIETY

Mary Washington Keyser, 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.

Elise Agnus Daingerfield, Bequest, 1949 $154,248.00 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. A. Morris Tyson, Bequest, 1956, $107.20, and a substantial legacy not

yet accrued. 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.

George Peabody, 1866 20,000.00 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 8,632.36 Prewitt Semmes, 1954, $5,650.00; R. Charles Danehower, 1955, $2,500.00;

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

gifts 6,250.00 Mendes Cohen, Bequest, 1915 5,000.00 Caroline J. Lytle, Bequest, 1928 5,000.00 A. S. Abell Company, 1956, For Brewington Maritime Collection 5,000.00 Josephine Cushing Morris, Bequest, 1956 5,000.00 Mary B. Redwood, Bequest, 1941 4,378.43 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 oi Edward B. Passano for purchase of

books 3,000.00 John E. Semmes, For Studies in Maryland History, 1953 2,726.14 Jacob France 2,550.00 Anonymous 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 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 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

Samuel K. Dennis, Bequest, 1953 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 Henry Stockbridge 1,000.00 DeCourcy W. Thorn 1,000.00 Mrs. W. Calvin Chesnut, Bequest, 1942 1,000.00 S. Bernard November, Bequest, 1956 1.000.00 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 Maryland Society Colonial Dames of America, For restoration of manu-

scripts 748.55 Moses S. and Blanch H. Hecht Foundation 712.00 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 J. Oilman D'Arcy Paul 570.00 Mrs. William R. Milford, For Amelung goblet 553.00 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 J. Appleton Wilson 500.00 William Power Wilson 500.00 Society of the Cincinnati in Maryland 500.00 Charles McHenry Howard 433.33 Mrs. Harold Duane Jacobs 400.00 Maryland Society Daughters of Founders and Patriots of America, For

restoration of manuscripts 361.00 Maryland Society Daughters of Colonial Wars 360.00 Miss Ethel M. Miller 350.00 McHenry Howard 333.34 Mrs. Mildred Siege!, 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 Mrs. Brantz Mayer Roszel, Bequest, 1954 300.00 Miles White, Jr 300.00 Miss Virginia App;eton Wilson 300.00 Calvert Distillers Corporation, For cleaning portrait 275.86 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 gilts 250.00 Joseph E. Smith 230.00 Mrs. William S. Hilles 240.00 Bryden Bordley Hyde 200.00 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 Nellie C. Williams 200.00 Miss Margaret Myrtle Lankford 200.00 Maryland Daughters of American Revolution Chapters 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 $100.00 each either to the Endowment Fund or for other purposes:

Philip A. Beatty R. C. Hoflfman Robert G. Merrick Mrs. Harvey G. Beck Bryden Bordley Hyde John H. Morgan Mrs. A. B. Bibbins Henry P. Hynson F. C. Nicodemus, Jr. John E. Bordley Hutzler Fund, Inc. S. Bernard November Fred G. Boyce, Jr. William Ingle Florence Belle Ogg Miss Grace Birmingham Jane Griffith Keys Pratt D. Phillips Mrs. Zelina C. Brunschwig Joseph LaPides Katherine Bibb Stehman John G. Buck Mrs. Rebecca Littlejohn Bernard C. Steiner Mrs. Stockton Buzby Mrs. James H. Lovell Wilbur Van Sant Milton Campbell Maryland Credit Finance Washington County His- Alexander S. Cochran Corporation torical Society Charles M. Cohn Henry deCourcy May Mrs. George Weems Mrs. Virginia B. Davies McCormick & Co. Williams Alexander E. Duncan Elizabeth Grant Mcllvain John Purdon Wright Eastern Shore Society of Carl Ross McKenrick

Baltimore City

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

Lawrence 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 11, 1957

J. HALL PLEASANTS

Corresponding Secretary WILLIAM B. MARYE

President GEORGE L. RADCLIFFB

V ice-Presidents LAURENCE HALL FOWLER

Treasurer SAMUEL HOPKINS

J. OILMAN D'ARCY PAUL

Recording Secretary W. HALL HARRIS, JR.

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

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

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

THOMAS F. CADWALADER ROBERT GARRETT

Committee on the Gallery JOHN HENRY SCARFF, Chairman

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

BENJAMIN H. GRISWOLD, III L. MANUEL HENDLER

CHARLES A. BARKER J JOSEPH KATZ

Committee on the Library G. ROSS VEAZEY, Chairman

THOMAS G. MACHEN DR. HUNTINGTON WILLIAMS

Committee on Finance JACOB FRANCE, Chairman

Committee on Publications HALL PLEASANTS. Chairman

CHARLES C. WALLACE JOHN CAMPBELL WHITB

HOOPER S. MILES THOMAS S. NICHOLS

ROBERT G. MERRICK HARRISON TILGHMAN

Committee on Membership MISS ELIZABETH CHEW WILLIAMS, Chairman

WILLIAM J. CASEY JOHN P. PACA, JR. GEORGE W. CONSTABLE HAMILTON OWENS

CHARLES P. CRANE Committee on Addresses

RICHARD F. CLEVELAND JOHN E. SEMMES, Chairman

JOHN L. THOMAS NEIL H. SWANSON

MRS. HENRY ZOLLBR, JR.

HENRY E. TREIDE

GARY BLACK ROGER BROOKE HOPKINS

Committee on War Records JOHN T. MENZIES, Chairman

HON DR. JOHN MCF. BERGLAND MISS JULIA MCHENRY HOWARD

Commitee on Education W. CALVIN CHESNUT, Chairman

HOWARD W. JACKSON J. RIEMAN MCINTOSH

DR. BRYDEN BORDLEY HYDB ST. GEORGE L. SIOUSSAT

PHILIP A. CARROLL MRS. FRANK M. DICK

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

MRS. WILLIAM S. HILLES MISS VIRGINIA APPLETON WILSON

Committee on the Maritime Collection WILLIAM CALVF.RT STEUART G. H. POUDER, Chairman MARION V. BREWINGTON R. HAMMOND GIBSON S. VAN NORT CHAPMAN WILLIAM C. KNAPP CHARLES S. GARLAND RICHARD H. RANDALL

RALPH J. ROBINSON CHARLES E. SCARLETT

JOHN M. WILLIS H. GRAHAM WOOD

JAMES W. FOSTER, Director

ANTHONY EDEN Honorary Members

LOUIS H. DIELMAN

MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

VOL. 52, No. 1 MARCH, 1957

CONTENTS PAGE

Maximilian and Eliza Godefroy Dorothy Mackay Quynn 1

The Old Wye Mills, 1690-1956 . . . Edwin M. Barry 35

The Battle of South Mountain . . Warren W. Hassler, Jr. 39

The Chesapeake Pottery Company . Nancy R. FitzPatrick 65

Sidelights 72

Naval Considerations in the Location of the National Capital Marshall Smelser

Additional Nicholite Records . . Kenneth L. Carroll

Reviews of Recent Books 81

Smith, James Wilson, by Ellen Hart Smith Stephenson, The South Lives in History, by Robert P. Sharkey Henry, As They Saw Forrest; Wood, Reminiscences of Big I,

by C. A. Porter Hopkins Fecher, Movement for German National Parishes in Philadel-

phia and Baltimore (1787-1802), by Klaus G. Wust

Notes and Queries 89

Contributors 91

COVER

The original sketch in water color of St. Mary's Chapel by Maximilian Godefroy is owned by the Maryland Historical Society. The plan was modified in execution. The tower was not built, brick was used instead of stucco, and the statues were never placed in the niches.

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

FRANCIS C. HABER, 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 local historical items; the Archives of Maryland and volumes of the series " Maryland in World War II " under the authority of the State; and the series of books entitled " Studies in Maryland History."

Annual dues of the Society are $8 and up, life membership $150. Subscription to the Magazine and to the quarterly news bulletin, Maryland History Notes, is 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 4. June 15 to Sept. 15, daily 9 to 4, Saturday, 9 to 1.

JUST PUBLISHED—by the Society

ARCHIVES OF MARYLAND, VOLUME LXVII

PROCEEDINGS OF THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MARYLAND,

1677-78

Price $5 — members $3. Add 254 for mailing and 2% Maryland sales tax where applicable.

WANTED

Antiques Magazine, issues for Jan. 1922, Jan. 1923 to Mar. 1926, July 1927, Nov. 1946.

National Geographic Magazine, issues from 1888 to 1910 and scattered issues thereafter.

Maryland Historical Magazine, all issues but especially the early ones.

Please notify the Secretary of the Maryland Historical Society.

MAXIMILIAN GODEFROY

Oil Portrait by Rembrandt Peale. Owned by the Peabody Institute, on loan to the Maryland Historical Society.

MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

A Quarterly

Volume 52 MARCH, 1957 Number 1

MAXIMILIAN AND ELIZA GODEFROY

By DOROTHY MACKAY QUYNN

WHEN the ship Ceres pulled away from the Baltimore wharves on August 27, 1819, she carried among her pas-

sengers a bitter and disappointed family en route to England, and, they hoped, to a change in their fortunes. They were Maxi- milian Godefroy, the French architect who had lived and worked in Baltimore, his wife, nee Eliza Crawford, and her daughter Eliza Polly Spear Anderson, born of a former marriage. Scarcely had they started down the Bay, when the daughter fell sick, died, and was buried in a hastily dug grave on the shore.1 The Ceres proceeded on her voyage and eventually reached England. The story of the troubles of the Godefroys was well known in Balti- more in their day, and it has attracted some attention in our own.

1 A detailed account of this tragedy appeared in the Federal Gazette and Baltimore Daily Advertiser, Sept. 27, 1819-

2 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

However, until recently there have been few documents available to give us details, and these had emanated chiefly from the Gode- froys themselves, with their version of the story. New documents now make it possible to get a balanced picture, but they tend to lessen the degree of sympathy which has hitherto been lavished on this interesting couple.

The Maryland Historical Magazine has published three articles on the story of the Godefroys, two in 1934 and one seven years later.2 All three deal primarily with their later life, but Miss Davison included a summary of Godefroy's architectural achievements in America and a brief statement of the literary production of Eliza Godefroy. No effort was made by the authors to investigate French sources, except for one inquiry to the Mayor of Laval, the city in France where the Godefroys spent their last years together, nor is there a record of their having undertaken any searches in the Archives Nationales in Paris, the Departmental Archives at Rennes and Laval, and the Archives of the General Staff of the French Army at Vincennes. Hoyt and others have used the Warden papers in the Maryland Historical Society, and his article, the third of those mentioned above, is based on letters in this collection. No one had used the most revealing of all the sources, the letters of Eliza Godefroy and of Edward Patterson to Madame Patterson-Bonaparte in the Bonaparte Collection at the Maryland Historical Society. Upon discovery of these letters, the present writer investigated French sources, and can now supply a somewhat different and more complete version of the story.

From Miss Davison's study, and from the records of the First Presbyterian Church of Baltimore, we know that Eliza Crawford, daughter of the famous Dr. John Crawford, had married Henry Anderson in Baltimore on October 23, 1199,s and that they had a daughter, Eliza Polly Spear Anderson, born October 24, 1800.

* Carolina V. Davison, " Maximilian and Eliza Godefroy " in MdHM, XXIX (1934), 1-20, 175-212. The second of these articles contains an account of his life written much later, probably in the 1830,s, by Godefroy. The French text is published with a translation into English by Professor Gilbert Chinard, who collaborated with Miss Davison in seeking information from France. A much longer version of this memoir by Godefroy is to be found in the Archives Nationales in Paris, MS F18 638 B. The third article is by W. D. Hoyt, "Eliza Godefroy: Destiny's Foot-ball,•• MdHM, XXXVI (1941), 10-21.

'MdHM, XXIX, 4-11; 179-183; Records of the First Presbyterian Church of Baltimore, copy in MdHS.

MAXIMILIAN AND ELIZA GODEFROY 3

Henry Anderson disappeared from the scene shortly thereafter, and it has been assumed that he had died, leaving a young widow with an infant to support.4 Miss Davison proved that, in addition to being the author of several translations from the French,5 Eliza Crawford Anderson, under the nom de plume of Beatrice Ironside, had first been associate editor of the Companion and Weekly Miscellany, published November 3, 1804, to October 25, 1806, and then editor of its successor, the Observer, November 29, 1806, to December 26, 1807. It was established that Eliza Anderson had married Maximilian Godefroy on December 29, 1808, Gode- froy being described as a '" French political refugee," who had been teaching drawing at St. Mary's College since December, 1805. At the time of his residence in Baltimore, the reasons for his emigration were not known in America. He was thought to have held both a title of nobility and officer's rank in the old Royal Army of France. Benjamin Henry Latrobe, his friend and col- league, believed him to be an officer of considerable experience and a man of noble birth. He referred to him as the Count La Mard.6

For reasons not clear in any of the documents used for the above- mentioned articles, the fortunes of the Godefroys declined, and they left Baltimore for England on August 27, 1819. They lived in England until 1827, and then went to France, where Godefroy eventually found work. His wife died on October 2, 1839, at Laval, their home in the department of the Mayenne.7 Very little has been known of their life there, and there is no word of him at all after the announcement of his wife's death.

We now know that Eliza Godefroy was born in London, June 28, 1780, and that her mother's maiden name was O'Donnell.8

Her father. Dr. John Crawford, had settled in Baltimore after

^ MdHM, XIX, 5. ". . . one may hazard a guess that, in the years that followed her husband's death, the young widow and mother was prostrated by her grief."

B Dangerous friendship: or the letters of Clara d'Albe translated from the French by a lady of Baltimore (from Sophie Cottin, Clara d'Albe) ; also Military reflections on four modes of defense for the United States . . . translated by Eliza Anderson, by Max . . . [imilian Godefroy], both published in Baltimore, 1807.

"Talbot Hamlin, Benjamin Henry Latrobe (New York, 1955), pp. 385-6- MdHM, XXIX, 11, 13.

7 Formal letter of announcement sent by Godefroy to an American friend, Ebenezer Jackson, published by Miss Davison, MdHM, XXIX, 20.

8 Laval, France, Archives departementales. Archives de la ville de Laval, Actes de Deces, 1839.

4 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

a long career in the East India Company and in the West Indies. From the time of his arrival in Baltimore, about 1796, until his death in 1813, he enjoyed considerable prominence in Baltimore and Philadelphia.9 Her mother was a sister of John O'Donnell,10

which is said to account for the settlement of the Crawfords in Baltimore. Mrs. Crawford supposedly died during a voyage to England in 1782, four years after her marriage and two years after Eliza's birth.11 Between 1790 and 1794, Dr. Crawford had spent some time in Holland and in what was then a Dutch colony, Demerara in Guiana. He apparently did a great deal of traveling. His daughter may have been with him, unless she was left somewhere at school. Wherever her childhood was spent, she somehow gained an excellent command of French, a language her father also spoke well. Perhaps they were in one of the French colonies. We know from her correspondence years later that she had at that time never been in France.

It is now clear that Eliza Anderson was not a widow, but that her husband Henry Anderson had deserted her, and that she knew him to be alive. His disappearance seems to have occurred in 1801, when he was no longer listed in the Baltimore Directory. He and his brother John lost their mercantile business through bankruptcy in April and May of that year.12

Eliza Crawford Anderson accompanied the famous Betsy Pat- terson when the latter sailed with her husband, Jerome Bonaparte, on March 10, 1805, on the ill-fated journey which ended in their separation. Jerome and his wife had hoped to win recognition of their marriage. They had made several previous attempts to sail, and on at least one occasion, a cousin of Madame Bonaparte had accompanied them, in order to provide a suitable companion for Betsy in case Jerome should find it impossible to be with her.13

When they finally got off in March, 1805, they were desperately

' Julia E. Wilson in Bulletin of the School of Medicine, University of Maryland XXV, 116-119.

10 Hall of Records, Annapolis, Md., Baltimore Wills, 7, fol. 448-451, probated Oct. 9, 1805. Mr. Roger Thomas, Senior Archivist, very generously examined this will for me and sent the necessary notes. My thanks are due to him and to the Archivist, Dr. Morris RadofF, for this kindness.

11 Miss Wilson in Bulletin, XXV, 124-5. 1:1 Baltimore Court House, Court Proceedings, 1801, fol. 639-41. 11 Jerome's hopes of reconciliation with his brother, now Emperor of France, may

not have been at ail optimistic. The fact also had to be taken into consideration that Jerome was a naval officer subject to orders for sea duty and long absences at any time.

MAXIMILIAN AND ELI2A GODEFROY 5

hoping to reach France in time for the birth on French soil of their expected child. They were accompanied by William Patter- son, elder brother of Madame Bonaparte, by Jerome's personal physician, and by Eliza Anderson, in addition to several servants.11

We do not know how Mrs. Anderson happened to be selected. She was perhaps a distant relative, or at least a family friend of long standing. She was an experienced sailor, for she had traveled with her father. Most important of all, she knew French well.13

As it turned out, the party was unable to land anywhere on the continent. On arrival in Lisbon, Jerome was obliged to go on alone to see his brother, while the other passengers continued, first to Amsterdam, where they were also turned away, then finally to Dover, where they were permitted to land. The doctor left them shortly, but Madame Bonaparte, her brother, and Mrs. Anderson settled in Camberwell, near London, where the child was born on July 7, 1805.16 As Madame Bonaparte had no success in her efforts to get in touch with her husband, the family were at a loss as to their plans. Mrs. Anderson wanted to return home, probably because she heard the news that her uncle, John O'Don- nell, had died and had remembered her in his will.17 She was prevailed upon to stay, in order not to leave the young mother alone, should Betsy's brother decide to go to France himself to try to see Jerome.18 Then it was suddenly decided not to stay on, and the whole party returned in the brig Mars, leaving September 25, and arriving in Baltimore after a long and disagreeable winter voyage on November 13, 1805.19

The trip with Madame Bonaparte occupied Mrs. Anderson from March 10 to November 13, 1805. It is thus manifestly im-

11 An account of this voyage was published by D. M. Quynn and F. F. White in MdHM, XLVIII (1953), 204-214.

15 All of her letters to Madame Bonaparte give evidence of intimacy with the family, and her child bore the family name of Madame Bonaparte's mother. That she knew French extremely well is demonstrated in her letters. Although we have no proof that she at that time had fluency in the spoken language, this is probable. She translated well enough for publication, and her French in her letters was grammatically correct.

18 In an elaborate certificate attesting the birth, Mrs. Anderson's name appears as a witness. (MdHS, Bonaparte Papers, Birth certificate of Jerome Napoleon Bonaparte).

"Hall of Records, Baltimore Wills, 7, fol. 448-451. 18 W. T. R. Saffell, The Bonaparte-Patterson Marriage (Philadelphia, 1873),

p. 208. "Federal Gazette, Nov. 13, 1805.

6 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

possible for her to have been an active partner in the editing of the Companion and Weekly Miscellany for the whole period of its life. She had left four months after the journal began to appear, which suggests that she was not in the beginning necessary to its functioning. Returning on November, 1805, she could have collaborated on it for eleven months before taking over completely as editor of its successor, the Observer, which continued to appear through the month of December, 1807. It has been assumed that financial problems brought about the death of the Observer, as reference to this was made by the editor herself in announcing it. One possible contributing factor has been overlooked; Eliza An- derson had brought out, in the course of the year 1807, a translation from the French of a popular novel, Sophie Cottin's Claire d'Albe, which appeared in Baltimore under the title. Dangerous friendship, or the letters of Clara d'Albe. This may have provided a little money to permit her to devote herself to other projects. We know from internal evidence in her letters that she had had dealings with a Philadelphia publisher during the following year, but we have no information as to the nature of the work involved, nor have we the name of the publisher.20

It was also during this period that Mrs. Anderson made the acquaintance of Maximilian Godefroy, who published occasionally in the Observer, and who wrote a treatise on American military defense which Mrs. Anderson translated into English in the course of the year.21

The man known in America as Maximilian Godefroy arrived in New York in the brig Rosa on April 26, 1805. He was then thirty-nine years old.22 He had been born in Paris in 1765 of a Hungarian father, Stephen Godefroy, and a French mother, nee Marie Catherine Boulnez.23 His name had originally been Jean Maur Godefroy, but he had taken the name of Maximilian when he entered the army as a private in a cavalry regiment in 1794.

20 MdHM, XXIX, 5-8, and note 5 above. 11 Note 5 above. " Paris, Archives Nationales, MS F' 6366 dossier 7484. sa The dates and names are taken from official records of his military service

in the archives of the French General Staff at the Chateau de Vincennes. The nationality of the parents is mentioned in one of his wife's letters, Nov. 27, 1836, MdHM, XXIX, 19. Maximilian spelled his name Maximilian, but the " a" has been so often used in the literature about him that no attempt to change the spelling will be made by the writer.

MAXIMILIAN AND ELIZA GODEFROY 7

On September 3, 1803, he was arrested and accused of complicity in one of the many plots which worried the police after the attempt on the life of Napoleon two years earlier. At that time he gave the police a variety of stories about his previous life.2* Some twenty-five years later, he made a number of reports in which he enlarged on the earlier accounts, apparently in order to show that his devotion to the Royalist cause had been constant and unchanging. By combining the two series, we may arrive at some idea of his activities, unfortunately, without being able to successfully estimate degrees of truthfulness.

Godefroy claimed 25 to have been delighted at the Fall of the Bastille and the promulgation of the Constitution of 1791, and also to have been a Royalist in 1789 and a fugitive during the two following years. Curiously, he also claimed to have been one of those who petitioned the King on June, 1792, and to have been wounded in the Battle for the Tuileries on August 10, 1792, although it is not clear on which side he was fighting. Then, for some reason which he fails to give specifically, he says that he was brought before a Revolutionary Tribunal and thrown into prison in 1793. He escaped and hid in Paris until he entered the army in 1794.2e

According to army records, his military service dates from Febru- ary 14, 1794, to September 17, 1795, the date of his discharge.27

He himself reported that he had attempted to desert in 1794 in order to join a Royalist army.28

In less than a month after his army discharge, on October 11, 1795, we find Godefroy established near Beaugency, in the department of the Loiret.29 For fifteen months he worked some lands belonging to a relative, and then left this estate to take over another, also the property of a relative. The police knew about both these jobs,30 but for some reason Godefroy himself never

" Arch. Nat. MS F 6366, doss. 7484. "In his reports 25 years later. Arch. Nat. MS F1' 650; MdHM, XXIX, 176-7. "Arch. Nat. MS F7 6366, doss. 7484; F7 650. We have nothing except

Godefroy's own testimony to support any of these statements except the fact that he finally entered the army in 1794. It should be noted especially that this applies to his account of his arrest and imprisonment in 1793.

27 Vincennes, Arch. Gen. Staff, dossier Godefroy, 5«me reg. Chasseurs a Cheval. 28 Arch. Nat. MS Fla 650. 29 Arch. Nat., Arch. Not., Etude XIII, Allain de la Coeurtiere, Antoine Frangois

Louis, An IV, 19 Vend. 30 Arch. Nat. MS F7 6366, doss. 7484.

8 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

mentioned them, either at the time of his arrest, or in his reports years later. He also fails to mention the next position he held, as well as the fact that a pension was settled on him by a relative.31

He talked instead about the places he held between 1798 and 1803, claiming that he lost each in turn as a result of administrative reorganization. The last of the jobs was that of secretary to the Marquis de Rostaing, a former cavalry officer and an expert on fortifications.

Godefroy was arrested in Paris on September 3, 1803.32 At that time he was living in Paris at 6, rue de la Michodiere, near where the Opera now stands. In his day this was one of the newer residence districts, and Godefroy had moved there a year earlier from the old and crowded Marais district. He had a room on the un- fashionable fifth floor. His arrest was due to police suspicion about his activities in a distant part of Paris, the Faubourg St. Antoine, near the Bastille. Here he was said to be involved with a woman named Boissevin, described as his " friend and accomplice.'33

Apparently she belonged to a group of so-called anarchists who had given trouble to the police. There was definitely something strange about Godefroy's activities, for he was then using three aliases, Maxime, Max, and Bouillon.34 It is difficult to believe that the activities of these people of humble station had reached the level of a conspiracy against the life of Napoleon, or had been carried on with a view to his overthrow. But it seems to be true that Godefroy was in solitary confinement in the Temple for some months, after which he and three others were sent to the Fortress at Bellegarde in the Pyrenees where they arrived July 26, 1804.35

We have reports of his behavior in prison, where he was listed as " ingenieur hydrologue." 36 An account emanating from Belle- garde describes him as spending his time reading and working,

" ibid. 32 ibid. 83 ibid. 84 ibid. 35 Ernest d'Hauterive, La police secrete du Premier Empire: bulletins quotidiens

adresses par Vouche a 1'Empereur, 1804-1803 (Paris, 1908), I, 19, 60. Bellegarde was a border fortress on the Spanish frontier, some seven or eight miles from the Mediterranean. It had once been safe, and almost inaccessible, but due to damage during the Revolution, it was no longer very useful, either as a defense against Spain, or as a prison.

"Ibid., I, 75.

MAXIMILIAN AND ELIZA GODEFROY 9

presumably drawing, and noted the fact that he seemed to be supplied with money.37 A subsequent report accuses both the commander of the fortress and his wife of undue interest in Gode- froy, and it may be that the first report had been an effort to put him in an especially favorable light. A later report labels him as "" an evil man made worse by idleness." One of the police officials who interrogated him wrote that " Godefroy seems to me to be very weak in the head, and during his imprisonment he has shown some symptoms of insanity." 38 He added that Godefroy, in telling of his arrest in 1793,3CI said that it had been a case of mistaken identity.40 This officer admitted that he did not know what to do with Godefroy and asked for a court order.41

This problem was temporarily solved for them, when, late in September, 1804, Godefroy escaped. On the eve of a transfer of the prisoners at Bellegarde to the more safely guarded Chateau d'lf, off the Mediterranean coast at Marseilles, Godefroy disappeared. The prisoners had advance knowledge of the transfer,42

and Godefroy may have been aided by the commander or his wife. The police were much concerned,43 for they feared that he might go to Spain and there hand over certain information about Louisiana.44 On October 10, he was caught in Perpignan,45 the nearest large town, and only about twelve miles north of the

"Ibid., I, 75. 38 Arch. Nat. MS F7 6366, doss. 7484. 89 There is no evidence to support his story of a previous arrest. 10 In his accounts 25 years later, he told the story of his arrest as evidence

of his Royalist record at the time of the Revolution. 41 Arch. Nat. F7 6366, doss. 7484. '2 Hauterive, I, 116. '8 Most of the prefects in the departments south of the Loire were circularized

about his escape and one or more other prisoners who escaped at the same time. Arch. Nat. MS F7 6366 doss. 7484 contains correspondence about some 30 such circulars.

** On his arrest, his papers had been seized, and they included three essays which are still to be found in his dossier among the police records at the Archives Nationales, MS F7 6366, doss. 7484: (1) Sur la Louisiane, (2) Mes chateaux dans la Nouvelle Espagne, (3) Une famille independante d'Hongrie. There must have been more than one copy of the first, for when Godefroy's sister got family papers back from the police, she signed a receipt for a copy of the paper on Louisiana. This is also in the dossier. The last of the three papers, on a Hungarian family, appears to be fictional and to bear no resemblance to biographical details of the Godefroy family. The first two papers, however, were responsible for the fears of the police ridiculous as this may seem today, for Louisiana had been sold to the United States some months before Godefroy's arrest and about a year before the police expressed these fears in a report to the Emperor. (Hauterive, I, 116, 140.)

" Arch. Nat. MS F7 6366 doss. 7484.

10 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

prison. He was thus going away from Spain, instead of towards it, as the fortress was at the border, controlling one of the passes into Spain. He wrote a letter to the Minister of Police, saying that he had returned voluntarily, and that he had had no intention of absconding permanently, but had only sought to be in a position to write out in proper form an appeal for release, probably with the aid of a sister who was believed to have influence in Paris.46

Godefroy's later version is somewhat different. He said that the duch*ess of Orleans,47 then in Spain, had arranged for his escape to Spain, where she had a boat waiting for him at Barcelona. As he was leaving to take advantage of this opportunity, he had heard that the commander at Bellegarde was to be court-martialed for having facilitated Godefroy's escape, so he had returned to give himself up and thus save the commander, this despite the fact that there was a price on his head, and he was being tracked down by packs of dogs, at least, so he thought.48 He was sent to the Chateau d'If.

The police shortly arranged to get rid of this troublesome prisoner, whom they apparently had come to consider more of a nuisance than a danger. Ignoring his desire to go to Spain, on December 12, they ordered him deported to America. Two officials, then obscure, but later important, who had known Royal- ist tendencies, agreed to answer for him.49 Godefroy had a sister. Mile. Dieudonnee Godefroy, who lived in Paris, in the Marais district, near the present Place des Vosges. For some reason she seems to have been able to reach important people, for she had been in touch with the authorities at the time of her brother's arrest, or shortly thereafter. She had at that time written to the presiding judge, saying that when her brother's papers had been seized at the time of his arrest, there had been among them some family papers which she feared might be lost. She asked that

" Hauterive, I, 116, 140: Arch. Nat. F7 6366 doss. 7484. '^ Louise-Marie-Adelaide de Bourbon-Penthievre, 1753-1821, mother of Louis

Philippe. " Arch, Nat. MS Fla 638 B. Most of this report was published from another

text MdHM, XXIX, 176-199. (French text with translation into English by Gilbert Chinard.) See note 2 above.

" Louis Benjamin Francoeur, 1773-1849, an engineer, later professor at the Faculty of Science at the Sorbonne and Charles Francois Quequet, 1768-1830, an attorney, later an official of the Paris courts.

MAXIMILIAN AND ELIZA GODEFROY 11

they be turned over to her, and this was done on December 21, 1803. We do not know the outcome o£ several other requests she made during the early days of his imprisonment, but the letters at least reached his dossier 50 where they are to be found today. In one of these letters she asked to be allowed to visit her brother, who, she feared, might lose his mind or commit suicide because of his despair. The other letters denied his guilt and applied formally for his release. Now that he was to be deported, she reappeared. She wrote to the Minister of Police requesting a delay. She stated that he must get certain business matters settled, and that the family must discuss with him the arrangements to facilitate his emigration. She asked that the Minister select a place where they could meet him, preferably Orleans.51 On De- cember 22 she was notified that the request had been granted, and Godefroy was conducted to Orleans, and then back to Marseilles. There he embarked on March 12 in the brig Rosa for New York, where he is said to have arrived on April 26. On May 14, the consular official in New York notified his government that Gode- froy had arrived and that he was living in Philadelphia.52

Although he wrote and spoke of these events twenty-five years later, they do not seem to have been known at the time in America, where Godefroy concealed details about his past, except for his status of political refugee, with a tacit encouragement of rumors of nobility. Whatever the truth may have been about the political activities responsible for his deportation, once in America he was acceptable to persons of Royalist sympathies in the United States.

In 1791 a group of priests of the Society of St. Sulpice, refugees from Paris, founded St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore. Their purpose was to train priests for the Roman Catholic Church in America. Eight years later they founded a school for boys, known as St. Mary's College, which they hoped would be a feeder for the Seminary. The Gentlemen of St. Sulpice were devoted to the Old Regime in France, hated the idea of revolution, and planned to influence their pupils along these lines. Their school was to be a transplanted French school, and until 1803 no Americans were

50 Arch. Nat. MS F7 6366 doss. 7484. 51 Ibid. This, together with Godefroy's previous connection with Beaugency

and relatives there, suggests that the Godefroy family may have lived originally in the Loiret and were still there.

" Ibid.

12 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

permitted to enroll as students. Instead they sought boys from French and Spanish colonial families in the West Indies. After 1803, in order to balance the budget, they decided to admit Americans, but the language of the school was to continue to be French.53 The moving spirit behind St. Mary's College was the Reverend Father Dubourg, S. S., a native of Santo Domingo, and a man possessed of unusual social and administrative talents.54

In addition to directing the school, and traveling to the Islands to get students and collect bills, he sponsored a girls' school, conducted in French by a Madame Lacomb.65

In the autumn of 1805, the Sulpicians were looking for a teacher of drawing for St. Mary's. They had offered the post to a Monsieur Volozan in Philadelphia, who declined for himself, but recommended a friend whom he described as more competent than himself. This friend was none other than Godefroy, who had drifted from the port of New York to Philadelphia, where he was at the moment doing some drawing for a " Monsieur Mauduit." Godefroy was delighted at the prospect of permanent employment, but he was obliged to delay going to Baltimore, first giving illness as an excuse, and then his obligation to complete a drawing for Monsieur Mauduit. But late in November, he promised to be there within the week, and he wrote Father Dubourg: "" I have need of the society of good and learned men, in order to forget the crimes of which I have so long been a witness and a victim.... Suffice it to say how happy I am, in my ship-wrecked state, to reach the honored haven which I owe to the Friendly solicitude of Messrs. Auriol and Volozan. . . ." 58

63 Baltimore, Maryland, Archives of St. Mary's Seminary (Hereafter cited as

St.MArch.), MS Tessier, Epoques du Seminaire de Baltimore, entries for 1799- See my article. Catholic Historical Review, XXXIX (1953), 28-30. The Reverend William J. O'Shea and the Reverend Raymond Meyer, both of the Society of St. Sulpice and the Seminary at Baltimore, gave me gracious and invaluable help when I consulted their archives in this connection.

64 The Reverend Father Louis Guillaume Valentin du Bourg was born in the Islands at Cap-Francois, now Cap-Hal'tien. He was considered by his superiors to be less suited to the self-effacing work of the Seminary than to a position involving public relations and utilizing his administrative talents. In 1815 he left to become Bishop of New Orleans and then went to France as Bishop of Montauban in 1826. He was translated to Besangon in 1833, and died there in 1847. (Gams, Series Episcoporum)

66 Tradition describes Madame Lacomb both as a refugee from Santo Domingo and as an exile from France because of the Revolution. Godefroy taught at this school. See note 73 below.

116 St. M. Arch., Volozan to Dubourg, Philadelphia, Oct. 24, 1805; Godefroy to Dubourg, Nov. 8, 9, 25, 1805.

MAXIMILIAN AND ELIZA GODEFROY 13

We do not know when Godefroy made the acquaintance of Eliza Crawford Anderson, who returned to Baltimore with Madame Bonaparte and her family on November 13, 1805, shortly before Godefroy himself got there. She must have come to know him within a year or so, for it was in the summer of 1807 that she published a translation of extracts from his work on American defense and in October completed her translation of the entire work.

Despite his remarks to Father Dubourg, Godefroy immediately sought other employment, and within a month he appealed to President Jefferson. In his letter he made claims which were more extravagant than any we have found elsewhere. He said that he had entered the French army at the age of seventeen and had served some twenty-one years in the Corps of Engineers and with various other arms of the service, including the Royal Guard. He said that he had been a Captain of Cavalry, a Captain of Engi- neers, and finally a Colonel and Aide-de-Camp of Prince Talmont; that he had been wounded in action three times, and had had a horse shot under him.57

Soon the tongues began to wag in Baltimore, and Godefroy's name was connected with that of the female editor of the Observer. We owe to her friendship with Madame Bonaparte the letters in which she talks of her personal life and speaks of her plans for divorcing Anderson and then marrying Godefroy. In one of these she says:

As for what the Town says of me, and much I hear they say, I care not. Absurd and ridiculous monsters in whose hands no fame can go un- sullied ... If G. had wished or proposed anything dishonourable to me—- would it be by honourably proposing to my father to make me his wife and share the good or bad fortune that befalls him that he's proved it— why should I be at the trouble of getting a divorce ... if I had already sacrificed honour—truly I might have continued as I was.58

Early in 1808 Eliza Anderson left Baltimore for Trenton in connection with her plans for getting a divorce.59 Although she

67 L. C, Jefferson Papers, Godefroy to Jefferson, Jan. 10, 1806. From what we know of his military career, both the length of service and his rank were falsified in this letter to Jefferson.

68 MdHS, Bonaparte Papers, Anderson to Bonaparte, Trenton, N. J., June 4, 1808.

59 Apparently to establish residence, but this does not seem to have been a requirement at that time.

14 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

had had some previous quarrel with General Samuel Smith,60

the General responded handsomely to an appeal from old Dr. Crawford, Mrs. Anderson's father, and introduced her to Governor Bloomfield. She wrote Madame Bonaparte:

I have been courted and caressed by the Patricians of Trenton and its vicinity to a degree you would hardly believe ... I brought letters to all the most distinguished persons here, and it has been quite the rage to attend to me . . . Parties have been given in my honour by the Governor and all the Grandees of the city.61

Shortly thereafter, she had started proceedings for a divorce. She wrote:

A divorce can be obtained only by giving proof of infidelity and . . . this is not an affair to which men usually call witnesses . . . the last I had heard of Mr A. was that he was at Albany—my lawyers here had written there to obtain information about him whether he was alive or dead—but received no answer ... I resolved courageously to go to Albany myself . . . I sailed up N. River in the steam boat amidst a heterogenous crowd bundled together so closely as hardly to allow us the free use of our limbs—the sun beat almost vertically upon us . . . protected from its ardent rays only by a slight awning the wind ahead blowing all the volume of smoke & steam upon the part of the deck which we occupied. You may conceive we have a foretaste of the glowing delights which Lucifer prepares for his faithful followers—the Cabin is calculated for the accommodation of 12 ladies, the Captain with the spirit of thrift which constitutes the genus loci of his country (a New England man) crammed 60 of us into the Boat with 100 men—you may conceive we were closely stowed— At night men, women & children were promiscuously sleeping upon the deck, whilst some of us who could obtain no substitutes for beds, wandered up and down like unhappy spirits, seeking rest & finding none . . .62 I had hoped [after seeing lawyers in Albany to go on to] Bolston Springs . . . Judge of my vexation, I found that my all accomplished moitie was a fisherman at that very place, & regularly, 3 times a week, supplied the principal boarding house with fish en propriae personae in addition to which he keeps a pleasure boat for the accommodation [of guests] . . . He is now, it is true, exactly at the sphere of life for which Nature fitted him . . . with most unblushing front, he mingles socially with the gentry of the cuisine . . . for eight days we received no answer to our communications ... at length an epistle arrived ... his

60 His wife, nee Margaret Spear, was sister to Mrs. Patterson, mother of Madame Bonaparte. Mrs. Anderson was probably related to the Spears.

51 Bonaparte Papers, Anderson to Bonaparte, Trenton, N. J., July 2, 1808. " Here follows an excellent description of the scenery as the boat sailed up

the Hudson. The letter also included gossip about Madame Bonaparte which Mrs. Anderson picked up from passengers during the voyage.

MAXIMILIAN AND ELIZA GODEFROY 15

acknowledgement of an infidelity was necessary, and although he positively refused to name any of these " good women who had a kindness for him " he yet reveals the favours of the fair Desdemona, a handmaiden of mine whom you may perhaps remember—this however, was not enough . . . At last he gave such references ... to a physician ... as to ensure success.63

The date of Mrs. Anderson's divorce and the place of her remarriage are unknown. Her marriage to Godefroy took place on December 29, 1808.64 After this date for some six years, as indeed prior to her residence in Trenton, we have no information in the Bonaparte papers about the activities of the Godefroys, probably because they were in frequent personal touch with the Patterson family. However, Benjamin Latrobe, who paid a visit to them in 1812, wrote to his wife about their establishment.65

They were living with old Dr. Crawford, where Latrobe said he found "" the house miserably out of sorts . . . [but] Godefroy's room or study is very neat and handsome, furnished with marble statues and the walls hung with expensive pictures well-framed." There were books everywhere. Latrobe noticed that Madame Godefroy's daughter, Eliza, looked pale and neglected, "" She is sickly and much in the country."

It does not lie within the competence of this writer to deal with the architectural work of Godefroy in Baltimore, Washing- ton, Philadelphia, and Richmond, 1807-1819. This has been described by Carolina Davison 66 and listed by Godefroy himself in his Memoir.67 Two experts have studied his work technically, William Sener Rusk in an article in Liturgical Arts,• and Talbot

63 Bonaparte Papers, Anderson to Bonaparte, Trenton, N. J., June 8, 1808. There is reason to believe, on internal evidence, that this letter was misdated and June 8 should read August 8.

"Date taken from the certificate of her death. (Laval, France, Ac/es de Deces, 1839.) Professor Chinard had obtained a copy of this from the Mayor of Laval. (MdHM, XXIX, 3.) There is no record in Baltimore of this marriage.

61 MdHM, XXIX, 10. The authors of the article, perhaps because of this letter from Latrobe, thought the house belonged to Dr. Crawford and that the Godefroys were homeless after his death. The house was held as a life tenancy by Eliza Godefroy, who had inherited it from her uncle in 1805. See note 10 above.

"Ibid., 200-12. "Ibid., 178-202; Arch. Nat., MS F1' 650. When Godefroy applied for the

position at Rennes, he filed a list of his achievements, which is in substance the same as in the memoir, but neither is copied from the other.

"Vol. Ill (1933), 140, 145. The late Professor Talbot Hamlin, and Professors William S. Rusk and Paul F. Norton, architectural historians, have generously corresponded with me about Godefroy's work. As a layman, I am especially grateful for this professional advice.

16 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

Hamlin, in his recent life of Benjamin Henry Latrobe.69 It is therefore our purpose to deal only with those aspects of Gode- froy's career which have been clarified by the new documents not used by any of the above-mentioned writers. These documents confirm the story, already familiar, of Godefroy's efforts to win competitions with his plans for public buildings in various cities, his numerous failures, and the resulting embitterment towards friends whom he chose to consider responsible. But in addition, the correspondence in the Bonaparte Papers, together with Gode- froy's letters in the archives of St. Mary's Seminary70 show, and for the first time, why and how the fortunes of the Godefroys deteriorated.

Godefroy began his teaching at St. Mary's at the end of the year 1805 and was employed there, except for brief periods, until the summer of 1819. He taught regular classes in Graphic Art, and gave private lessons during all or part of this time. Advertisem*nts appeared from time to time in the Federal Gazette 71 announcing his private instruction in ""drawing, painting, architecture, and fortifications." One of these advertisem*nts gives the address as " 7 German Street," and the hours as '" every day in the week, Saturday excepted, from 5 o'clock in the evening until 7." In an amusing letter to Father Dubourg at St. Mary's, October 1, 1806, Godefroy complained that his schedule was too hard on his health and prevented him from taking on outside work. He asked the Fathers to arrange for him to have only morning classes the following year.72 He also taught at Madame Lacomb's school for young ladies, but was paid by individual pupils for their tuition, not by the school.73 Among his pupils, either at Madame Lacomb's school or privately, was at least one of the Patterson children, Margaret, Betsy's fifteen-year-old sister. In one of Mrs. Anderson's letters to Madame Bonaparte, there is a note which illustrates Godefroy's professional standards. In this he follows what would today be considered an orthodox, but less popular approach:

""New York, 1955. "' These very illuminating letters at St. Mary's Seminary seem to have been

neglected by Miss Davison and Professor Chinard. They were searched for certain facts in connection with Latrobe by someone working for Professor Hamlin.

71 Sept. 27, 1815, and subsequent issues. 72 St. M. Arch., Godefroy to Dubourg. Baltimore, Oct. 1, 1806. 73 St. M. Arch., Godefroy to Dubourg, Baltimore, Oct. 27, 1806.

MAXIMILIAN AND ELIZA GODEFROY 17

I have some advice to give your Mama about Margery. Godefroy says she really has a taste for drawing, but for God's sake let her not be hurried on to painting, for if she is, she will never be good for anything in this enchanting art—you will feel the disinterestedness of this counsel, because painting is fifteen, drawing only ten $ per quarter. I am anxious that my friend Peggy should excel in some accomplishment, & Godefroy, for my sake as well as his own (for she pleases him very much) will interest himself in her improvement. I regret she had not begun sooner for I fear she will not have his instructions as long as it would be desirable.74

In the spring following his arrival at St. Mary's, Godefroy undertook the building of their chapel, a charming Gothic church which still survives. It is a curious fact that no documents have been found among the archives at St. Mary's giving Godefroy credit for the building. In fact, Godefroy's dossier at St. Mary's contains a note by a former archivist, Father Boyer, stating that his searches to this end had been fruitless. However, Godefroy's friend, later his rival and critic, Benjamin H. Latrobe, spoke of the edifice as " Godefroy's Chapel," 75 and Godefroy listed it as his work in a statement made years later about his achievements in America. And some ten years after he had done the work, he complained about treatment he had received at the hands of his employers, the Sulpicians, saying, "' Did they not drive me nearly crazy [about alterations in the chapel} and made me change the position of the facade in the course of construction." 76 So, unless Godefroy had been secretly making use of stock plans, he must have been the architect, as well as the builder.

The records of the Seminary show that the foundations of the Chapel were begun on May 17, 1806, and completed by June 18, when the cornerstone was laid and the church dedicated." It would be interesting to know what the contents of the cornerstone could tell us about the problem of responsibility for the plans.

St. Mary's Seminary possesses a number of letters addressed to the Sulpician Fathers by Godefroy. They are almost all notes about loans, and usually requests for help in paying his debts.

74 Bonaparte Papers, Anderson to Bonaparte, Trenton, N. J., July 2, 1808. 75 This was the opinion of the late Professor Hamlin after a thorough examina-

tion of Latrobe's papers. Godefroy's own list was included in his Memoir, Arch. Nat. MS F1S 650; MdHM, XXIX, 178-179.

70 St. M. Arch., Godefroy to [?], Baltimore, Mar. 29, 1817. 77 Ibid., Tessier, Epoques, 1806.

18 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

They show that Godefroy's finances were in a chaotic state almost from the moment of his arrival and up to the eve of his departure in 1819. Less than a year after his arrival, he had begun to borrow money from Father Dubourg. On October 27, 1806, he wrote to the Father that in addition to the $2 he had borrowed two days earlier, he needed $20 more immediately and $80 on November 1. He asked for $15 for that same day. When November 1 came around, he reported that he had only $2 in his pocket and needed $130 more. On January 14, 1807, he said that of the $119 for which he had asked, he had received only $25, and now must have $120 more for bills which he expected to be presented the following day. On January 28, he asked for $10 to pay the woman who mended his linen. On March 27, 1808, he wrote to thank Father Dubourg for the loan of $300, and said he would send him a receipt with a statement of his plans for repayment. An undated letter of this same group speaks of Godefroy's having looked around for Father Dubourg after class to pay him $40. Not having found him, he had postponed paying until the next day. Then, on arriving home, he had found a letter from the man to whom he owed most of his obligations and would have to meet his demands instead of paying Father Dubourg.78 This, it will be recalled, was a few months prior to his marriage in December, 1808.

Two years later, in December, 1810, he was again in serious trouble and on this occasion Father Dubourg asked for explanations and promises. Godefroy presented a long list of his obligations to private individuals. It included, among others, a bill of $65 from his tailor, and $50 due to a certain Vecchio, one item of the last debt being a $10 charge for framing a diploma which the Seminary had presented to Godefroy. He needed money at that moment, and most urgently, to buy the prizes which he was obliged to present at the Prize Day exercises the following week at Madame Lacomb's. The previous year these had cost him $25, all of which he had to pay, since the school had allowed him to keep the fees for his tuition without a percentage to the school. His list of debts and obligations covered three pages. Three days later, he got some sort of help from the College, for he thanked

"Ibid., Godefroy to Dubourg, Oct. 27, 1806, Nov., 1806, Jan. 14, 1807, Jan. 28, 1807, undated, ca. 1807, Dec. 13, 1810.

MAXIMILIAN AND ELIZA GODEFROY 19

the Fathers and established with them five notes for a total of $775. He agreed that they were to withhold the repayments from his salary and he promised to pay his other debts. The next extant correspondence on this subject dates from the year 1815.79

Father Tessier wrote to Godefroy on January 25, telling him that a stop must be put to his borrowing, that the College could not continue to take over his notes, and that he must see Father Tessier for a final accounting. Then the Fathers weakened again, for Godefroy's fortunes had sunk lower and lower, and he continued to appeal to the Sulpicians. He wrote to them on March 15, July 27, and September 27 of that year, and on the last of these dates he thanked them for money lent him on three outstanding notes. The following year brought a brief period of prosperity for Godefroy and his wife. She wrote to Madame Bonaparte that they had had a windfall in the form of a contract in Richmond which would bring them "" bread " for a time at least.80

While the Godefroys were in Richmond, they did some sight- seeing. On October 12, 1816, Godefroy wrote to Jefferson about their trip to the Natural Bridge, and the magnificence of the scenery there. He told Jefferson that he would like to acquire the property, and to make it his permanent home in America. He did not speak of buying it, which his circ*mstances would not have permitted. He may have hoped to receive it as a gift. Jefferson, however, understood differently. He replied that although at one time he had thought that he might be forced to sell this property because of pressing debts, he was now convinced that he could avoid doing so. He wished to consider himself the guardian of this beautiful site, to prevent its being defaced by the establishment of commercial or industrial enterprises.81

Lacking the information gleaned from St. Mary's archives, as well as from the Bonaparte Collection, previous writers have lavished a great deal of sympathy on the Godefroy family, who were regarded as victims of circ*mstance. To cite one such opinion:

His was a sombre life of tragic circ*mstances, frustrated ambitions, dis-

" Ibid., Tessier to Godefroy, Jan. 25, Mar. 15, July 27, Sept. 27, 1815. 60 Bonaparte Papers, Godefroy to Bonaparte, Mar. 27, 1816. 81 L. C, Jefferson Papers, Godefroy to Jefferson, Natural Bridge, Oct. 12, 1816;

Jefferson to Godefroy, Nov. 11, 1816.

20 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

appointed hopes, desperate poverty, and bitter struggle—a life one dares to assert was shared by his wife with a complete fusion of spirit with his . . . There was a persistence about Godefroy's misfortunes . . . Could a lack of adaptability and an over-sensitive temperament have been contributing causes ? 82

In the early summer of 1815, Madame Bonaparte went abroad, and for about twenty years thereafter, she lived abroad except for brief visits in Baltimore. During the first years her younger brother, Edward, wrote to her regularly, giving her the news and gossip about family and friends. It is to this series of letters that we owe our hitherto unsuspected explanation of some of the misfortunes of the Godefroys. On October 13, he wrote:

Your friend Godefroy looks very poor (pauvre). I am afraid that she and her husband have caricatured themselves out of a living—he has no chance of being employed as an architect by the Exchange Company 83

and in other respects meets with little encouragement in his profession.

Finally, on April 7, 1817, after the Godefroys returned from Richmond, he wrote:

Our friend Godefroy has behaved so badly of late that we have all determined to give her up—she made her appearance at two or three soirees so much intoxicated that the hostesses were obliged to put her to bed, and at a party given by herself the other evening, she was so far gone that the company was obliged to retire. They have made themselves so many enemies that I think they will be forced to leave the place—they are almost in a state of starvation, and with difficulty keep from making a visit up the falls . . .8*

In June, 1819, Godefroy again appealed to the Sulpicians.85

How, he asked, could a man support a family on $29.60 per month, when an ordinary stonecutter received as much as $60? For the past seven months, he said, they had been living by selling their possessions, including his mathematical instruments and his

-AUHM, XXIX, 10-11. 88 This refers to the trouble about the building of the Baltimore Exchange, which

led to Godefroy's quarrel with Latrobe, the architect of the building. See MdHM, XXIX, 204, and Hamlin, Latrobe, 488-492.

81 Bonaparte Papers, Edward Patterson to Bonaparte, Baltimore, Oct. 13, Dec. 15, 1815; Sept. 25, 1816, Apr. 7, 1817. This is a reference to debtors' prison. See letter of Eliza Godefroy to John Oliver, Nov. 11, 1818, in MdHS. [This letter, two letters from Eliza to Robert Oliver (1817) and a letter from John Crawford to Robert Oliver (1828) were recently given to the Society by Mrs. Laurence Fowler: Editor.']

86 St. M. Arch., Godefroy to Tessier, June 22, 1819.

MAXIMILIAN AND ELIZA GODEFROY 21

books. When old Dr. Crawford had died in 1813, he had left to Madame Godefroy his library and many debts. This library was sold to the University of Maryland for $500,8<! but the proceeds were already obligated. Godefroy's own library had been reduced to such an extent, he said, that it was now worth only about $1,000. The only articles of value he still possessed were two fine marble statues, and he was trying to get Joseph Bonaparte to buy them. He had already paid out $1,400 in interest on the debts he owed and could not continue to pay the installments due. He asked the Sulpicians once more to take over his debts, but under what conditions, or with what results, we have no way of knowing.

It is not strange that in his circ*mstances Godefroy decided to try his fortunes in England, his wife's native land. Where he got the money for passage for three people has been a mystery. It probably came from the sale of Madame Godefroy's interest in the house in Hanover Street which she had inherited from her uncle, John O'Donnell, in 1805. For many years, and especially since 1815, they had been trying unsuccessfully to raise money on this house, but her life tenancy was not sufficiently profitable for a buyer. At her death the property was to pass to Columbus O'Donnell, son of her uncle John. In August, 1819, Columbus O'Donnell came to the rescue and purchased Eliza's interest for $1,500 87 and the family left within a few days. In later years, Godefroy was in the habit of attributing their departure to losses which he claimed to have suffered in the American financial panic, but it seems likely that he was choosing this way out of a long and desperate struggle. Madame Godefroy may have had resources in England, if we are to believe her husband's statement of some years later,88 but there was no reference to this at the time. With Madame Godefroy and her daughter Eliza, he sailed in the Ceres on August 27, but the journey was immediately interrupted by the illness and death of young Eliza, whom they buried hastily in an unmarked grave on the shore.89 The Ceres then continued on to Liverpool. It has been assumed that the voyage had been so stormy that Godefroy's effects were lost or destroyed, an assump- tion based on his statement that he had lost his library, collection

88 Wilson, Bulletin, XXV, 119. 87 Baltimore Court House, Land Records, WG 153, fol. 316. ** MdHM, XXIX, 204. 88 Federal Gazette, Sept. 27, 1819.

22 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

of pictures, 2,000 etchings and his work of previous years.90 It may have been true that " the fury of the winds did not abate "91

but the disappearance of the works of art occurred after they landed. The trouble lay in the fact that they had no money with which to pay customs charges, and a year after their arrival their possessions were still being held for duty, which they continued to hope to be able to pay:

. . . laws of the Custom House have occasioned us vexations and embarass- ments beyond what you can conceive—Heaven knows we arrived in this country with a purse so slenderly provided, that we could not spare a moment of time in setting about a means of replenishing it—. . . Whilst all poor Godefroy's works were locked in the merciless gripe of the custom house officers, they of course could not be exhibited as vouchers of his capacity . . . however in a few days now we trust our little vessel will be launched to the favouring breeze which is promised her—there appears to be but one opinion amongst our friends in London that Gode- froy cannot fail to do well once he had made a beginning—his views of american scenery are to be immediately put in the hands of an engraver, & if trees, rivers, valleys & mountains turn into bread & wine for us at his touch God knows it will be a transmutation most devoutly wished.92

This letter of Madame Godefroy, written at the time of the event, makes no mention of the lost works of art, but only of Godefroy's own drawings and paintings. In view of her husband's letter to the effect that he had been selling his valuable possessions in order to live during the last months before they left Baltimore, it seems at least possible that Godefroy may have stretched the truth in later years when he spoke of the loss of his collections. In fact, in view of his poverty during the whole of his life in America, and the circ*mstances of his deportation from France, it seems incredible that he was able to collect works of art at all.

The Godefroys spent about seven and a half years in England, still without fortune's favors, except for brief intervals. Godefroy wrote of having had some success, exhibiting at the Royal Academy, and winning several architectural competitions.93 They seem to have gone to London when they landed, and then after a year or so, to have returned to Liverpool,94 probably in the

80 Apres une navigation lamentable qui nous enleva non seulement effets, biblio- theque, collections de tableaux, plus de 2000 gravures de maitres, et les etudes de ma vie entiere (MdHM, XXIX, 184).

917,W., XXIX, 13. "Ibid., XXIX, 184-187. -Ibid., XXXVI, 13. 'lIbid., XXXVI, 12-15.

MAXIMILIAN AND ELIZA GODEFROY 23

hope of getting Godefroy's paintings out of customs, or perhaps to seek influential friends or financial help. On October 12, 1820, Madame Godefroy saw Mrs. Robert Patterson95 in Liverpool, possibly with some such motive. During the first year in England she wrote twice to David Bailie Warden in Paris—she had known him in Baltimore. The letters show them to have been in the depths of misery, poverty, and hunger. There are no signs that things improved much during the remaining years. They still continued—as they did for years afterward—to curse the treatment they had received in Baltimore and to rail against the snobbery and haughtiness of the rich merchant class in America, whom Madame Godefroy labeled " Crafty, vulgar, ignorant, of bad faith, avaricious, insolent, vain." She said that her husband felt the same bitterness towards France, and had vowed never to set foot again on French soil. She, on the other hand, longed to see Paris, where she planned to go alone if the day should ever come when she could pay for such a luxury.96

Despite Godefroy's vows, the family did return to France, probably in the hope of finding favor with the restored Bourbons. There is evidence that Godefroy had been negotiating for an appointment as early as 1823, for there are reports of police investigation of his record from January, 1824, through 1827.97

As soon as they arrived, early in 1827, Godefroy was made a pensioner of the King, that is, he was rewarded for previous services to the Crown, although the dossiers do not yield much in the way of proof to support his contention that he had a long Royalist record. His pension was to be 600 francs a year, which indicates that he was not being classified as a Royalist officer, but was rather in an humble category.98

It is likely that the decision to return to France was prompted by Godefroy's knowledge or imagination that he had friends in high places. One of the men who had helped to get him out of prison in 1805, Francoeur, had since attained prominence. More

95 Mrs. Patterson, nee Mary Ann Caton, later Marchioness of Wellesley. She was then the wife of Madame Bonaparte's brother, Robert, who died in 1822. She and her husband had been traveling in England and on the Continent since 1816.

"MdHM, XXXVI, 14-15. 97 Arch. Nat. MS F7 6366 doss. 7484, and MS F13 650. " The pension is mentioned in Arch. Nat. MS F1' 638 B. I am indebted to M.

Cambrier, the distinguished archivist of the Army Historical Services at the Chateau de Vincennes for his estimate of the significance of the size of the pension.

24 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

important, Francoeur was believed to have the ear of the Duke de Doudeauville." In 1827 this old friend solicited the Duke in Godefroy's behalf,100 and although he had nothing to offer at the moment, a position was shortly found for him as architect for the city of Rennes.101

Godefroy remained at Rennes only a little more than a year, his appointment having dated from July 1, 1827.102 On July 31, 1828, the Mayor of Rennes wrote to him:

Some months ago, I informed you of the reasons which have forced me to insist upon your resignation as architect of the city of Rennes. I had hoped that you would comply and thus spare me the distasteful experience of taking a step which is very painful for me, but which my duty requires, and for which I have found no other solution. I therefore have the honor of notifying you that, beginning next September first, you will no longer belong to this administration, and that I shall have taken steps to replace you.

Godefroy refused to resign, and when forced to leave, he put in a claim for 4,000 francs. The City Council supported the Mayor's position that this claim was not justified, but they were sorry for Godefroy and gave him 3,000 francs. In writing of his experiences at Rennes, Godefroy later said that his salary had not been enough to pay his professional expenses, and that the city officials had demanded that he falsify his accounts in their favor. Letters of the Mayor, still to be found in the dossier at Rennes, show that although the Mayor liked Godefroy personally, he had found him either incompetent or incapable of doing the work expected. Drawings and plans urgently needed were not forthcoming, and when with great difficulty they were finally extracted from him, they were incomplete and did not fit the specifications. He had already received his salary for this work which could not be used, hence the Mayor's concern. The claims Godefroy made are not

" Ambroise Polycarpe de la RocFiefoucauld (1765-1841) became director of the Post Office in 1823 and the following year Minister of the Royal Household. The present Due de Doudeauville and the present duch*ess de la Rochefoucauld kindly searched their archives but have found no trace of Godefroy's relations with their ancestors.

100 Arch. Nat. F1' 650. See note 49 above. 101 Arch. Nat. MS F1' 638 B; MdHM, XXIX, 188. 101 All the information on Godefroy's stay at Rennes comes from his dossier in

the departmental archives of Ile-et-Vilaine et Rennes. The archivist in charge, Monsieur H. F. Buffet, very generously consulted this dossier for me and sent me notes, including several long quotations. I am greatly in his debt for this help.

MAXIMILIAN AND ELIZA GODEFROY 25

itemized, but they apparently covered expense money and wages of employees.

If Godefroy's position at Rennes had been due to the influence of one of his backers in 1805, Louis Benjamin Francoeur,103 he probably found it difficult to appeal to him again after such a short interval. The other sponsor of 1805, Charles Francois Quequet,104 had once been an obscure Royalist agent, but had since become very prominent as a jurist, having won judgment against the Bonaparte family which brought financial advantage to the Crown. Quequet was now established in a fine apartment near the Palais de Justice, scene of his law practice. On January 25, 1829, Godefroy arrived at Quequet's home, and from this luxuri- ous establishment at 18, Quai des Orfevres, near the Pont Neuf, he wrote pleas to his friends to help him. In one of these letters, to David Bailie Warden who lived just across the river near St. Sulpice, Godefroy said that he had come to Paris " to seek some means of escape from the odious Siberia in which they were languishing." 105 Quequet had access to the Due de Doudeauville, who was then Minister of the Royal Household, and whose son had, since 1824, been Director of Fine Arts for the Crown. He, like Francoeur before him, used his influence, and Godefroy received another post.

In 1829 Godefroy was appointed departmental architect for the Mayenne, with his office at Laval.106 This appointment was made from the Ministry in Paris and, like the Rennes appointment, had come through influence.107 Here also, as at Rennes, he claimed that his salary would not cover expenses, especially employee's wages. At Rennes it had been said that Godefroy had not been able to do all the work required of a city architect. This suggests the possibility that he had been employing people to do work which officials at both Rennes and Laval had expected that he

101 It was Francoeur who had given Godefroy a letter to the Due de Doudeauville in 1827 (Arch. Nat., MS F18 650).

10'A judge in the court of appeals, at the time of his death in 1830. His prestige had increased, whereas that of Francoeur had been somewhat diminished by stories circulated at the time of the Restoration, accusing him of Bonapartist sympathies during the Hundred Days.

105 LC, Warden Papers, Godefroy to Warden, Paris, Jan. 25, 1829. %"MdHM, XXIX, 188. 107 In Rennes he had been employed by and was responsible to the city govern-

ment, but at Laval he was responsible to the department prefect, and through him to the Ministry in Paris.

26 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

would perform himself. In any case, there was no provision in the budget for employees, and they may not have been authorized at either place. Unfortunately, we have no information about his relations with his employers at Laval.108 We know he was still there in 1839 and that he was no longer employed there in 1842 when another person held the post. The departmental archives at Laval have a number of drawings and other records of his work there, but there is no complete list.

Godefroy was not satisfied at Laval and almost immediately began to seek influence to enable him to move to a more lucrative post. After the Revolution of 1830, his hopes were revived, and he was delighted to be able to blame his troubles on the now unpopular Prince de Polignac,109 whose cabinet had fallen with the Revolution. Eliza wrote that Polignac had been unwilling to help Godefroy, since the Prince knew that her husband was "incorruptible." Now, with the advent of Louis Philippe, the " magnificent revolution burst upon the world and whispered to suffering merit that it might yet find its level." 110 Godefroy either had, or persuaded himself that he had, a Royalist record which, he thought, should have brought him favors from the restored Bourbons. With the succession of Louis Philippe, he considered that his position was even more favorable. Although there is no evidence to support his claim that it was the duch*ess of Orleans, mother of Louis Philippe, who had arranged his escape in 1804, it is possible that she may have taken an interest in this prisoner when she was a refugee in Spain. The duch*ess had died in 1821, but Godefroy invoked her memory in petitioning her son, the new King. As before, the Godefroys sought the help of Quequet, who in turn went to the Due de Doudeauville. When nothing resulted from this move, Eliza blamed Quequet, because, as she said, his vanity had led him to insist that Godefroy remain in the background and that everything be done through him. Eliza felt that if the Duke himself had seen Godefroy, " that noble expression of suffering dignity, whose manners and address denoting the perfect Gentleman " 111 the result might have been different.

108 Letter to the writer from the assistant to the archivist. Monsieur Weber. The inquiry was answered by him in the absence of the archivist. I am grateful to him for this information. 110 Ibid., 17.

"' mUM, XXXVI, 17. 111 Ibid., XXIX, 18.

MAXIMILIAN AND ELIZA GODEFROY 27

The Godefroys persisted, and also sought influence elsewhere. David Bailie Warden, with whom Eliza had been in touch years earlier in Baltimore, was still living in Paris and was active in all affairs concerning Americans. Now Eliza wrote him, at what she considered an auspicious moment in view of the change of regime in France. She begged him, invoking his friendship with her father, to do something to " ameliorate " their fate:

Husband ... is most solicitous to be appointed Consul General to the U. S. Surely, his knowledge of the country and the language must be at least some advantage in such a post—his tried and scrupulous, his tenacious, even chivalrous notions of probity and honour fit him for it still more; . . . the dignity of a great nation . . . [demands that its} representative should be a man of education and polished manners. Merit alas! I know weighs seldom in the balance, as almost all appointments are obtained through favour, and that is the reason ... I would so earnestly solicit your influence in my Husband's behalf.112

In 1831 another misfortune struck the Godefroys. Until that year, Godefroy had continued to enjoy the supplementary income provided by the pension assigned him by the King in 1827. In 1831 the pension was cut off because Godefroy could not take the pauper's oath.113 This pension was one which had been given somewhat grudgingly to indigent former Royalists, and Godefroy, employed since 1827, was no longer eligible. His own version was that such an oath was too humiliating for him to take and that it had never been required until 1831.

In 1832 Godefroy again appealed to Warden. Eliza had gone to Paris, either to see a publisher about some work of her own, or to try to dispose of some valued possession to a bookseller. Her husband wrote to Warden, '" Dear and good Sir, Please continue your friendly kindness to my poor loved one, and help her with advice, so that she may not be cheated either by the bookseller or by the officious go-between, and so that no sharp bees shall come to devour her little drop of honey." 114

We have no way of knowing to what extent the Godefroys sought or received the charity of old friends. One person who came to their rescue on several occasions was a former student

^ MdHM, XXXVI, 17-18. »" Arch. Nat. MS F1' 638 B. 114 LC, Warden Papers, Godefroy to Warden, Laval, Oct. 7, 1832.

28 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

from St. Mary's College, Ebenezer Jackson.115 He put up Godefroy on some of his trips to Paris to seek appointments. He may even have supplied the money for the Godefroy's move from England to France. He at least helped them move their possessions, for Eliza wrote of " the immense benefit you rendered Maxime by enabling him to have the wreck of our all moved to France."

Eliza's letters to Warden do not ask him for money, and there is no mention of his having given any, although he used to send her books sometimes at her request, with a view towards trans- lating them for the American market.116 The Godefroys used Warden frequently in their efforts to reach other persons. At one time, Eliza begged his help in attempting to get in touch with General Devereux117 whom she had known in Baltimore, but who had ignored her frank appeal for money. Warden, like Devereux, avoided answering her letters.

In 1829 Godefroy asked Warden to help him sell a picture, the " Defeat of Charles XII at Poltava." 118 Godefroy was very proud of this painting, which he said he had painted in prison with very primitive equipment. Through Warden and others, Godefroy tried to interest opulent prospects over a number of years. Among these was Count Pierre Pahlen, who arrived in Paris as Ambassa- dor of Russia in 1835. He had been in America as a young man and had known people in the circles frequented by the Gode- froys.119 Godefroy received, or created the impression, that Pahlen would buy the painting to present to the Czar, but nothing came of it. He also tried to interest Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Chancellor of England, probably in France at the time. Lord Lyndhurst had been born in Boston, a son of the painter, John Copley. Godefroy

111 Ebenezer Jackson, 1796-1874, of Savannah, Ga. He had been at St. Mary's while Godefroy taught there, having graduated in 1813. He was a member of Congress from Connecticut, 1834-1835, and had previously been in the Connecticut Legislature. He was in Europe in 1836-1837, and it was at this time that he saw and helped his old teacher. Members of the Jackson family, notably Mrs. Frederick Wiggin and Mrs. Richard Jackson, have kindly written me about him and his relations with Godefroy.

ll*MdHM, XXXVI, 11. 117 General Devereux was a native of Ireland who had lived in Baltimore and

become an American citizen. He returned to Ireland, and from headquarters in a Dublin Hotel he was raising Irish volunteers to go to the aid of the rebelling colonists in Venezuela. (R. Rush, A Residence at the Court of London [1845], I, 199-200.)

118 LC, Warden Papers, Godefroy to Warden, Jan. 25, 1829. 11,1 Bonaparte Papers, Louis de Toussard to Bonaparte, Philadelphia, Sept. 28,

1811.

MAXIMILIAN AND ELIZA GODEFROY 29

also had hopes of selling it to the Marquis of Stafford, owner of a famous Gallery, and husband of one of the Caton girls from Baltimore. All of these efforts failed, but the painting was eventually purchased by Ebenezer Jackson, probably to help his friend.120

Sometime in the eighteen-thirties, Godefroy prepared a long Memoir giving an account of his life and listing his artistic achievements. It has been thought that it was written " at the instance of Mr. Ebenezer Jackson . . . when Godefroy was visiting Mr. Jackson in Paris." 121 I find no evidence that it was prepared for him or during a visit to him. Godefroy was in Paris in Novem- ber, 1836, and staying with the Jacksons. He had plans to see a number of influential or opulent persons, in the hope of selling the picture and also in the hope of getting an appointment other than as a departmental architect.122 As the Memoir is dated at Laval in January, 1837, it was probably written after he returned to his home following his unsuccessful mission to Paris and with a view to circularizing people who might help him. A copy of this circular came into Jackson's hands, probably from Godefroy himself, and it was found among his family papers many years later.123

From recently discovered documents, it is now clear that there are at least two copies of this Memoir in existence and that more may have been made. In the Archives Nationales124 there is a copy which is practically identical with the one published by Miss Davison and Professor Chinard from the Jackson papers. This copy is also dated at Laval, and almost certainly in January, 1837, although the year is less clearly written in this document. The intention may have been to leave this blank to be filled in later. Both copies were marked " Chez le B[ar}on Trigant-de-la-Tour, conseiller ref erendaire a la Cour des Comptes, rue Pigale, Chaussee d'Antin no. 8." 125 I believe that this indicates that the Memoir

1"'MdHM, XXIX, 118-120. The painting is now owned hy descendants of Jackson.

1,1 MdHM, XXIX, 175. This memoir was published by Miss Davison, with English translation by Professor Chinard, MdHM, XXIX, 176-199. I have not seen the copy from which the transcription was made and am quoting from their articles when referring to this copy.

"'MdHM, XXIX, 15-18, 192-193. "'MdHM, XXIX, 1. 114 Arch. Nat., MS F1' 638 B. "' The Rev. Father Boyer, S. S., says that the St. M. Arch, show that Trigant

had been a student at St. Mary's in 1806 (The Voice, May, 1933, p. 13).

30 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

was written at Laval and that copies were sent to Paris to be deposited with this official, an old friend, where they could be quickly got at. It is significant that this note is found in Jackson's copy, as well as in the copy in the Archives Nationales which contains no mention of Jackson.

The Archives Nationales copy of Godefroy's Memoir contains in addition a " Postscriptum " of some 450 words, dated at Laval in February, 1840.126 In it Godefroy wrote of his sorrow over his wife's death and of his distress at all she had suffered by returning with him to his native France. At the end of the postscript Gode- froy signed his name and added the words "" a son ami le Major W. T. Poussin." Since this copy got into his dossier, and since its location indicates that it had to do with an application for work in the Ministry, rather than with police inquiries, we may conclude that Godefroy sent it to Poussin to be used in recommending him for a job. This confirms, to some extent, the idea that the Memoir had originally been prepared in several copies to be circulated, and that Godefroy, in adding the postscript, was bringing the record up to date for some specific purpose.

The original Memoir of 1837 is one of many evidences of Godefroy's wish to leave Laval. He resented the type of work which filled the working days of a departmental architect—more repair jobs than new constructions and many reports to write. All this he felt to be not only exhausting, but beneath his dignity and contributing towards what he considered his unjustified ob- scurity. He wanted a museum appointment or an architect's position in one of the Royal residences, even perhaps some sort of work in the Ministry itself.

Madame Godefroy died at Laval on October 2, 1839,127 at the age of fifty-nine. She died in the Communion of the Roman Catholic Church, for a funeral Mass was celebrated in the church of St. Venerand, " her parish." It is not known when she had

"' This date was difficult to decipher. It looked as if it might be either 1840 or 1846. Internal evidence is entirely in favor of the choice of 1840 as the correct date. It is the work of one who has recently lost his wife, and we known that Eliza Godefroy died in October, 1839. It deals exclusively with her and his sorrow, with no reference to anything which had happened since. This would be unusual if the date were 1846.

1,7 Archives de la Mayenne, Laval, Actes de Deces, 1839; announcement (Lettre de faire part), published by Miss Davison, MdHM, XXIX, p. 20. Photostat copy in MdHS.

MAXIMILIAN AND ELIZA GODEFROY 31

been received into the Church, but it was probably after she left America.

The postscript to Godefroy's Memoir, written some four months after his wife's death, is the last documentary evidence we have of his existence. In 1842 a new architect was appointed at Laval,128

but there is no reference to Godefroy's departure. At this date He would have reached the age of seventy-seven and might have retired because of age or disability, if indeed he had not died. The present Cure of St. Venerand has searched, and has kindly written me, that he finds no trace of Godefroy at all except in connection with his wife's death.129 I have found no record of him either in Paris or Orleans (Loiret) for this period.

After all these years there are still many unsolved questions about Godefroy and his career. It not even clear in some cases, notably that of St. Mary's Chapel in Baltimore, to what extent he was the architect and to what degree his activities were limited to supervising construction of buildings attributed to him by tradition or by his own statement. We have several instances of cases where he took liberties with facts or let his imagination run wild. He boasted of Napoleon's admiration for him and of the Emperor's intervention in his behalf.130 Actually, there is no truth whatever in this claim. His dossier contains many appeals, but none to the Emperor, nor were any of the orders issued about Godefroy of a kind which could have emanated from Napoleon. The claim is the more incongruous, when it is recalled that the accusations against Godefroy in 1803-1805 were related, not, as Godefroy would have us believe, to Royalist activities, but rather to plots against the life of Napoleon himself.

Gross exaggeration is to be found in Godefroy's claims of military service in France and in America. General Samuel Smith, on the eve of the departure of the Godefroys in 1819, wrote some sort of certificate about Godefroy's military services. The contents of the certificate are unknown. Godefroy says he was a Colonel of Engineers during the War of 1812 when he "" served under the

128 Letter of Monsieur Weber, Assistant to the Archivist of the Department of the Mayenne, Lava!, Sept. 6, 1955.

1!"> The Maryland Historical Society has a painting '" Fete Champetre " signed by Godefroy with the date 1847. The signature appears to be original and if the date is also, this proves that Godefroy was alive in that year, at the age of 82.

""MdHM, XXIX, 197-198.

32 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

old flags of American Independence," 1*1 whatever this may mean. He claims that he was appointed by the Federal government, but there is no record of his having served in the army in any capacity.132 It is quite possible that his service was with the militia when Baltimore was in danger and that it was very brief.

Although he did not mention it in his Memoir, Godefroy claimed credit for building the two powder magazines in the out- works of Fort McHenry.133 In Benjamin Latrobe's correspondence, there are several references to Latrobe's hope to place French Engineers in the service of the American Army:

There is, you know, a violent prejudice among the Federalists against everything French . . . and those who were in the army . . . have been, by degrees, got rid of . . . The Republican party entertain a violent jealousy against all foreigners. Frenchmen particularly. I have been laboring these six years to get employment for Mr Godefroi (Count La Mard) . . . General Dearborn told me they had no occasion for engineers, that he would never consent to employ foreigners, especially not Frenchmen . . .134

However, the following year, Godefroy seems to have been consulted about Fort McHenry, for Latrobe wrote him that he had learned this good news from Robert Goodloe Harper.135 We still have only Godef roy's word that he was employed to do the powder magazines. Since he advertised this in a newspaper, and in Balti- more, we can scarcely doubt his veracity in this. Godefroy also designed a flag in 1818 for the Columbian Volunteers, or Fifth Regiment, Baltimore Militia.138

There are many minor details of which Godefroy wrote with apparent inaccuracy, but while we have no confirmation of stories which seem improbable, it is also true that they cannot now be refuted or classified as falsehoods. These include the supposed intervention in his behalf in 1804 of the duch*ess of Orleans, the story of his losses in the financial panic in Baltimore prior to leaving, the loss of the valuable family possessions in a storm during the crossing, and finally some of the stories of injuries done him by Benjamin Latrobe.133 It is impossible to read Gode-

xilIbid., XXIX, 182. 181 The National Archives has no record of his name as a member of the army. ^ Federal Gazette, Sept. 27, 1815. (See MdHM, XXIX, 205.) *"• Hamlin, Latrobe, p. 386. 1,5 MdHM, XXIX, 206. ia6 See Baltimore American, Mar. 4, 1819, and photograph of the flag at the

MdHS.

MAXIMILIAN AND ELIZA GODEFROY 33

froy's letters and memoir without getting the impression that the writer was extremely erratic, perhaps even unbalanced. His sister had worried about his sanity at the time of his arrest in 1803, and one of the police officials had thought him "" weak in the head" with " symptoms of insanity." Although we can imagine that his reactions to imprisonment might justify such impressions, and while we might not be surprised to learn that he had feigned insanity for a purpose, we cannot entirely rule out some form of mental illness as an explanation of a state of mind capable of imagining some of the events he describes.

The greatest mystery of all is how, where, and when Godefroy was trained for his profession, for nowhere does he give us a hint of this important phase of his past life. Neither he, nor any of his associates, has mentioned his early training, either in a school, a studio, or as an apprentice, before he set himself up in Balti- more as an architect and engineer. His dossiers in Paris contain an enormous amount of material submitted by him as evidence of his qualifications, but not a word about any training which would have strengthened this evidence. The police scrutinized his record on several occasions, but the dossiers contain no mention of any searches in this direction, which certainly would have been made if he had mentioned his architectural training. In his appli- cations for appointments he listed his achievements abroad, but claimed none in France: the scenes of his foreign triumphs were less accessible to investigators of that day than they might be today; on the other hand, one notation in his dossier about a completed apprenticeship would have weighed more heavily in the balance than a diploma (honorary) from Baltimore. There was, to be sure, one mention of him as an ingemeur-hydrologue at the time of his arrest in 1803. Perhaps this was given on his authority alone, but if this was his profession, how was it related to his American career as an architect ? Since he later had difficulty in filling an architect's position at Rennes, we must at least recall this in connection with the question of his training.

If we are to believe Godefroy's statements as recorded in his dossiers in Paris, his political activity had begun in 1789 or 1790 when he was twenty-four or twenty-five years old. Prior to this, we have no record of him at all, except for the record of his birth, Paris, 1765, taken from his military record. A young man

34 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

of twenty-four would have had plenty of time to have acquired formal training as an architect or engineer by any of the usual means available at that time. Godefroy's work has attracted the attention of interested experts who have found it difficult or impossible to think of that work as done by an untrained man, but people of artistic achievement are usually proud of their training, and we would be less surprised if he were to exaggerate, rather than hide its extent. In speaking of his work, Godefroy cannot be accused of hiding his light under a bushel. What possible explanation can be offered for his reticence in this matter? The financial crises from which he never seemed to be free led him to devote much time throughout his later life to efforts to improve his position. In such cases, he spoke at length of his qualifications. Even if for some unfathomable reason, he preferred not to speak of his training, how could he have avoided doing so, if pressed ? We are thus left with three possible explanations of this peculiar behavior, all of which tax our credulity. Godefroy may have had no training at all. Secondly, he may have had training, but because he wished to keep something else about his early life secret, he avoided all mention of everything which occurred during that period. Finally, he may have been a genius in the use of the work of other people, and with experience of a practical nature picked up during his checkered career, he may have found it possible to use stock plans or other drawings not of his own creation.

WYE MILLS BEFORE RESTORATION (i95o)

Photo courtesy of Rep. Mason Wiliis

THE OLD WYE MILLS, 1690-1956

By EDWIN M. BARRY

THE Maryland Game and Inland Fish Commission had dreams of reviving the memory of bygone days at the Old Wye Mills.

These dreams began to come true in 1953 when the State of Maryland purchased the Wye Mills and prepared to renovate the dam for public fishing recreation. Local citizens then requested that the Wye Mills be deeded to the Society for the Preservation of Maryland Antiquities, and approval came in 1956 to transfer this jewel of antiquity to the Society, which is dedicated to keeping historical landmarks forever in the memory of mortals.1

The old Wye grist and saw mills were intricately interwoven with the struggle of the Maryland settlers to establish homes, create industry and bring into being "" harmony between man and the land." 2 The settlers, mostly of English descent, brought with them their native industrial skills, outstanding of which was milling. The first mills (1638) of the area were driven by wind and early records refer to the use of canvas which acted as a sail for increasing the power for these grinding mills. Water power was not used because the terrain lacked rolling hills for im- pounding water.

The story of Wye Mills is to be found hidden in the musty pages 1 The author wishes to express his grateful appreciation to Mr. and Mrs. C. W.

Kellogg of Langshaw, Talbot County, for their faithful persistence in arranging for conveyance of the Mills to the Society and to Mrs. Charles W. Williams for her professional effort in preparing the way for the Mills transfer. It is with special thanks that we recognize Miss Margaret W. Stewart, LL. D., of Annapolis for historical research on parts of this report. Ernest A. Vaughn, Director, and Howard Zeller and Guy Rogers, of the Game and Fish Commission played very important parts in the early development of this project and special thanks are acknowledged to Commissioners R. Frank Wimbrow, Royden A. Blunt, George D. Walters, Dr. William B. Holton and W. Desmond Walker for their approval of this transfer.

' The following general sources proved helpful in the preparation of the article: Elizabeth Merritt, Old Wye Church, Talbot County, Maryland, 1694-1941 (Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore, 1949). J. Donnell Tilghman, "Wye House," Mary- land Historical Magazine, XLVIII (1953), 89-108. Samuel A. Harrison's "Annals of Talbot County " in Maryland Historical Society, notebooks into which the loyal Talbot Countian copied everything he could find about the county. Frederic Emory, History of Queen Anne's County (Centreville, 1886). Oswald Tilghman, History of Talbot County Maryland, 1661-1861. Compiled principally from the literary relics of Samuel Alexander Harrison (Baltimore, 1895), 2 vols.

36 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

of the seventeenth century, amid the rent rolls, inaccurate surveys of patent grants, contested wills and other forms of title conveyance. Captain John Sargant (died 1676) was one of the first settlers to receive a grant in the upper reaches of the Wye River. He patented a large tract of land, '" Hopewell," and built what is believed to be its first brick house, known as "" Peggy's Field Farm " and later " Cloverfield." Here at the head of Wye (East) River, near what was formerly called " Lobs Creek," " Morgan's Creek," " Thomas Branch," or "' Williams Branch," he built a pier, cleared land and built boats.

On September 16, 1664, James Scott patented "' Old Mill," 250 acres, the land upon which Wye Mills now stand. Early land records reveal that about 1686 Henrietta Lloyd (1647-1697),!

widow of Philemon Lloyd, acquired timberlands from James Scott (Overseer of Philemon Lloyd).

Numerous grants and surveys were negotiated in the late seventeenth century and in 1680 "" The Farm " patent was transferred to Richard Sweatman from William Hemsley.4 Richard Sweatman enlarged the saw mill, an upright saw on the east side of Delmarva post road, and built a grist mill on the west side of the road. Along with " The Farm " patent, a tract known as "" Old Mill" was sold to Richard Sweatman5 and on this site many large white oak and yellow poplars were cut for St. Paul's Parish.

Wye saw and grist mills were going concerns in 1706. They formed a landmark and meeting place and were mentioned in a boundary survey between Talbot and Queen Anne's Counties in 1706 as " the mills commonly called and known by the name of Swetman's Mill."

In the early 1700's a quarrel developed between Richard Sweat- man and Edward Lloyd over title boundary lines. This is very easy to understand since original patent grants were poorly described and frequently overlapped.6 Searching the records reveals no transfer of title from Sweatman to Lloyd, so we must infer that Edward Lloyd took title to Wye Mills and operated this mill from about 1722 through 1793 by court order in title dispute litigation.7

'Probated will James Scott, Talbot County, Feb. 4, 1681. Hall of Records, Annapolis.

' William Hemsley to Richard Sweatman, Liber K. C, no. 5, fol. 81, Land Office, Annapolis.

5 Ibid., fol. 61. •Resurvey Hemsley Upon Wye, March 17, 1729, Liber Q. L. no. 4, fol. 404,

Talbot County. 7 Talbot County records no. 26, fol. 616.

THE OLD WYE MILLS, 1690-1956 37

Edward Lloyd IV (1744-1796), colonial governor, soldier and planter, held title to more than 30 farms, 305 slaves and 11,884 acres of land patented by his great-grandfathers. Colonel Lloyd supervised this vast holding on Wye River and during the Revolu- tionary War his Wye Mills furnished flour for the continental armies.

William Hemsley III (1766-1825) of " Cloverfield," who married Maria Lloyd (1784-1804), acquired from Edward Lloyd IV the Wye Mills property on May 27, 1778.s He operated the saw and grist mill together with a blacksmith shop. The present Wye Mills looks much as it did at the death of William Hemsley III in 1825, except for the location of the upright water power saw mill on the east side of the " post road " and the disappearance of the busy blacksmith shop filled with the sounds of horse and mule shoe repairs and other metal craftsmanship.

Hemsley's will was written about 1807 and probated in Queen Anne's County Courthouse on July 7, 1812. He willed " part of Cloverfield comprising mansion house to son William, part to sons Thomas and James; wills to son Alexander, Wye Mills, which was bought from Edward Lloyd." The lands of this great estate " Hemsley upon the Wye," later known as " Cloverfield," (1160 acres) were divided among the Hemsley sons and through frequent land tranactions the estate was reduced to small parcels with many owners. The Wye Mills, blacksmith shops, the pond of thirty acres and other tools were sold by Alexander Hemsley to Samuel Hopkins in February, 1821, for $4,000.'

The Wye Mill property resided in the Hopkins family from 1821 to 1877 at which time the estate was sold to John F. T. Brown, a miller. The deeds and wills do not yield very much information on the operation and events of the mills during this very important period in history. More research should throw additional light on this era.

John Brown operated the Wye Mills from 1887 to 1899 when on February 6 the holdings were transferred to John S. Sewell10

who improved the mill and dam and operated the mill with the aid of his son. In November, 1918, John Sewell sold Wye Mills (grist mill, circular saws and mill pond) to Winthrop H. and

' Liber T. M., no. 2, fol. 461, Queen Anne's County. ' Ibid. "Liber F. R., no. 2, fol. 112, Queen Anne's County.

38 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

Mary Scott Blakeslee, formerly of New Jersey. Mr. Blakeslee immediately set about repairing the mill, the spillway and gates. At this date the lake covered about fifty acres at full pool 12.8 feet above sea level. Upon repairing some of the foundation timbers in the old mill, Mr. Blakeslee found a l4"x 14" oak timber with the date 1840 inscribed thereon and this can now be seen by visitors.

In September, 1953, the State of Maryland, by and for the Game and Inland Fish Commission, purchased the Wye Mills property from Blakeslee and from 1953 to 1956 carried out engineering studies in preparation for reconstruction of a permanent spillway dam without gates for public fishing recreation. When the Game and Inland Fish Commission voted in January, 1956, to transfer title of Wye Mills and one acre of land upon which the mills stand to the Society for the Preservation of Maryland Antiquities, the perpetuation of an old, endearing landmark of early seventeenth century life and industry on the Eastern shore was assured to the people of Maryland.11

11 In the " Report of the President of the Society for the Preservation of Maryland

Antiquities," January, 1957, it was stated: " The restoration of the old Wye Mill in Talbot County, has been substantially

achieved through the efforts of the Society coupled with the generosity of an anonymous donor.

" At the beginning of 1956 the S.P.MA. received a gift of $10,000 to be used for the restoration of the old Wye Mill. The presentation of the mill to the Society from the Inland Fish and Game Commission was made at a ceremony on June 9, at the mill where the work of restoration had already begun.

" Mr. Howard Eley performed the work and had completed it in a most satisfactory manner by the end of July. He did the whole operation for the donated $10,000 at some loss to himself so we are deeply grateful to him.

" The dam which was washed out during the hurricane floods of the Fall of 1955 has not yet been rebuilt but Mr. Vaughn, Director of the Inland Fish and Game Commission, stated in a letter of October 29, 1956 that they anticipate completion of the entire project no later than July 1, 1957.

" We have been advised that the bottom of our intake flume would be 20 inches below the dam spillway so that a reasonable amount of daily drawdown should be possible. Our deed as finally executed includes water rights.

" Looking to the future, it was realized from the start that the work done by Mr. Eley covered only the mill building proper and test funds for the rehabilitation of the machinery, and working capital for operating the mill would have to be raised from other sources. For this purpose the Committee has incorporated as the '" Old Wye Mill Society Inc." set up to raise money by the sale of its stock. The original incorporators who constitute the Officers and Directors are: Mrs. Charles W. Kellogg, President, Robert G. Henry, Vice-President, Charles W. Kellogg, Treasurer, Philip W. Moore, Secretary, Howard Eley, and A. Johnson Grymes, Directors.

" It is understood that the S.P.MA. will lease the mill property to the Corporation for some nominal rental or profit sharing basis to maintain the property as a going concern."

THE BATTLE OF SOUTH MOUNTAIN

By WARREN W. HASSLER, JR.

SEVERAL epic battles of the Civil War stand out above the rest for their awesome carnage as soldiers in blue and gray

fought each other with supreme courage and determination. Gettysburg, Shiloh, the Seven Days, Chancellorsville, Vicksburg, and especially Antietam—the bloodiest single day of battle in American history—were such contests. "While most Civil War students are aware that, militarily, politically, and diplomatically speaking, Antietam was perhaps the most crucial combat of the war, few writers have pointed out that, in reality Antietam was something of an anticlimax. Actually, the Confederate invasion of the North was halted, not at Sharpsburg, but three days earlier, at South Mountain. After the latter action, all that Major General George B. McClellan had to do was to hold General Robert E. Lee to a draw at Antietam, and the gray incursion of the Old Line State would be defeated, and with it the chief hopes of South. Just how this vast drama unfolded in the hills of Western Maryland comprises this story.

South Mountain is the name given to the Blue Ridge Mountains extending north of the Potomac River along the western edge of Middletown Valley. Here, at three gaps in the mountain wall, was fought the series of desperate engagements known collectively as the Battle of South Mountain or the Battle of Boonsboro.

The tale begins with a routed, disorganized Federal army1

resting in the environs of Washington—and out there somewhere to the west a triumphant grayclad host splashing northward across the waters of the Potomac into Maryland. It was early in Septem-

1 George B. McClellan, McClellan's Own Story: The War for the Union . . . (New York, 1887), 551-52; Joseph Hooker to Randolph B. Marcy, September 5, 1862, War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (Washington, 1880-1901), Series I, Vol. XIX, Pt. II, 184, cited hereafter as O.R., with all references being to Series I; George G. Meade to his wife, September 12, 1862, George Meade (ed.). The Life and Letters of George Gordon Meade . . . (New York, 1913), I, 309; "Strategy of the Sharps- burg Campaign," Maryland Historical Magazine, I (1906), 247-271.

40 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

ber, 1862, and Lee was embarked on his first invasion o£ the loyal Union states. He had just defeated Major General John Pope at Second Bull Run and apparently believed that the blueclad forces, now under McClellan, would be unable to arrest his northward march. To Jefferson Davis, Lee reported, " The two grand armies 2 of the United States that have been operating in Virginia, though now united, are much weakened and demoralized." 3 Lee determined first to secure his communications with Virginia by moving his victorious Army of Northern Virginia, some 60,000 strong,* into Western Maryland, thereby opening up the Shenan- doah Valley. Then, using the broad avenue of the Cumberland Valley, he would threaten the cities of Pennsylvania. This, thought Lee, would have the effect of drawing McClellan's Army of the Potomac far enough toward the Susquehanna River so as " to afford [Lee] either an opportunity of seizing Baltimore or Wash- ington, or of dealing a damaging blow at the [Union] army far from its base of supplies." In other words, the Southern leader intended "so to manoeuvre as to cause McClellan to uncover " Washington or Baltimore. Lee's route would be first toward Frederick, then on to the western side of South Mountain. He would next establish an advance base of operations at Hagerstown, from which he would march northward into the Keystone State, using the lofty barrier of the South Mountain range as a protective screen for his right flank.5

Meanwhile, back in the National capital, the reappointment of McClellan to the command of the Federal army had done much

2 That is, John Pope's former Army of Virginia, and McClellan's Army of the Potomac, which had just been united under the latter name and placed under McClellan's command.

3 Lee to Davis, September 3, 1862, O. R., XIX, Pt. II, 590. * James Longstreet, From Manassas to Appomattox . . . (Philadelphia, 1908),

279; Thomas L. Livermore, Numbers and Losses in the Civil War in America, 1861-1865 (Boston, 1900), 92-93; John Codman Ropes, Story of the Civil War (New York, 1899), II, 337; E. P. Alexander, Military Memoirs of a Confederate . . . (New York, 1907), 223- It must be remembered that in most of the Confederate returns, the numbers given refer only to combatants, "muskets," or effectives; while the Federal reports generally include non-combatants in giving the strength of units (see Jacob Dolson Cox, Military Reminiscences of the Civil War [New York, 1900], I, 286).

"Lee's report, O.R., XIX, Pt. I, 145; Francis Winthrop Palfrey, The Antietam and Fredericksburg (New York, 1882), 15-16; Alexander, Military Memoirs, 225; O. R., XIX, Pt. II, 604, 605; William Swinton, Campaigns of the Army of the Potomac . . . (New York, 1866), 198. See also Douglas Southall Freeman, Lee's Lieutenants, A Study in Command (New York, 1943), II, 166.

THE BATTLE OF SOUTH MOUNTAIN 41

to dispel some of the gloom pervading the North after the recent defeat at Manassas. But there was no substitute for victory, and affairs were still in a grave condition. " The country is very desponding and much disheartened," wrote Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles in his diary on September 13. " There is a per- ceptibly growing distrust of the Administration and of its ability and power to conduct the war. ... It is evident, however, that the reinstatement of McC[lellan} has inspired strength, vigor, and hope in the army. Officers and soldiers appear to be united in his favor and willing to follow his lead." 6 In the ensuing Mary- land campaign, "" Little Mac," in the handling of his army of some 87,000 men,7 was to demonstrate a sure grasp of the developing situation on the military chessboard; his orders would be clear, crisp, and positive throughout his advance from Washington into Western Maryland.8 And well might he feel at ease about the safety of Washington, for no less than 72,500 troops 9 had been left behind to garrison the thirty-three miles of powerful fortifications protecting the capital. However, the Union General-in- Chief, Major General Henry W. Halleck—or "" Woodenhead," as he was called—was to remain overly alarmed about the safety of Washington throughout the campaign.

Lee's army reached Frederick on September 8. The Confederate general assumed that his advance into Maryland would certainly cause the immediate evacuation of Harper's Ferry by the Union garrison of 12,500 men 10 there under the command of Colonel Dixon S. Miles.11 As the New York Times war correspondent, William Swinton, stated, Harper's Ferry, " important as against a menace by way of the Shenandoah Valley, became utterly useless now that the Confederates were actually in Maryland; and the garrison, while subserving no purpose, was in imminent danger of capture." 12 Before moving out from Washington, McClellan

'John T. Morse, Jr. (ed.), Diary of Gideon Welles . . . (Boston, 19H), I, 129. 7 McClellan's report, O. K., XIX, Pt. I, 67. 'See, e.g., O.R., XIX, Pt. II, 239, 271, 289-90. • Palfrey, The Antietam, 5-6; Ropes, Story of the Civil War, II, 336; O. R., XIX,

Pt. II, 202, 214. "O.K., XIX, Pt. I, 522, 525, 778, Pt. II, 53; Swinton, Army of the Potomac,

199; J. H. Stine, History of the Army of the Potomac (Washington, 1893), 157. "Lee's report, O.K., XIX, Pt. I, 145; Lee to Davis, September 12, 1862, O.K.,

XIX, Pt. II, 604; Alexander, Military Memoirs, 225. 12 Swinton, Army of the Potomac, 200. See also Comte de Paris, History of the

Civil War in America (Philadelphia, 1875), II, 312.

42 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

had urged Halleck that, if the General-in-Chief insisted on keeping the Federal garrison at the Ferry, Miles at least be instructed to get his men out of the militarily indefensible pocket of the town itself and place them atop Maryland Heights, the key position in that area.13 Later, on September 11, McClellan renewed his plea that Halleck order Miles to evacuate Harper's Ferry at once, since it could not be held against a determined effort by Lee to capture it. McClellan strongly recommended that the garrison be directed to join his field army immediately.14 But Halleck stupidly insisted that Miles remain at Harper's Ferry in the death-trap.15

Halleck's blunder was, however, unwittingly, to cause Lee to make a new departure in his plans. Astounded at the news that the National garrison had been kept at the Ferry, Lee felt obliged to dislodge Miles before continuing his operations west of South Mountain.16 He could not pass up the opportunity to wipe out or capture 12,500 blueclad troops, or to seize the huge military supplies stored at Harper's Ferry.

On September 9, therefore, Lee determined to send approximately one-half of his army to reduce Miles's force and capture the Ferry. Major General Thomas J. ""Stonewall" Jackson's command was to march by way of Sharpsburg to invest Harper's Ferry from Bolivar Heights on what is now the West Virginia shore. Brigadier General J. G Walker's division was to cross the Potomac below the Ferry and assail the town from London Heights in Virginia. Major General Lafayette McLaws' division was to move via Middletown on the road from Frederick to the Ferry and lay siege to the town from Maryland Heights. Jackson was placed in command of the whole operation. Major General James Longstreet's command, accompanied by Lee himself, was to move along the National Road 17 to Boonsboro. These directions were encompassed in what was known as "" Special Orders No. 191 "—

18 McClellans report, O.R., XIX, Pt. I, 26. "McClellan to Halleck, September 11, 1862, O.K., XIX, Pt. II, 254. See also

Report of the Committee on the Conduct of the War (Washington, 1863), I, 478, cited hereafter as C. C. W.; Ropes, Story of the Civil War, II, 333.

10 Halleck to Miles, September 7, 1862, Juilius White, " The Surrender of Harper's Ferry," Robert U. Johnson and Clarence C. Buel, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War (New York, 1884), II, 612, cited hereafter as B.&L.; Halleck to McClellan, September 11, 1862, C.C.W., I, 478; O.R., XIX, Pt. I, 44.

16 Lee's report, 0. R., XIX, Pt. I, 145. 17 Alternate U. S. 40 today.

THE BATTLE OF SOUTH MOUNTAIN 43

subsequently dubbed the '" Lost Dispatch." 18 Lee believed that Harper's Ferry could be reduced, Miles's garrison captured, and the two wings o£ the Confederate army reunited west of South Mountain before being confronted in force by McClellan's army.19

Lee issued three copies of this Special Orders No. 191: one to Longstreet, one to Jackson, and one to Major General D. H. Hill. Hill was not at this time under Jackson's orders, but believing that Hill was under his command, Jackson also issued a copy of the special orders to Hill. Therefore, two copies of the same directive were on the way to Hill. Unfortunately for the Southerners, the copy from Lee's headquarters was lost by a careless staff officer near the suburbs of Frederick, and Hill received only the copy from Jackson.20

Stonewall's three columns marched out of Frederick on Septem- ber 10 for their rendezvous at Harper's Ferry, while Lee with Longstreet's command moved from Frederick toward Boonsboro. But before leaving his chieftain, J. G. Walker had an interesting and informative conversation with Lee in Frederick. Lee informed Walker that, after the capture of the Union garrison at Harper's Ferry, he would concentrate his army at Hagerstown and destroy the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. Then, he intended to march northward into the Keystone State, capture Harrisburg, tear up the Pennsylvania Railroad tracks, and finally move against Phila- delphia, Baltimore, or Washington. When Walker gasped at the boldness of his chief's plans, Lee asked him if he were " acquainted with General McClellan." When Walker replied that he was not, Lee said, "" He is an able general but a very cautious one. His enemies among his own people think him too much so. His army is in a very demoralized and chaotic condition, and will not be prepared for offensive operations—or he will not think it so—for three or four weeks. Before that time I hope to be on the Susquehanna." 21 Lee, however, was to be in for a rude awakening as to the capabilities and vigor of McClellan and his Army of the Potomac.

At 10:00 A. M. on September 12—a full day before the finding

"O.K., XIX, Ft. I, 42; Alexander, Military Memoirs, 228; Longstreet, Manassas to Appomattox, 212; O.K., XIX, Ft. II, 603-604.

" O. R., XIX, Ft. I, 145; Swinton, Army of the Potomac, 200-201. 10 Alexander, Military Memoirs, 229; Falfrey, The Antietam, 21-22. See also

Freeman, hee's Lieutenants, II, 715-22. 21 John G. Walker, " Jackson's Capture of Harper's Ferry," B. & L., II, 605-606.

44 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

of the "' Lost Dispatch "—McClellan correctly gauged the Con- federate intentions and movements in Western Maryland. "" I feel perfectly confident," he declared in a telegram to Halleck, "that the enemy has abandoned Frederick, moving in two directions, viz: On the Hagerstown and Harper's Ferry roads." 22 Just a few hours earlier, Halleck had finally placed Miles's garrison at the

HAGERSTOWN *l

SOUTH MOUNTAIN

Ferry under McClellan's command. "You will endeavor," the General-in-Chief wired McClellan, " to open communication with him, and unite your forces to his at the earliest moment." 23 But Halleck's belated order came too late to save the doomed Federal garrison.24

" McClellan to Halleck, September 12, 1862, C. C. W., I, 482. "Halleck to McClellan, September 12, 1862, ibid., 483. "See Swinton, Army of the Potomac, 201.

THE BATTLE OF SOUTH MOUNTAIN 45

A look now at the situation on the military chessboard as it was on the evening of September 13 will better enable the reader to comprehend the ensuing events. By that evening, McClellan's various units had reached the following places: Pleasonton's cavalry command was near the eastern foot of the South Mountain range; Couch's division was at Licksville; Franklin's Sixth Corps was at Buckeystown; Sykes's division was at Frederick, as were Sumner's Second Corps, Mansfield's Twelfth Corps, Hooker's First Corps, and Rodman's division of the Ninth Corps; the rest of Reno's Ninth Corps was at Middletown.25

On the Confederate side, on the evening of the 13th, Lee's forces were disposed as follows: Jackson's three columns were closing in on Harper's Ferry; Longstreet's two divisions, accompanied by Lee in person, were near Hagerstown; D. H. Hill's division was on the National Road between Boonsboro and Turner's Gap in the South Mountain; J. E. B. Stuart's cavalry was holding the passes of South Mountain.26

When the Army of the Potomac entered loyal Frederick, the happy townsfolk tried to outdo each other in heaping gifts of food, fruit, and fresh water upon the dusty blueclad soldiers. This exhibition of gratitude and support was in marked contrast to the cool, almost hostile reception which the Confederate troops had experienced a few days previously when they had wended their way through the streets of the quaint town.27 McClellan wrote to his wife of the scene which he encountered in riding through Frederick: " I can't describe to you for want of time the enthusiastic reception we met with. ... I was nearly over- whelmed and pulled to pieces. I enclose with this a little flag that some enthusiastic lady thrust into or upon Dan's bridle. As to flowers—they came in crowds! In truth, I was seldom more affected than by the scenes I saw yesterday and the reception I

26 Letter of the Secretary of War, Transmitting Report on the Organization of the Army of the Potomac, and of its Campaigns in Virginia and Maryland, under the Command of Ma]. Gen. George B. McClellan, from July 26, 1861, to November 1, 1862 (Washington, 1864), 186, 195, cited hereafter as McClellan's Report; Palfrey, The Antietam, 13-14.

26 See Matthew Forney Steele, American Campaigns (Washington, 1922), I, 265. 27 Francis A Walker, History of the Second Army Corps . . . (New York, 1886),

93-94.

46 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

met with. . . . Men, women, and children crowded around us, weeping, shouting, and praying." 28

Then came one of those strokes of fortune which occasionally affect great events. The Federal Twelfth Corps had bivouacked outside of Frederick on ground previously occupied by D. H. Hill's Confederate troops. On September 13, Sergeant John M. Bloss and Private B. W. Mitchell of Company F, Twenty-seventh Indi- ana regiment, reclining on the ground, discovered a brown package near them. It was found to contain three cigars, about which was wrapped a sheet of paper containing writing. Upon examina- tion, the two soldiers saw that the paper gave names and positions of enemy divisions. The paper was sent through channels to McClellan's headquarters, reaching him sometime before 6:20 P. M. on the 13th. This document turned out to be the lost copy of Lee's important Special Orders No. 191, drawn up by the Southern commander on the 9th. It gave some of the plans, objectives, and positions of Lee's units as of four days previous.29

Believing that Lee had about 120,000 men under his command,30

McClellan was fearful at first that the " Lost Dispatch " was a ruse de guerre. After confirming its authenticity,31 however, McClellan asserted to one of his brigadiers that this opportunity should enable him to "whip 'Bobbie Lee.'"32 Of course, the Union commander did not know of any changes in orders or plans which might well have been made by Lee during the four days existence of the lost dispatch.33 And such a change had, in fact, been made by his opponent. The lost order placed Long- street's command at Boonsboro; whereas, in reality, his position had been changed by Lee to Hagerstown, thirteen miles further west. Therefore, McClellan was led to believe that D. H. Hill and Longstreet were both in or very near Boonsboro and the South Mountain passes on September 13 and 14. Accordingly, the

28 McClellan to his wife, September 14, 1862, McClellan's Own Story, 571-572; see also A. P. Smith, History of the Seventy-Sixth Regiment, New York Volunteers . . . (Cortland, N. Y., 1867), 149-50.

"Silas Colgrove, "The Finding of Lee's Lost Order," B. & L., II, 603; O.R., XIX, Pt. I, 42; William Allan, The Army of Northern Virginia in 1862 . . . (Cambridge, 1892), 343; Stine, Army of the Potomac, 159.

"O.K., XIX, Pt. II, 281; McClellan to Halleck, September 13, 1862, CCW., I, 485-86.

81 Colgrove, op. tit., B. & L., II, 603. "John Gibbon, Personal Recollections of the Civil War (New York, 1928), 73. M See Longstreet, Manassas to Appomattox, 213.

THE BATTLE OF SOUTH MOUNTAIN 47

Federal commander moved more cautiously and slowly against this supposed heavy force of graycoats than he would ordinarily have done. " The losing of the dispatch," declares Hill, " was the saving of Lee's army. ... In the battle of South Mountain the imaginary foes of the Lost Dispatch were worth more to us than ten thousand men." 34 McClellan noted also that the lost order revealed Lee's intention of concentrating his whole army (including Jackson's forces then investing Harper's Ferry) at Boons- boro, not at South Mountain. As Brigadier General Jacob D. Cox of the Union army says, " McClellan's orders and correspondence show that he expected a battle at Boonsboro, but not at South Mountain or east of it." 35

With the unfolding drama having reached this stage of development, "South Mountain," in the words of Colonel Joseph B. Mitchell, " was the key to the situation." 36 " With the knowledge afforded by securing Lee's " lost order ' the passes of the South Mountain became important points," writes Longstreet, Lee's senior corps commander.37 Therefore, in order to learn for certain the precise nature of the enemy's position and designs, McClellan was obliged to penetrate as rapidly as possible the imposing barrier of the high range.38 Yet, according to Longstreet, there was another element in the Union commander's favor: "' It seems that up to the night of the 13 th most of the Confederates were . . . not thinking it possible that a great struggle at and along the range of South Mountain was impending. . . . General Lee still held to the thought that he had ample time. . . . The hallucination that McClellan was not capable of serious work seemed to pervade our army, even at this moment of dreadful threatening." 39

McClellan's reaction to the advantage given him by the discovery of the lost dispatch was energetic. He saw that if his left wing, under Franklin, could swiftly penetrate Crampton's Gap in the South Mountain it would then be in the rear of McLaws' gray force investing Harper's Ferry from Maryland Heights. This

34 D. H. Hill, " The Battle of South Mountain, or Boonsboro," B. & L., II, 570, 573.

86 See Jacob D. Cox, "Forcing Fox's Gap and Turner's Gap," ibid., 585. ,", Joseph B. Mitchell, Decisive Battles of the Civil War (New York, 1955), 93. "Longstreet, Manassas to Appomattox, 216. 38 John W. Thomason, Jr., Jeb Stuart (New York, 1944), 269. 38 Longstreet, Manassas to Appomattox, 219-20.

48 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

reasoning was all based on the supposition that Miles's Federal force at the Ferry could hold out for a while longer. The National commander also perceived that if his right wing, under Major General Ambrose E. Burnside, could breach Turner's Gap in the mountain wall, it might be able to interpose itself between the separated enemy forces of Longstreet and Hill, and Jackson.40

Accordingly, in a move that was to upset all of Lee's calculations, McClellan, at 6:20 p. M. on the 13th, ordered a swift movement by his left wing.41 Franklin, then at Buckeystown, was directed to march at daybreak on the 14th toward Rohersville by way of Jefferson, Burkittsville, and Crampton's Gap. From the latter point. Franklin was to move against McLaws' force on Maryland Heights, defeat it, and thereby relieve Miles at Harper's Ferry. In other words, the Union left wing was to intervene between the forces of Jackson and Longstreet. " My general idea," said McClellan to Franklin, "is to cut the enemy in two and beat him in detail." The Federal commander concluded his directive to Franklin by stating, "" I ask of you, at this important moment, all your intellect and the utmost activity that a general can exer- cise." 42 While the game on the Union left was now in Franklin's hands, the right wing of the Army of the Potomac was instructed to march at daylight on the 14th toward Turner's Gap on the National Road.43

It is conceivable that McClellan could perhaps have pushed his weary legions onward still further on the night of September 13, but they would probably have been far too exhausted to have given a good account of themselves offensively in the battle of the 14th. As it was, McClellan's orders on the evening of the 13 th show that, for a circ*mspect general, he was acting with unusual speed. Lee acknowledged in his official report that the Federal commander " immediately began to push forward rapidly." 44 One of Stonewall Jackson's staff officers wrote that "" the plans of [McClellan] were quickly and skillfully made." 45 The

10 See Palfrey, The Antietam, 27-28. 41 See Swinton, Army of the Potomac, 201. *' McClellan to Franklin, September 13, 1862—6:20 P. M., Palfrey, The Antietam,

28-29. 43 Ibid., 30. "Lee's report, O.K., XIX, Pt. I, 146. See also Douglas Southall Freeman,

R. £. Lee, A Biography (New York, 1934), II, 367. 16 Henry Kyd Douglas, " Stonewall Jackson in Maryland," B. & L., II, 624.

THE BATTLE OF SOUTH MOUNTAIN 49

eminent military scientist and biographer of Jackson, G. F. R. Henderson, declared that "McClellan had acted with unexpected vigor." ir' Another military commentator. Colonel "William Allan of the Confederate army, stated that " a comparatively rapid advance was ordered." i7 The Count of Paris felt that, in his reaction to the exigency of the moment, " McClellan . . . displayed great activity." 48

If, before September 13, Lee had discounted dynamic action by McClellan, he was certainly forced to change his opinion by that evening. Word reached him then that, earlier on the 13th, Union cavalry had defeated Confederate mounted men along the National Road at the pass in the Catoctin range, and that there had been several brushes with the blue forces at Middletown. Lee also received the information that the lost dispatch had fallen into McClellan's hands.40 He saw that the one sure way to prevent McClellan from interposing between the two separated halves of the Confederate army was to hold the gaps of the South Moun- tain against the Federal advance. In the words of Douglas Southall Freeman, "" a defensive barrier that Lee had planned to disregard, in order to lure McClellan westward, suddenly had become indis- pensable to the plan of operations." 50 The Southern chieftain quickly issued new orders: D. H. Hill was to cooperate with " Jeb " Stuart in holding the South Mountain passes; Longstreet was to countermarch from Hagerstown as rapidly as possible to succor Hill.51 Another reason for holding the mountain passes on the 14th was that additional time was needed for the Con- federate reserve artillery and ordnance trains to reach a point of safety beyond the eager tentacles of the Union cavalry.52

Early on the morning of September 14, a personal messenger from Miles arrived at McClellan's headquarters. He delivered a

"' .G F. R. Henderson, Stonewall Jackson and the American Civil War (London and New York, 1898), 11, 226.

" Allan, Army of Northern Virginia, 344. 48 Comte de Paris, The Civil War, II, 332. "Reports of Pleasonton and Stuart, O.R., XIX, Pt. I, 209, 816-17; Alexander,

Military Memoirs, 230; Allan, Army of Northern Virginia, 345; Swinton, Army of the Potomac, 201.

r'° Freeman, Lee's Lieutenants, II, 171. 61 O.R., XIX, Pt. I, 140, 145. See also B. & L., II, 560-61; Edward A. Pollard,

The Second Year of the War (New York, 1865), 126. 52 Tenninss Cropper Wise, The Long Arm of Lee. or The History of the Artillery

of the Army of Northern Virginia . . . (Lynchburg, Va., 1915), I, 292.

50 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

note which stated that the Federal garrison of some 12,500 men at Harper's Ferry would be able to hold out for two more days— that is, until the l6th.:i3 This was welcome news to Little Mac. He soon had three couriers speeding on their way with copies of a vital order for Miles at the Ferry. This directive stated that McClellan was then assailing the gaps of South Mountain. " You may count on our making every effort to relieve you," the message continued. " You may rely upon my speedily accomplishing that object. Hold out to the last extremity. If it is possible, reoccupy the Maryland heights with your whole force. If you can do that, I will certainly be able to relieve you. . . . Hold out to the last." " Unfortunately for the Federals, before this garrison had been placed under McClellan's orders, Miles had literally obeyed Hal- leck's earlier order to hold Harper's Ferry by actually determining to hold the town itself. This placed the Union garrison in a death- trap, because the town is in a deep pocket which is completely surrounded by the three dominant heights overlooking it. Truly, these blueclad soldiers were being offered up for the taking— and the redoubtable Stonewall was not the one to disappoint them.

Sunday, September 14, 1862, was hot and clear in the forenoon, but in the afternoon and evening hours the sky became overcast with heavy clouds.55 In accordance with McClellan's orders. Franklin, at daybreak, began his movement against Crampton's Gap, which was defended by detachments of McLaws' and Stuart's commands. Burnside, at the same time, commenced his march toward Turner's Gap, held by D. H. Hill, later reinforced by Longstreet.56 Burnside's battle at Turner's and Fox's Gaps will be dealt with first, although it must be borne in mind that Frank- lin's combat at Crampton's Gap was taking place simultaneously.

The South Mountain wall was a splendid defensive rampart for the Confederates.57 Troops placed on it could, if properly

"McCleilan's Report, 191; Palfrey, The Antietam, 25; American Historical Association, Diary and Correspondence of Salmon P. Chase (Washington, 1903), 81; Ezra D. Simons, A Regimental History: The One Hundred and Twenty-Fifth New York State Volunteers (New York, 1888), 32.

"McClellan to Miles, September 14, 1862, McClellan's Report, 191. 55 A. F. Hill, Our Boys, The Personal Experiences of a Soldier (Philadelphia,

1864), 394. 55 Swinton, Army of the Potomac, 202; J. R. Sypher, History of the Pennsylvania

Reserve Corps . . . (Lancaster, Pa., 1865), 362. "See, e.g., William H. Powell, The Fifth Army Corps . . . (New York, 1896),

265; An English Combatant, Battle-Fields of the South . . . (New York, 1864),

THE BATTLE OF SOUTH MOUNTAIN 51

handled, hold back several times their own number.58 The steep slopes of the mountain were in most places covered with dense woods and underbrush, ledges of rock, and numerous stone fences.59 The National Road penetrates the 1,300 foot mountain wall at Turner's Gap—a pass some 400 feet below the summit. The only other practicable pass in that vicinity is Fox's Gap,60

one mile south of Turner's. At Bolivar Post Office, on the National Road, near the eastern foot of the range. Old Sharpsburg Road61 branches off to the left (south), then curves around in a westerly direction and crosses the mountain at Fox's Gap. Also at Bolivar Post Office, Old Hagerstown Road turns off to the right (north) and passes through Mt. Tabor Church, then ascends the mountain, reaching its summit one mile north of Turner's Gap. From here it runs south along the crest until it again inter- sects the National Road at Turner's at the so-called Mountain House (an inn situated along the southern side of the pike). A mountain-top road also runs along the crest from Fox's Gap to the Mountain House.62

The most important crossing of the South Mountain is the one at Turner's Gap on the National Road. South of the pike there is but one main crest of the mountain range. But, in the words of a Union officer. Brigadier General Francis W. Palfrey, "' the mountain on the north side of the main road is divided into two crests by a narrow valley, which is deep where it touches the road, but much less so a mile to the north." 63 If assaulted frontally, even in superior numbers, the occupied heights promised bloody repulse for the Federals.64 However, as war correspondent

470-71; Theodore B. Gates, The " Ulster Guard" (20th N. Y. Slate Militia) and the War of the Rebellion . . . (New York, 1879), 298, 301; Longstreet, Mannassas to Appomattox, 218; A. L. Long, Memoirs of Robert E- Lee . . . (New York, 1886), 214; Freeman, R. E. Lee, II, 365.

58 Hooker's report, O.K., XIX, Ft. I, 214; Palfrey, The Antietam, 38; William Henry Locke, The Story of the Regiment (New York, 1872), 120.

E" J. B. Hood, Advance and Retreat . . . (New Orleans, 1880), 40; Hooker's report, O.R., XIX, Ft. I, 214; Oliver C. Bosbyshell et al (ed.), Pennsylvania at Antietam . . . (Harrisburg, 1906), 216.

*' Known also as Braddock's Gap. '1 Known also as the Braddock Road, said to be the route taken in the French

and Indian War by Gen. Edward Braddock in his ill-fated campaign toward Pittsburgh.

02 The best maps of this region are: Atlas to Accompany the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Plate XXVII, Map 3; B. 6- L., II, 568.

03 Palfrey, The Antietam, 33. For a further description of Turner's Gap, see O. R., XIX, Ft. I, 48; Cox, op. cit., B. & L, II, 585.

84 Locke, Story of the Regiment, 120.

52 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

Swinton pointed out, " the gap itself is unassailable; but there is a practicable road over the crest to the [Union} right of the pass, and another to the left [at Fox's Gap}. The key-point of the whole position is a rocky and precipitous peak which dominates the ridge to the right [or north} of the pass." e5 According to Palfrey, " the ground was little known to our commanders." 66

But the Confederate officers had been in the vicinity for several days.

In the battle about to ensue—unlike the one just fought at Manassas—Federal morale was good, due chiefly to the fact that McClellan was again at the head of the Army of the Potomac.67

Southern elan was high, too, for the graycoats were riding on a tide of success up to this point. As far as numbers are concerned, it is impossible to state with absolute accuracy the total engaged at South Mountain. According to Livermore, 28,480 Federals were engaged, while some 18,714 Confederate effectives were brought into battle.63 Eighteen Union brigades were pitted against fourteen grayclad ones. Palfrey thinks that "it is probable that the Federals outnumbered the Confederates to some extent, but probably not to a great extent." 69 Certainly, given the superiority of the Southern position on the mountain, McClellan had need of as great a preponderance of force as he could muster.

Early on the morning of September 14, Pleasonton's Union cavalry, riding westward along the National Road, discovered the two roads which branch off to the left and right at Bolivar Post Office. Pleasonton soon began skirmishing with the enemy and pushed forward investigative probes at the eastern foot of both Turner's and Fox's Gaps.70 He soon saw that infantry supports were necessary. Fortunately for the Federals these were close at hand. Burnside's wing of the Army of the Potomac reached Boli- var Post Office in mid-morning of the 14th. There, Reno's Ninth

05 Swinton, Army of the Potomac, 202. See also Comte de Paris, The Civil War, II, 320-31; Peter S. Michie, General McClellan (New York, 1901), 409; and Hooker's report, O.K., XIX, Pt. I, 1020.

'" Palfrey, The Antietam, 33. 07 Regis DeTrobriand, Four Years with the Army of the Potomac (Boston, 1889),

320-21. 08 Livermore, Numbers and Losses, 90. See also Sypher, Pennsylvania Reserves,

373. " Palfrey, The Antietam, 138. 70 Pleasonton's report, O.R., XIX, Pt. I, 209-10; Longstreet, Manassas to Appo-

mattox, 221.

THE BATTLE OF SOUTH MOUNTAIN 53

Corps was turned off to the left on the Old Sharpsburg Road to attack Fox's Gap, while Hooker's First Corps was moved off to the right on the Old Hagerstown Road to outflank Turner's Gap on the north. In the meantime, Brigadier General John Gibbon's famed Iron Brigade was instructed to march directly up the pike toward Turner's Gap and engage the enemy in front while the Union flank attacks were developing.71

In his early morning skirmishing, Pleasonton had been aided at Fox's Gap, first by elements of Colonel E. P. Scammon's brigade of Cox's Kanawha Division, and shortly afterward by troops of Cox's Second Brigade, commanded by Colonel George Crook.72

The really heavy infantry fighting, however, did not begin in earnest at Fox's until 9:00 A. M.

73 Then, Cox's two brigades,

moving chiefly on the south side of the Old Sharpsburg Road, encountered the Confederate brigade of Brigadier General Samuel Garland, assisted by the right wing of Colonel A. H. Colquitt's. The clash was instant and furious, and in many places, hand to hand.74 Although somewhat outnumbered, the graycoats had the advantage of position and were firing down the throats of the Union men as they struggled up the steep slope. In the decisive action, the Twenty-Third Ohio regiment, commanded by Lieuten- ant Colonel Rutherford B. Hayes, swept around the Confederate right flank and completely enveloped it.75 (In this fight it was the duty of Sergeant William McKinley, of the Twenty-Third, to bring forward rations to the embattled troops in blue.) Early in the combat, near the moment of success, Hayes, while leading his regiment in the charge, fell severely wounded in the arm. He refused to leave the field, however, until compelled to do so by loss of blood.76

By 10:00 A.M., Garland was dead, and his grayclad brigade routed. The outcome of the battle is best described in the words of Cox: " The high knoll on the left was carried, the enemy's center was completely broken and driven down the mountain, while on the right our men pushed the routed Carolinians beyond

71 Stine, Army of the Potomac, 161; Palfrey, The Antietam, 33-34. 72 Pleasonton's report, O.K., XIX, Ft, I, 209-10. 73 Hill, op. cit., B. & L., II, 563; Cox, op. cit., ibid., 586-87. 74 Cox, op. cit., ibid., 587. 75 Reports of Cox and Scammon, O. R., XIX, Pt. I, 458, 459, 461; Palfrey,

The Antietam, 34-35. 73Reports of Cox and Scammon, O.K., XIX, Pt. I, 460, 461.

54 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

the Sharpsburg road, through Wise's fields, and up the slope of the crest toward the Mountain House at Turner's Gap." " The Confederate commander on the field, D. H. Hill, admits of " the utter rout and dispersion of Garland's brigade " by ten o'clock. He then states that, some thirty minutes later, the brigade of Brigadier General George B. Anderson '" made an effort to recover the ground lost by Garland, but failed and met a serious repulse." 78

A lull now occurred in the battle, during which both sides brought up reinforcements before renewing the contest. A little before noon. Hill sent the brigade of Brigadier General Roswell S. Ripley to assist G. B. Anderson's remnants at the crest at Fox's Gap, while Brigadier General Robert E. Rodes's brigade was deployed on the eastermost crest of the mountain just north of Turner's Gap.79

There had been no fighting of any consequence in the morning hours at Turner's Gap, although it seems that Burnside could have attacked with advantage there with Hooker's First Corps before noon.80 Then McCleiian arrived on the field in person, and reconnoitered along the Old Hagerstown Road in close prox- imity to the enemy.81 Shortly afterward, he set up his command post with Burnside along the National Road at the eastern foot of the mountain, and assumed direct command of the battle.82

As at Fox's, so too at Turner's, the superior position of the Con- federates enabled them to use their artillery more effectively than the Federals.

At about 2:00 p. M., Hooker's First Corps, directed by McCleiian to assail the enemy left flank a mile to the north of Turner's Gap, began moving up the Old Hagerstown Road via Mt. Tabor Church. While this flanking operation was underway. Hill was being reinforced by the somewhat jaded troops of Longstreet's command, which had rapidly countermarched from Hagerstown

77 Cox, op. cit., B. & L., II, 587. See also Longstreet, Manassas to Appomattox, 221-22.

78 Hill, op. cit., B. & L., II, 567. " See ibid., 568. 80 Swinton, Army of the Potomac, 204. 81 Benjamin F. Cook, History of the Twelfth Massachusetts Volunteers . . .

(Boston, 1882), 67. S!! McClellan's Report, 196; Comte de Paris, The Civil War, II, 321; Stine,

Army of the Potomac, 172.

THE BATTLE OF SOUTH MOUNTAIN 55

to augment the gray force seeking to hold the mountain gaps. Hill's threatened right, in the vicinity of Fox's Gap, was bolstered by the arrival of the brigades of Colonel George T. Anderson, Brigadier General Thomas F. Drayton, Colonel E. M. Law, and Brigadier General John B. Hood. And, a little later in the afternoon, Rodes's position north of Turner's Gap was strengthened by the arrival of more of Longstreet's brigades: those of Brigadier General Richard B. Garnett, Brigadier General James L. Kemper, Colonel Joseph Walker, and Brigadier General Nathan G. Evans.83

Moving up the Old Hagerstown Road beyond Mt. Tabor Church, the Union First Corps was deployed for action against the Confederate left approximately one mile north of Turner's. The division of Brigadier General James B. Ricketts was placed in line of battle immediately to the left of the road. On Ricketts' left was the division of Brigadier General John P. Hatch (minus Gibbon's Iron Brigade, which had been ordered to advance directly up the National Pike). On Ricketts' immediate right, on the right side of the Old Hagerstown Road, was the famed Pennsyl- vania Reserve division, commanded by Brigadier General George G. Meade. One of Meade's brigades—that of Brigadier General Truman Seymour—was selected to turn and envelop the Con- federate left flank.84

As the soldiers in blue prepared in mid-afternoon to storm up the steep slope of the mountain, they could not help but notice the extremely rugged enterprise confronting them.85 Not only did they have to scale the precipitous mountainside with the enemy above them, but they had to try to rout the graycoats out from behind stone walls, trees, bushes, and boulders.88 Even today, it would seem like a hopeless assignment.

At the word of command. Hooker's men swept forward. In the words of the Confederate general, D. H. Hill, " the (Union] advance was steady and made almost with the precision of movement of a parade day." S7 The Federals met with ferocious resistance, especially from Rodes's embattled brigade. However, at

83 See B. & L, II, 568. 84 See Official Records Atlas, Plate XXVII, Map 3. 90 John D. Vautier, History of the 88th Pennsylvania Volunteers . . . (Phila-

delphia, 1894), 71. * Sypher, Pennsylvania Reserves, 368; John Robertson, Michigan in the War

(Lansing, 1882), 375-76; Stine, Army of the Potomac, 167. "Hill, op. cit., B. &L., 11, 572.

56 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

a few points, as testified to by Union eyewitnesses, '" the enemy . . . made the very common mistake of soldiers when firing from an elevated position—that of firing too high." 88 But in most other areas, the execution was fearful. The historian of a New York regiment writes that " the Seventy-sixth was probably never engaged in a more severe and deadly fight than at South Mountain. During the whole battle, the range was so short, and both sides fired with such precision, that the volleys told with awful effect." 89

" Fields of corn were trampled into shreds, forests were battered and scathed, huge limbs sent crashing to earth, rent by shell or round shot. Grape and canister mingled their hissing screams in this helling carnival," stated another soldier.90 Said captured Major Meanes of the Seventeenth South Carolina to a blueclad soldier: "Your men fight like devils; they are driving our men right up this steep mountain; I never could have believed it." 91

It was true. Although the bloody combat on the Union right lasted until dark, the First Corps men succeeded in pressing the hard-fighting Southerners from the important crest to the north of Turner's Gap, thus rendering that vital pass untenable for the Confederates on the morrow.92 Hill acknowledges that " on our left [the} commanding hill was lost before night" to the Federals.93

As Hooker was waging his long but victorious combat to wrest the mountain crest to the north of Turner's from the Confederates, there was occurring at the same time a hard and protracted battle at Fox's Gap. Here, Reno's Ninth Corps was striving to clear the reinforced grayclads from any remaining foothold on the summit south of the Mountain House. Reno had deployed Rod- man's division on the right of the Old Sharpsburg Road, with that of Brigadier General Orlando B. Willcox on Rodman's left on the south side of the road. Continuing Reno's line of battle

88 Charles E. Davis, Jr The Story of the Thirteenth Massachusetts Volunteers . . . (Boston, 1894), 133; Gates, Ulster Guard, 296-97.

"Smith, Seventy-Sixth New York, 153. "> Hillman A. Hall, et a!., History of the Sixth New York Cavalry . . . (Worcester,

Mass., 1908), 60-61. " A. F. Hill, Our Boys, 397. " The best accounts of the fighting on the Union right to the north of Turner's

Gap are: Meade's report, Sypher, Pennsylvania Reserves, 368-73; the reports of Hooker and Rodes, O. R., XIX, Pt. I, 214-16, 1036; Hill, Our Boys, 395-97; Stine, Army of the Potomac, 167-69. See also Official Records Atlas, Plate XXVII, Map 3

" Hill, op. cit., B. & L., II, 571.

THE BATTLE OF SOUTH MOUNTAIN 57

to the south was the division of Brigadier General Samuel D. Sturgis, on Willcox's left. Then, on the extreme Federal left, flanking the Confederate right, was Cox's Kanawha division.94

In the late afternoon, at approximately 4:00 P. M., Reno sent his whole battle line forward. Cox sums up the picture on his front in these words: " the struggle ... on the part of the Con- federates [was] to drive back our center and left, where we held the highest summits of the mountain, and on our part to push forward our right so as to gain the one elevation they still held on our side of the National road, at the Mountain House." 95 In bitter fighting, which lasted until well after dark, " good progress was made by both Sturgis and Willcox, but the fastness at the Mountain House had not been carried when darkness fell upon the field." 96 However, with Cox's division having outflanked the Confederate right and now menacing their rear, here too, as north of Turner's, the gray position had been rendered useless for further serious resistance on the following day, September 15. Some 600 Southern prisoners had been captured by Cox's division alone.97

Hill, in his official report, admits that Longstreet's brigades " were broken and scattered " by the impetuous Union attack at Fox's.98

But a sad misfortune befell the Federals at the climax of their successful assault at Fox's Gap. The Union commander there, Jesse Reno, was fatally wounded (in the thigh and groin) at approximately 7:00 P. M.99 McClellan's tribute to the fallen Ninth Corps leader was made in his official report: " In General Reno the nation lost one of its best general officers. He was a skilful soldier, a brave and honest man." ^ This was a sentiment voiced by soldiers of both sides who fought at South Mountain.101

The Confederates had an equally sad misfortune in the loss of General Samuel Garland. The thirty-two-year-old Garland was termed by D. H. Hill, "' The most fearless man I ever knew, a

" See Official Records Atlas, Plate XXVII, Map 3. n Cox, op. cit., B. & L., II, 588. "" Ibid., 589. "Ibid., 590. M See Palfrey, The Antietam, 38. 89 Longstreet, Manassas to Appomattox, 223. 100 McClellan's Report, 197. 101 See, e.g., Longstreet, Manassas to Appomattox, 223; Walker, Second Corps,

95; Ropes, Story of the Civil War, II, 344, and Thomas H. Parker, History of the 51st Regiment of P. V. and V.V. . . . (Philadelphia, 1869), 227.

58 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

Christian hero, a ripe scholar, and most accomplished gentleman." At another point. Hill declared that Garland had " no superiors and few equals in the service." To Lee, Garland was a "brave and accomplished young officer." 102

Back on the National Road, a rather isolated and indecisive action had been taking place—one which lasted from late afternoon until after dark. Gibbon's Iron Brigade, in order to hold the attention of at least one Confederate brigade along the pike directly in front of Turner's Gap, had been ordered to press forward toward the pass along both sides of the road. Encountering Colquitt's brigade, Gibbon was obliged to dig the enemy out from behind one stone wall after another. So desperate was the Southern resistance, and so favorable was the terrain for defensive efforts, that, although making considerable gains, the Union troops were unable to push Colquitt completely through the pass and win the crest at the Mountain House. Nonetheless, Gibbon had succeeded in preventing the opposing brigade from participating in the decisive combats elsewhere on the field.103

Although not actively engaged, Sumner's Second Union Corps had been brought up by McClellan in close support at Turner's and Fox's Gaps at approximately 10:00 P. M.

104 But the fall of

darkness prevented Sumner from being used to advantage. The Confederates, however, though still retaining a toehold on the summit in the vicinity of the Mountain House, had elsewhere been driven from the mountain-top. In the words of " Fighting Joe " Hooker, the " the enemy . . . between 12 and 1 o'clock [on the morning of September 15] commenced a hurried and confused retreat, leaving his dead on our hands and his wounded uncared for." 105

While McClellan and Burnside were fighting at Turner's and Fox's Gaps, another part of the Battle of South Mountain was taking place at Crampton's Gap, six miles south of Turner's. The Confederate division of McLaws was still besieging Harper's Ferry from Maryland Heights—the name given to the southern tip of Elk Ridge, some six miles southwest of Crampton's Gap.

^ Freeman, Lee's Lieutenants, II, 250 n. "" Stine, Army of the Potomac, 161-64. 1<" Walker, Second Corps, 95; Warren Lee Goss, Recollections of a Private,

A Story of the Army of the Potomac (New York, 1890), 103. 1011 .Hooker's report, Davis, Thirteenth Massachusetts, 134,

THE BATTLE OF SOUTH MOUNTAIN 59

McLaws was responsible also for the defense of the latter pass. Should the Federals be permitted to penetrate the gap on the 14th, and should Miles' Union garrison hold out at the Ferry for a day or two longer, McLaws' force on Maryland Heights would either be driven away or else caught between two hostile blue forces.

Crampton's Gap was held on the morning of September 14 by Colonel Thomas T. Munford's gray cavalry brigade. But, learning that Franklin's Federal Sixth Corps was nearing the pass, McLaws dispatched three infantry brigades to assist Munford in holding the important gap. These were the brigades of Colonel W. A. Parham, Brigadier General Paul J. Semmes, and Brigadier General Howell Cobb—the whole force being under the command of Cobb.106 The latter was instructed to hold Crampton's Gap to the last man if necessary.107

Swinging down the road from Burkittsville to the pass. Frank- lin determined to hurl the bulk of his men immediately upon the strong Confederate position. He saw that many of the enemy troops were posted behind a stone wall at the eastern foot of the mountain to the right (north) of the road and perpendicular to it. Other grayclad soldiers were on the steep slope of the mountain and on its crest. Again, as at Turner's and Fox's, so too at Crampton's Gap, the Southern artillery and infantry had the stronger, more elevated positions. Even though outnumbered by Franklin's forces, it seemed that Cobb might well be able to take advantage of his superb defensive station and thwart the Union efforts at penetrating the pass.

After a rapid reconnaissance. Franklin deployed Major General Henry W. Slocum's division to the right (north) of the road to confront directly Cobb's troops situated behind the stone wall. Slocum placed the brigade of Colonel A. T. A. Torbert on his left, just to the right of the road. On Torbert's right, and in the center of Slocum's line, was Brigadier General John Newton's brigade. And on the extreme Union right was the brigade of Colonel Joseph J. Bartlett, destined to bear the heaviest brunt of the fighting and to suffer the highest casualties. After Slocum became engaged frontally with the Confederates, Franklin de-

^ See map in B. & L., II, 59}- 101 O. R., XIX, Ft. I, 854; Swinton, Army of the Potomac, 204 n.

60 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

ployed Major General William F. ("Baldy") Smith's division to the left (south) of the road to outflank and envelop the enemy right. The brigade of Brigadier General W. T. H. Brooks was in the front line of the flanking column, with that of Colonel William H. Irwin in the second line immediately in the rear.108

Franklin's plans worked perfectly. About 3:00 p. M., Slocum's line swept forward against the Confederates posted behind the stone wall, Bartlett's brigade somewhat overlapping the gray flank. The Southerners were driven from their position, and were pur- sued, in heavy fighting, up the steep slope of the mountain and over the crest. Meanwhile, Smith was thrown forward in a flanking movement on the south side of Crampton's Gap against the enemy's right flank. Everywhere the Union forces were victorious. Decisive were the flanking movements of the brigades of Brooks and especially of Irwin, although the heaviest fighting took place on the right of the road where Slocum's sledgehammer blows had been skillfully delivered against the foe. In the words of Long- street, " the Confederates made a bold effort to hold, but the attack was too well organized and too cleverly pushed to leave the matter long in doubt." 109 By approximately 6:00 p. M., the pass at Crampton's had been won by the National forces, although sporadic firing was to continue until darkness approached.110

The measure of the Southern defeat at Crampton's Gap was contained in the official report of Confederate General Semmes, who wrote: " Arriving at the [western] base of and soon after commencing the ascent of the mountain at Crampton's Gap, I encountered fugitives from the battlefield and endeavored to turn them back. Proceeding farther up the mountain, the [grayclad} troops were met pouring down the road and through the wood in great disorder. ... I immediately joined my efforts ... in the vain effort to rally the men." 111 Besides capturing the vital pass, there were other fruits of Franklin's victory, as described in his official report: " Four hundred prisoners from seventeen different organi- zations, 700 stand of arms, 1 piece of artillery, and 3 stand of

108 See Official Records Atlas, Plate XXVII, Map 3; B. (S- £., II, 593. 109 Longstreet, Manassas to Appomattox, 229. 110 For accounts of the fighting at Crampton's Gap, see the official reports of

Franklin, Slocum, and Cobb, O. R., XIX, Pt. I, 374-76, 380-81, 870-71; William B. Franklin, " Notes on Crampton's Gap and Antietam," B. & L., II, 592-96.

111 Semmes's report, O. R., XIX, Pt. I, 595. See also B. & L, II, 595.

THE BATTLE OF SOUTH MOUNTAIN 61

colors were captured, while numberless articles of equipment . . . were abandoned by the enemy in their retreat." 112

Although having brilliantly penetrated Crampton's Gap, Frank- lin soon showed signs of hesitation when he saw McLaws' forces drawn up to protect the latter's position on Maryland Heights. He halted, instead of testing the strength of McLaws' relatively thin lines.113 There was something else, however, which had a bearing on this unfortunate delay on Franklin's part. On the 14th, McClellan had received this telegram from General-in-Chief Hal- leck: " Scouts report a large [Confederate] force still on the Virginia side of the Potomac. If so, I fear that you are exposing your left and rear." 114 Emory Upton is of the opinion that this wire from Halleck " checked the energy and boldness which ought to have characterized [McClellan's] movements " after having carried the South Mountain passes, especially after Franklin's splendid victory at Crampton's Gap.115 But Franklin himself is far more to blame for the procrastination on the Union left.

The night of September 14-15 " was exceedingly cold on the mountain top " in the vicinity of Turner's and Fox's Gaps.11* The Federal troops spent the night there, resting on their arms. The aftermath of the battle may well be seen in the view given by a sergeant in the Fourteenth Connecticut regiment: "" I awoke about five o'clock on the battlefield of yesterday, and went out to see what war was without romance. I cannot describe my feelings, but I hope to God never to see the like again." 117 If the Con- necticut sergeant could not give voice to what he beheld on the ground so fiercely contested on the 14th, others could. " The dead," wrote a Union soldier, " lay thickly scattered, in some instances piled one upon another." 118 The corpses in gray, especi-

112 Franklins report, O.R., XIX, Pt. I, 375. 113 Franklin to McClellan, September 15, 1862, McClellan's Report, 194. McLaws'

double line of battle ran west and east, with his right resting near South Mountain and his left resting on Elk Ridge, the range of mountains which formed the western border of Pleasant Valley.

114 McClellan's Report, 187. "'Emory Upton, The Military Policy of the United States (Washington, 1912),

378. 118 Gates, Ulster Guard, 300. See also Parker, 51st Pennsylvania, 228. 117 Charles D. Page, History of the Fourteenth Regiment, Connecticut Vol.

Infantry (Meriden, Conn., 1906), 27-28. 118 Smith, Seventy-Sixth New York, 159.

62 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

ally, were seen " all over the field." 119 A soldier of the Fifty-First Pennsylvania regiment stated that as his unit '" was going along a by-road, it passed a heap of rebel dead, forty-seven bodies, piled up in a space of thirty by ten feet. . . . On going up to the top of the mountain another pile of ninety-seven lay piled up across each other, and the ground in the vicinity was strewn with the dead of the Seventeenth Michigan." 120 A more graphic description of the field of battle on the following day was given by the chaplain of the Sixtieth New York: " About 400 rebel dead lay there unburied. But for their hair they would have been taken for negroes, so badly were they discolored, and their features swollen out of all natural shape." 121 Since, earlier in the war. Stonewall Jackson had apparently not allowed the Federals time for burial on one or more occasions, the Union forces were determined to retaliate now. " Daylight of the 15th," wrote the historian of another New York regiment, "brought a flag of truce from the enemy, with a request for an armistice to allow them to bury their dead; but it was too clearly an excuse for delaying the march of the Union troops, and about eight o'clock an advance was ordered." 122

The first large-scale battle of the Civil War fought in Maryland was over; there was to be an even greater one three days later at the Antietam. But first, the tally of casualties at South Mountain had to be counted up. The Federal losses at Turner's and Fox's Gaps were as follows: 325 killed, 1,403 wounded, 85 missing— a total loss of 1,813.128 The Confederates, at Turner's and Fox's, suffered at least the following casualties: 325 killed, 1,560 wounded; 800 missing—a total loss of 2,685.124 At Crampton's Gap the Union loss was 113 killed, 418 wounded, 2 missing, a

11* Joseph R. C. Ward, History of the One Hundred and Sixth Regiment Pennsyl- vania Volunteers . . . (Philadelphia, 1883), 87.

1110 Parker, 51st Pennsylvania, 224. 121 Richard Eddy, History of the Sixtieth Regiment New York State Volunteers . . .

(Philadelphia, 1864), 173. 132 George A. Hussey, History of the Ninth Regiment, N.Y.S.M. . . . (New

York, 1889), 190. "'O.K., XIX, Pt. I, 187; Livermore, Numbers and Losses, 90-91- 1,4 Livermore, Numbers and Losses, 90-91- There are, however, strong reasons

for believing that 1,500 Confederates were captured (i-e., missing) instead of 800. If so, this would bring their total loss to nearly, 3,400 (see Swinton, Army of the Potomac, 203-204; Palfrey, The Antietam, 39-40; Livermore, Numbers and Losses, 90-91)-

THE BATTLE OF SOUTH MOUNTAIN 63

total loss of 533 men; and the Confederates there suffered casualties of 62 killed, 208 wounded, 479 missing, a total loss of 749.125

This would make, at the three gaps, the total loss of the day in the Battle of South Mountain, for the Federals, 2,346 killed, wounded, and missing; for the Confederates, at least 3,434 killed, wounded, and missing.126 And it must be remembered that in each of these combats the Union forces of McClellan did the attacking against somewhat outnumbered Southerners who enjoyed the distinct advantage of excellent defensive positions of great strength on elevated ground.

That McClellan and the Army of the Potomac had emerged victorious by midnight of September 14 was acknowledged by Lee himself, who stated to McLaws, " The day has gone against us. This army will go to Sharpsburg and cross the [Potomac} river " into Virginia.127 Other Confederate officers admitted like- wise.128 Bruce Catton states that " the fight had been a Union victory beyond question." 129 John C. Ropes, never impressed with McClellan's ability, asserts nonetheless that Lee "' had been badly beaten." 130 "This victory," writes James Ford Rhodes of South Mountain, " restored the morale of the Union Army, and gave heart to the President and the people of the North." 131 Lee's stanchest biographer, Douglas Southall Freeman, sums up the action on September 14 in the following words: " The day had been bad. . . . All the high hopes of manoeuvre had to be abandoned. All the air castles that had been built around Harrisburg

"'O.K., XIX, Pt. I, 183, 861; McClellan's Report, 193; Palfrey, The Antietam, 32; Swinton, Army of the Potomac, 204.

1" However, if the figure of 3,400 Confederate casualties at Turner's and Fox's Gaps is used, the total Southern loss for the day would be 4,149.

1,7 Lee to McLaws, September 14, 1862—8:00 P.M., O.R., LII, Pt. II, 618-19; Stine, Army of the Potomac, 179- But later, when news reached Lee that Jackson had captured Harper's Ferry, Lee decided to concentrate his army at Sharpsburg and risk a defensive engagement north of the Potomac. The Battle of Antietam resulted.

"'See, e.g., reports of Hooker and Stuart, O.R., XIX, Pt. I, 215, 819; Hill, op. cit., B. & L., II, 570, 580; John B. Gordon, Reminiscences of the Civil War (New York, 1903), 81-82; Smith, Seventy-Sixth New York, 162; Thomason, ]eb Stuart, 276-77; Vautier, Eighty-Eighth Pennsylvania, 71; Palfrey, The Antietam, 37; Hill, Our Boys, 398; Swinton, Army of the Potomac, 204; John Richards Boyle, Soldiers True, The Story of the One Hundred and Eleventh Regiment Pennsylvania Veteran Volunteers . . . (New York, 1903), 55.

""Bruce Catton, Mr. Lincoln's Army (Garden City, 1951), 250. 1"' Ropes, Story of the Civil War, II, 349. 181 James Ford Rhodes, History of the United States . . . (New York, 1899),

IV, 146.

64 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

and the Susquehanna bridge had to be vacated." 132 In reply to McClellan's telegram reporting his victory at South Mountain, the anxious Lincoln wired back, " God bless you, and all with you. Destroy the rebel army i£ possible." 133

Throughout his earlier months in command of the Union army, especially in the Peninsula campaign, McClellan had been reckoned, correctly, by friend and foe alike, as a circ*mspect general—one who could be expected at all times to play the game according to the cautious rules. But in the combat of September 14, 1862, in Western Maryland, "' Little Mac " had confounded his opponents. " At Boonsboro," wrote Lee's private secretary. Colonel A. L. Long, " McClellan had displayed more than usual pertinacity in his attacks upon the Confederate position." 134 When learning of the Union commander's rapid penetration of the South Mountain barrier, the brilliant Stonewall Jackson had this to say of his former West Point classmate: "" I thought I knew McClel- lan, but this movement of his puzzles me." 135

When the blue chips were in the center of the table and the Union cause was at stake, George B. McClellan had risen to the necessity of the hour. The Confederate invasion of the North had come to an end; Antietam was to prove something of an anticlimax. The initiative had passed from Lee's hands to McClel- lan's. This was the crucial significance of the comparatively little-known Battle of South Mountain, fought in the magnificent upland country of the Old Line State.

182 Freeman, R. E. Lee, II, 372-73. 1,3 Lincoln to McClellan, September 15, 1862, C. C. W., I, 489. 134 Long, Memoirs of Lee, 216. 1,5 Walker, op. cit., B. & L., II, 611.

THE CHESAPEAKE POTTERY COMPANY

By NANCY R. FITZPATRICK *

DURING the period 1880-1890, majolica was a fad in Ameri- can pottery. The two leading firms manufacturing majolica

in the United States were Griffen, Smith & Hill of Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, and the Chesapeake Pottery of Baltimore. Other American firms making majolica were the Arsenal Pottery of the Mayer Pottery Manufacturing Company of Trenton, New Jersey, A. M. Beck of Evansville, Indiana, The Faience Manufacturing Company of Greenpoint, Long Island, George Morley & Son of East Liverpool, Ohio (or as some state Wellesville, Ohio), Morri- son and Carr of New York City, Odell & Booth Brothers of Tarrytown, New York, and the Hampshire Pottery of Messrs. J. S. Taft & Co., of Keene, New Hampshire.

The Chesapeake Pottery, located at the corner of Nicholson and Decatur Streets, Locust Point (part of the site now occupied by the American Sugar Refining Company), commenced operations in 1880 with one building and one kiln under the management of Henry and Isaac Brougham and John Tunstall.1 In March, 1882, David Francis Haynes, a former plant manager, and later a part owner of a crockery jobbing house in Baltimore, took over the Chesapeake Pottery. For the next twenty five years he con- trolled the business and increased considerably its scope of operations. In later years, he was assisted by his son, Frank R. Haynes.2

* The author wishes to acknowledge the kind assistance of Eugenia Calvert Holland, Assistant Curator, Maryland Historical Society, Elizabeth C. Litsinger, Head of Maryland Dept., Enoch Pratt Free Library, and Mrs. John W. Cable IIF, Sykesville, Md.

1 Pictures of the Chesapeake Pottery building, the decorating room, and the carrying of saggars or ware into the kiln for burning appear in Maryland Geological Survey, Vol. IV (Baltimore, 1902).

'A History of the City of Baltimore, Its Men and Institutions (Baltimore, 1902) ; George E. Gliss, The Economic Life of the Chesapeake Pottery, 1881-1914 (n. p., n. d) ; and obituary of D. F. Haynes in Baltimore American, Aug. 25, 1908, p. 14, and Baltimore Sun, Aug. 25, 1908, p. 12.

66 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

David Francis Haynes, (1835-1908), born in Brookfield, Mass., was a descendent of Walter Haynes, who came to Boston in 1638 in the ship Confidence. His early life was spent on a New England farm. He attended public schools until he was sixteen years of age and then secured employment in a crockery store in Lowell, Mass. His advancement was rapid, and before he reached the age of twenty-one, his employer sent him to England on an important mission. This trip furnished him with a fine opportunity to observe the art treasures of England and the Conti- nent, thus gratifying his artistic bent. Later in life he made several trips abroad.3 Foreign travel undoubtedly extended Hayne's natural talents, with the result, as Jervis points out, " Mr. Haynes has undoubtedly exercised a very considerable influence on Ameri- can ceramics, insisting on originality in shapes and designs." *

Upon his return to the United States in the autumn of 1856, Haynes moved within a short time to Baltimore, where he secured employment as a bookkeeper with H. Abbott & Son, manufacturers of plate iron at the Canton Rolling Mills. At the outbreak of the Civil War, he was placed in charge of the firm's largest mill in which armor plate for the ironclads was produced. In 1869 he became manager of a large iron property in Virginia where he was engaged in the mining and smelting of iron ores. When offered an interest in a crockery jobbing house, Ammidon and Company, he returned to Baltimore in 1871. In 1879 he founded the D. F. Haynes & Co., 347 West Baltimore Street, and in 1882 he purchased the Chesapeake Pottery.5 At that time Haynes was well aware that American pottery was generally produced for its utilitarian character with very little thought given to artistic design and shape. Haynes seized the opportunity to display his artistic talents in the originality and individuality of his wares. Many of his products were designed by him because trained artists and modelers were scarce.

A testimony of his artistic skill appeared in the Hartford Daily Courant, in an article on Baltimore potteries. May 19, 1885. It reads in part:

'Edwin A. Barber, The Pottery and Porcelain of the United States (New York, 1909), pp. 320-321; Maryland Geological Survey (Baltimore, 1902), pp. 485-486.

*W. P. Jervis, The Encyclopedia of Ceramics (New York, 1902), p. 281; the Baltimore Sun, "Artists and Artisans," Dec. 5, 1882.

'The Potter's Craft in Maryland (The Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore, 1955), pp. 12-13.

CHESAPEAKE POTTERY COMPANY 67

It is one of the curious facts concerning American industries that although this country is the best market in the world for the finest productions of European potteries, the pottery industry has never made any decided progress here until within a very short time. Nor can it be said that this industry is established here even now . . .

The great want in this country has been a potter who, for the love of the art, would investigate the characters and capabilities of American clays. The example of Wedgwood should have been followed long ago here. He experimented in clays and stones, discovered one and another new paste, and thus revolutionized ceramic art in Europe by the simple discovery of what English materials would produce. That American clays are of the highest ceramic value has now been amply proved by the remarkable work of Mr. D. F. Haynes, a potter in Baltimore. For some years past he has been making practical experiments with home materials, and has been richly rewarded for his expense and intelligent preseverance. A variety of pastes, made from American clays, which he has discovered, present features of value above any European pastes. These features vary. Some are specially strong, some unite strength with lightness, some take color through the whole body with the uniformity and purity of Wedgwood Jasper wares, some are so compact and fine that they polish on the turning lathe. Uniformity of shrinkage in pastes of different composition enables Mr. Haynes to combine different colors, laying reliefs of one on surfaces of another tint. A full account of the very important discoveries thus made and shown in a great variety of wares now in the market would fill a book. The wonderful beauty of many of the pastes, without addition of any coloring material, is a surprising feature of the Baltimore wares. There is a deep red, which is, to say the least, fully equal to the old Chinese red stone ware, or to the richest Bottcher. The browns, grays, pearl and fawn colored wares are all pure, uniform and therefore strikingly beautiful, in an extensive range of shades. The glazes and enamels which are used are as excellent as the pastes, and of course vary to meet all fancies. Relief ornamentations are used with skill and judgment. It is evident that Mr. Haynes employs artists as able as those of Wedgwood. This is not an exaggeration. . . .

The space we have given to this Baltimore pottery is not too much for its importance. It is eminently an American pottery, and here is the first distinct promise of the great future of the industry in our country. It is saying little to say that Mr. Haynes has done more in three years for the practical advance of the industry in this country than had been for fifty years before he began. No more beautiful wares, in their respective classes, are produced in Europe than are now made, at a much lower cost, in Baltimore. He is teaching the public that cheapness is not inconsistent with beauty of form and attractiveness in color.

D. F. Haynes was fortunate to have a talented daughter, Fannie, a former student at the Maryland Institute and later at the Metro-

68 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

politan Museum school in New York, who designed a number of pieces. One, a large Moorish vase, designed by her in competition at the exhibition of American pottery held in Pennsylvania Museum of Art, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the autumn of 1889, attracted much attention and took one of the prizes. Later on, the trustees of the Pennsylvania Museum of Art purchased it for their permanent collection.6

Haynes was also assisted by Fred E. Mayer, a talented student of Professor L. W. Miller of the Pennsylvania Museum of Art and the School of Industrial Art, in the modeling of the "" Calvert " vase which was shown at the 1893 Columbian Exposition in Chicago.7

David Haynes initiated the idea of training artists and modelers but in spite of his zeal and efforts, he was not successful in per- suading the United States Potters Association to establish such a training school. The Johns Hopkins University was approached with a plan offering a course in ceramics, but this idea, too, met with no success. His son, Frank, was unable to find any institution at that time offering a course in the art of pottery manufacture.

In 1882 Haynes produced a ware similar to majolica, with the "" Clifton " mark printed on the bottom, which is regarded as superior in glaze to majolica of that time. Barber claimed it " was pronounced by judges equal to the famous Wedgwood of that grade." 8 " Clifton " was followed by the " Avalon "—a ware with a body of ivory tint and soft rich glaze. It had sprays of flowers in relief decorated in colors.9 The " Avalon " was followed by the " Calvertine," similar to the " Avalon " in its composition, but somewhat different in its decorative treatment. In 1885 parian ware was introduced, embellished with flowers and other patterns. The same year, "" Severn," a fine, thoroughly vitre- ous body of a subtle grayish-olive tint appeared. In toilet ware various styles known as '" Alsatian," '" Aurelian," " Breton," " Cas- tilian," and " Montessan " were produced. In 1886 a fine semi- porcelain dinner service, the "" Arundel' was introduced. It is a

' Barber, op. cit., pp. 328-330. 'Ibid., pp. 330-331. 8 Ibid., p. 323. "Marks of these products may be found in Ibid., pp. 411-412; John Ramsay,

American Potters and Pottery (New York, 1947), p. 263; and C. Jordan Thorn, Handbook of Old Pottery and Porcelain Marks (New York, 1947), p. 122.

CHESAPEAKE POTTERY COMPANY 69

tribute to Haynes that many of his products were copied by American, English, and German potters. One of these instances is the " Montessan " toilet set, first shown to the public in the column of the Crockery Journal of January, 1892. It was copied in Staffordshire, and the illustration shown in the May issue of the London Pottery Gazette. Haynes inserted in the July 14, 1892, issue of the Crockery and Glass Journal the following advertisem*nt:

Baltimore, May 16th, 1892 Messrs. Grimwade Bros. We find in May number of London Pottery Gazette an illustration of a Toilet Set which seems a downright copy of the Montessan shape, designed by our Mr. Haynes, and patented in the United States.

We do not know that you intend sending your copy of our set to the States, but we advise you that we shall look carefully after our rights, and proceed promptly against any party in whose hands we may find it.

It is said that " imitation is the sincerest flattery," and your action is doubtless a compliment to our design; but an excellent books says '" Thou shalt not steal," and it is well to heed that commandment.

Yours truly, Haynes, Bennett & Co.

Their reply is also reproduced in this advertisem*nt:

Stoke-on-Trent, May 26th, 1892 Messrs. Haynes, Bennett & Co. We are in receipt of your favor of 16th, and beg to repudiate your sugges- tions that we have committed either moral or legal infringement in copying your Toilet Set. We note your threat of legal proceedings if we sell the shape in the United States, but we beg to say that this is quite unlikely, as we have made it for the English market and there is not much fear of it going to the American market at all.

We consider it one of the prettiest designs that has ever appeared.

If you can make use of this fact, pray do so.

Wishing you every success. Yours truly, Grimwade Bros.

In another example, Haynes secured from the United States District Court at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, an injunction against

70 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

a Western potter who had copied and manufactured the '" Tor- quay " toilet set, patented by Haynes.10

Chesapeake Pottery was affiliated with the American Institute of Mining Engineers, and was a member of the United States Pottery Association. When the American Ceramic Society was formed in 1899, Chesapeake Pottery became a member. Its products were awarded medals and diplomas at exhibitions, such as the 1893 Columbian Exposition in Chicago, the 1901 Pan- American Exposition in Buffalo, the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis, and the Pennsylvania School of Fine Art. Large department stores, such as Wanamaker of New York and Philadelphia, Marshall Field of Chicago, and Macy of New York, gave the products a wide distribution. Dr. William C. Prime, author of Pottery and Porcelain of all Times and Nations, considered the products of the Chesapeake Pottery to be "' equal to any European work of their class, in pottery, glaze, and decoration."

After enthusiastic expansion, the Chesapeake Pottery experienced some financial difficulties, and in 1887 it was put up for sale. Edwin Bennett, a pioneer potter, owner of the Edwin Bennett Pottery Company of Baltimore at Canton and Central Avenues, purchased the Chesapeake Pottery, but a few years later he sold his interest to his son, E. Huston Bennett, and David F. Haynes.11

The name of the company became Messrs. Haynes, Bennett & Co. Bennett served as a partner until January, 1895, when he retired. His interest was purchased by Frank R. Haynes, the son of David F. Haynes and the firm's name was changed in 1896 to D. F. Haynes & Son. When David F. Haynes died on August 24, 1908, his son Frank assumed complete control.

Around 1890 David F. Haynes designed a porcelain clock case, and many large orders for it were placed by large clock manufacturers in the United States, and it became the firm's best selling product. However, around 1910 the public demand shifted to metal and wooden clock cases, and as a result the firm's sales greatly fell off. Although cracker jars, cuspidors, ferneries, floor vases, jardiniers, and floor lamps, were also manufactured in large quantities, the firm began to encounter competition from Western

10 A History of the City oj Baltimore, Its Men and Institutions, p. 211 11 Ibid., p. 207; Clayton C. Hall, Baltimore: Its History and Us People, Vol. Ill

(New York, 1912), p. 858.

MAJOLICA MADE BY THE CHESAPEAKE POTTERY COMPANY

From the Collection of Nancy R. FitzPatrick

CHESAPEAKE POTTERY COMPANY 71

pottery companies because the latter were employing natural gas which burnt much more evenly than bituminous coal and produced a liner texture. Finally, pottery plants began to specialize on staple items which cost less to produce through the standardization of industrial processes. This important technological change, plus the sudden decline of orders for porcelain clock cases, proved to be a severe blow to the firm. When the American Sugar Refining Company offered to purchase the property, the company accepted and the pottery business was discontinued in 1914.

SIDELIGHTS

NAVAL CONSIDERATIONS IN THE LOCATION OF THE

NATIONAL CAPITAL

MARSHALL SMELSER

The story of the compromise of 1790 by which the site of the District of Columbia was chosen has been well and often told. ("" You southerners vote for our bill to have the federal government pay the state debts and we'll vote to put the capital in the south.") But the fact that naval considerations figured in the First Congress debates on the subject is not so well known.

Before the present location was selected, the merits of Trenton, German- town, Baltimore, and of some undesignated spot on the banks of the Susquehanna River were debated. Proposals to settle at Germantown, Baltimore, and on the Susquehanna were actually approved by one or the other chamber before the final choice of the Potomac valley was made.1

In the course of congressional argument, which occupied parts of the fiist two sessions of the First Congress (September, 1789, and July, 1790) the question of naval defensibility came up several times. One of the first to speak on it was Representative Fisher Ames of Massachusetts, perhaps the ablest of the Federalists who served in the House. He thought the capital must be on or near the coast because, " Being more liable to invasion. Government should be near to protect it." But he rejected the Potomac valley suggestion—" The Potomac is, in some degree, exposed to two dangers; by sea, and from the mountains. Large vessels can go to Georgetown. The events of the late war have proved that there is foundation for this apprehension." He favored putting the capital somewhere on the Susquehanna, "" safe from the dangers of invasion by sea." 2

Representative Thomas Hartley of Pennsylvania also supported a Sus- quehanna site. Since access by water was urged as a necessity he said " as to its convenience to the navigation of the Atlantic ocean, the distance is nothing more than to afford safety from any hostile attempt," 3 and John Lawrence of New York rose to say that he agreed.4

1 Irving Brant, James Madison, Father of the Constitution (Indianapolis, 1950), 276-281, 312-316; Edward Channing, A History of the United States (New York, 1932-1936), IV, 74-79.

• 1 Cong., 1 Sess., Annals of the Congress, 1789-1824, ed. J. Gales and W. W. Seaton (Washington, 1834-1856), I, 868, 872, 873. Hereafter cited: Annals. The First Congress is covered in two volumes, hence the roman numerals.

tlbid., I, 837. '/W., I, 846.

SIDELIGHTS 73

As the days passed, the Susquehanna location lost support and its movers went over to the defensive. Unable to convince their colleagues that their river was navigable they began to argue that a waterway was not essential.5 When Marylanders suggested that some spot on the lower reaches of the Susquehanna, within the boundaries of the Old Line State, would be a better choice. Hartley scorned the notion—" a place exposed to the depredation of hostile nations." 6

In the Senate the admirers of Germantown were strong enough to pass a bill, ten to nine (Vice President Adams cast a tie-breaking vote), desig- nating that suburb of Philadelphia as the capital.7 They could not recom- mend Philadelphia itself, partly because it contained a third of the wealth and population of Pennsylvania and they could not afford to give it away.8

The Germantown choice was defended in the House, unsuccessfully, by Connecticut's Roger Sherman who, in listing its advantages, pointed to " good buildings, and convenience for arsenals and ship yards." 9 At this point William Smith of South Carolina charged Sherman with incon- sistency. He had been a Susquehanna man before and had praised the river site because it was inaccessible to sea-going vessels. Sherman admitted he " had said the Susquehanna was safe from vessels of war " but it was not his idea of a good reason for choosing. He had addressed the argument to members who thought access from the sea was undesirable. He, Sherman, feared no invasion, indeed he expected no war for years to come.10

No decision was reached during the first session of the First Congress, but the matter came up again in the second session. A motion for Balti- more passed in the House by three votes. Some weeks later, Richard Bland Lee, a Virginian and a Potomac supporter, worked to undo that decision by arguing that Baltimore was just as far south as any likely Potomac site—hence not thereby more desirable to northerners—" besides being exposed by its frontier position on the sea." 11 He was followed by James Madison who said all the advantages of Baltimore were equally to be had on the Potomac, and the Potomac had some advantages unknown to Baltimore. " In respect to security from invasion, I aver the Potomac has the advantage also." 12

An anonymous poet in the Gazette of the United States had tired of the naval debate months before Madison's unprophetic speech. He recorded his ennui in

5/W.; I, 897. '•Ibid., I, 898. ''Ibid., I, 924. 'William Maclay, Journal, ed. E. S. Maclay (New York, 1890), 274. " 1 Cong., 1 Sess., Annals, I, 924. 10/W., I, 924-925. 11 1 Cong., 2 Sess., ibid., II, 1662. "Ibid., II, 1665.

74 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

THE RURAL RETREAT

O, WHAT a charming thing and pretty, To have a noble Federal City! Surpassing in few years to come, All that history says of Rome; That ancient seat of arts and wars. The mother of eternal jars! Not near old oceans' margin built, Where blood by hogsheads may be spilt; Where ships which vomit smoke and fire, May force the people to retire; May set a scampering our patricians. Cursing all maritime positions. Besides, all sea port towns, we know. The floods of horrid vice o'erflow13

It is a curious irony that Madison was later Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States when the British were repulsed at Baltimore but succeeded in occupying Washington-on-the-Potomac. Of course the naval argument was not decisive in the selection of the site of the District of Columbia, but one can not help wondering whether anyone ever reminded President Madison—after the defense of Fort McHenry and the battle of Bladensburg—of his earlier strategic theorizing.

ADDITIONAL NICHOLITE RECORDS

KENNETH L. CARROLL

An interesting development in the late colonial period of Maryland history was the appearance of the religious society known as the Nicholites. This group, centered in Caroline County and Upper Dorchester, has already been the subject of two articles by the writer in this magazine. Additional articles written by him on Joseph Nichols, the founder of the movement, and the North Carolina branch of these " New Quakers " have appeared in other historical journals.1

The Nicholites, or " New Quakers " as they were frequently called, had only a brief existence as an organized religious body—from 1774,

13 Gazette of the United States, Sept. 12, 1789- It goes on for about fifty more lines, getting steadily worse.

1 See Kenneth L. Carroll, " Joseph Nichols and the Nicholites of Caroline County, Maryland," Maryland Historical Magazine, XLV (1950), 47-61; "More About the Nicholites," ibid., XLVI (1951), 278-289; "The Nicholites of North Carolina," The North Carolina Historical Review, XXXI (1954), 453-462; and " Joseph Nichols, of Delaware: An Eighteenth Century Religious Leader," Delaware History, VII (1956), 37-48.

SIDELIGHTS 75

just after the death of Joseph Nichols, until the end of the eighteenth century when practically all of them received membership in the Society of Friends. Although this was never a large movement and did not last long as a separate society, still it had a significance and history which should not be forgotten. These Nicholites were people who believed so strongly in the guidance of the inner light and the way of life made known to them by Joseph Nichols that their lives, and even the appearance of the neighborhood in which they lived, were transformed. Persecution, suffering, and ridicule did not turn them from seeking what they understood to be the summum bonum of life. Many people who found it impossible to accept the Nicholite way for themselves admired and respected these men and women for their sincerity, integrity, and charity.

The love which the Nicholites possessed for each other is seen in the way that they continued to worship together after 1798 when some became Friends and others remained Nicholites. Eventually the remaining Nicholites deeded their meeting houses to their former brethren who had become Quakers—truly a remarkable show of affection which is seldom seen where religious groups have divided.

Today there are few signs of this unusual Maryland religious group to be found. Two old volumes of records locked in a vault in Easton 2 and some rather vague memories tucked away deep in the minds of a few people are almost all that one comes across. Most of the inhabitants of those areas where the Nicholites once waxed strong (even the descendants of those who were members of this religious society whose origins go back nearly two hundred years) are surprised to hear that such a group flourished in the central part of the Eastern Shore and even gave birth to two smaller Nicholite communities in North and South Carolina. It is, in part, for this reason that I have gathered here these two additional sets of records to go with the birth and marriage data published earlier in this magazine in 1950 and 1951. The witnesses to the Nicholite marriages 3 show a broader constituency for the society than the birth and marriage records would suggest. Also included here are the names of known Eastern Shore Nicholites who received membership in the Society of Friends through either Third Haven or Northwest Fork Monthly Meetings.

2 These two volumes, containing the birth and marriage records of the Nicholites, are with the records of Third Haven Monthly Meeting of Friends in the vault of the Register of Wills Office in the Talbot County Court House.

3 The Nicholite wedding ceremony was patterned after that of the neighboring Quakers. No priest or minister was present—for the Nicholites were forbidden by their principles to acknowledge a " man-made ministry." At the close of one of their religious meetings the couple to be married stood and exchanged their vows " in the presence of God and these our friends." Then all those present were invited to sign the wedding certificate as witnesses to the ceremony.

76 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

WITNESSES TO NICHOLITE MARRIAGES

The numbers in parentheses, after each of the following names, refer to the number of each marriage in the order in which it is listed in Maryland Historical Magazine, XLVI, 288-289.

Adams, Elijah (50) Addams, Thomas (5) Alco*ck, John (7) Anderson, Ann (22, 23) Anderson, Celia (57) Anderson, Ezekiel (44) Anderson, James (2, 6, 7, 18, 20, 44,

55, 56, 57) Anderson, James II (29) Anderson, Major (44) Andrew, Celia (51) Andrew, Elisha (41) Andrew, Richard (18) Anthony, Ann (56) Anthony, Joseph (56)

Bartlett, Daniel (47, 54) Bartlett, James (47) Bartlett, Solomon (12, 38) Barton, Edward (24, 25, 26, 31, 34, 48,

51, 55) Barton, Eliza (33) Barton, James (33) Barton, John (3, 4, 10, 15, 16, 21) Barton, William (16, 21, 26, 33) Bachelor, Esther (36) Bachelor, Nathan (36) Bachelor, Nealy (Nelly?) (36) Batchelder, John (2, 11) Batchelder, William (8) Beachamp, Andrew (51) Beachamp, Curtis (46, 48, 51) Beachamp, Sophia (51) Beck, Edward (10) Berry, Adah (25) Berry, Delilah (21) Berry, Littleton (15, 21) Berry, Naomi (25, 31) Berry, William (4, 8, 10, 25, 31) Bishop, Robert (4, 34) Boon, James (35, 40, 45) Boon, Mary (37, 40, 45) Branghon, Sophia (5) Breeding, John (21) Bright, Solomon (38) Buchinham, Levi (22, 23)

Cain, Thomas (6) Caldwell, James Jr. (12) Callaway, Joseph (6) Cannon, Tubman (45) Carroll, John (27) Causey, Robert (53)

Chance, Aaron (47) Chance, Bachelor (40) Chance, Eliza (40) Chance, Esther (57) Chance, Rich (47) Chance, Tilghman (40, 47, 59) Charles. Elijah (12, 38, 42, 43, 49, 50,

56, 57) Charles, Euphama (32, 39, 49) Charles, Henry (32, 36, 39, 42, 43, 46,

50, 57, 58) Charles, Isaac (1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 46, 50,

53, 60) Charles, Jacob (32, 38, 42, 49, 50, 57) Charles, Jacob Jr (42, 50, 57) Charles, Levin (12) Charles, Mary (1, 50, 57) Charles, Nancy (7) Charles, Sarah (10, 42, 43, 49) Charles, Solomon (14) Charles, Willis (24, 26, 27, 33, 42, 49,

50, 56) Charles, William (13, 14) Chilcutt, Celia (35, 37, 40) Chilcutt, Esther (45) Chilcutt, Joshua (10, 35, 37, 40, 45,

47) Chilcutt, Pheobe (45) Chilcutt, Rhoda (35, 37, 40, 45, 47) Chipman, Benjamin (6) Chipman, Peris (7) Clark, James (7, 14) Clampit, Henry (6) Claypool, James (2) Collins, Nicey (53) Collins, Sarah (55) Connalley, Jeremiah (12) Cook, Thomas (2, 3) Cooper, Risdon (41) Covey, Mary (15) Covey, Noble (4, 15, 16, 24) Covey, Rhoda (8, 13) Craner, Joshua (4, 8, 60) Cranor, Solomon (28) Cromeen (Cremeen), Elijah (1, 19, 35,

59) Davis, Aquila (18) Davis, Solomon (6) Dawson, Anne (29, 30) Dawson, Daniel (34) Dawson, Edward (29) Dawson, Elijah (29, 30) Dawson, Elisabeth (16)

SIDELIGHTS ^

Dawson, Elisha (30, 39, 56) Dawson, Isabel (16) Dawson, John (29, 30, 39, 48, 55) Dawson, Jonas (29) Dawson, lydia (30) Dawson, Margaret (29, 30) Dawson, Phebey (30) Dawson, William (3, 16, 19, 29) Dawson, William Jr. (16) Deane, Joshua (52) Dobson, William (41)

Eccles (Acles), Richard (20, 24) Eccles, Sarah (15) Edmondson, John Jr. (5) Edmondson, Mary (5) Emmerson, Samuel (56, 59) Emmerson, Samuel Jr. (56) Evitts, Seth Hill (24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 34,

44, 51, 54, 55, 56)

Fidamun, Hawkins (60) Flower, John (5) Foster, Joseph (4, 8, 15) Foster, Rebecca (22, 23) Foster, Thomas (4, 15) Foxwell, Richard (57) Framptom, Anna (5l) Framptom, Hubert (Hubird) (28, 33,

36, 43, 45, 46) Framptom, John (22, 23) Framptom, Levi (32, 34, 36, 38, 42,

46, 49, 58) Framptom, Richard (19, 22, 23) Framptom, Sarah (22, 23) Framptom, Thomas (38) Framptom, William (38)

Godwin, Henry (39, 53) Goforth, Tack" (?) (6) Goslin, Ezekiel (12) Goslin(g), Peggey (Marget) (2, 13) Goslin, Waitman (44) Gray, Thomas (17) Grey, Levin (41) Grey, Matthew (41)

Hall, James (59) Harper, Beachamp (7, 12) Harris, Ann (17, 27, 31) Harris, Celia (29, 32, 42, 44) Harris, Esther (16, 25) Harris, James (2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12,

13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 44, 52)

Harris, James Jr. (21, 26, 29, 33) Harris, Lydia (25, 44) Harris, Mary (10, 13) Harris, Peter (30, 39, 53) Harris, Rachel (25, 27)

Harris, Rhoda (30, 34) Harris, Sarah (16, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29) Harris, William (3, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18,

19, 20) Harvey, Mary (25) Harvey, Samuel (51) Hilford, David (1, 6, 7) Hilford, Sarah (6) Holdbrook, Alexander (3, 4, 9, 17, 21) Holland (Hollon), Laban (7, 12, 14,

52) Horney, James (8, 9, 15, 16, 52) Horney, John (9) Horney, Philip (4) Horney, Wililam (2, 52) Hubbert, Edward (44) Hubbert, Margaret (25) Hubbert, Peter (53)

Jenkins, James (55) Jenkins, Henry (53, 55) Jenkins, Hessey (55) Jenkins, Mary (19) Jenkins, Richard (18, 22, 23, 26) Jenkins, Sarah (19) Jenkins, Thomas (9, 19, 24, 44) Johnson, Cornelius (21, 52) Johnson, Lemon (37, 45) Jones, John (12)

Kelley, Denis (19, 48) Kelley, Eliza (25) Kelley, Hix (54) Kelley, William (19, 22, 23, 24, 29) Kenton, Solomon (47, 54) Kimmey, James (52)

Leverton, Daniel (32, 33, 39, 42, 46, 49)

Leverton, Isaac (42, 43, 49) Leverton, Moses (1, 5, 11, 12, 25, 30,

36, 46, 53, 57, 58) Leverton, Rachel (30, 36, 53) Linagaer (Linager), Isaac (2, 52, 53) Love, Ann (40)

Mackimmy (Mackimy), Elijah (9, 13) Man, Joseph (30) Martino, John (2) Marine, Mary (11) Marine, Sarah (20) Marine (Marain), Zorobabel (2, 59) Mason, Abraham (1, 9) McKimmey, Esther (48) McKimmey, John (48) Melvin, Edmond (6) Melvin, John (1, 6) Melvin, Mary (14) Miner, Edward (14, 52) Morgan, William (16)

78 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

Morriston, Cathren (60) Morriston, John (3, 4, 9, 13, 15, 17,

21, 48, 60) Murphey (Murpha), Ann (46) Murphey, Deborah (43) Murphey (Murpha), James (22, 23, 43,

46) Murphey, William Banning (43, 55)

Nauler (Naula), Joseph (26, 29, 33) Nicolls, Joseph (5) Nicols, Isaac (4) Noble, Joshua (56) Noble, Mark (58) Noble, Rhoda (18) Noble, Tansey (18)

Payne, David (5) Pegg, Martin (5, 7, 20) Pegg, Valintine (1, 3) Perry, Mary (51) Peters, William (24) Poits, William (51, 55) Pool, John (11, 12, 22, 23, 46, 53, 57,

58) Pool, Isaac (56) Pool, Levin (46, 49, 53, 57, 58) Pool, Sarah (56) Prichett, John (48, 59) Prichett, Sarah (59) Prichett, Wingate (55) Pruets, Southy (59)

Richardson, John Jr. (15, 24) Richardson, Mary (19) Robinson, Samuel (6) Roe, Mary (45) Ross, Archibald (55) Ross, John (2) Rumbly, Elisabeth (10) Russel, Elijah (8, 60) Russel, Easter (60)

Shanahan, Deborah (45) Sharp, Isaac (34) Smith, Joshua (3, 9, 20, 24, 44) Smith, Levin (40) Smith, Mary (40) Smith, Matthew (40) Stack, Rachel (48) Stack, Thomas (22, 23) Stafford, James (21) Stafford, Jarvis (12) Standley, Joseph (5, 6) Stanford, Richard (5) Stanton, Beacham(p) (31. 34, 45, 48) Stanton, Deborah (48, 51) Stanton, Esther (35) Stanton, John (16) Stanton, Sarah (25, 31, 35)

Stanton, Thomas (1, 35, 46, 52) Stuard, Charles (14) Stevens, James (48) Stevens, Robinson (48) Stevens, William (18, 30) Sulevane, Owen (10, 15) Sulivane, David (2, 5, 8, 13, 14) Sulivane, John (5, 41, 48, 60) Sulivane, Sarah (13) Sullavin, Florence (1, 5) Sullivane, Levin (48) Sullivane, Mary (32, 41) Swigett, Johnson (19, 22, 23, 24) Swigett, Mary (20) Swigett, William (21) Swiggate, Rhoda (45) Swiggins, Lydia (54)

Tod(d), Benjamin (51) Tull, Esther (5, 7) Tull, Richard (2, 52) Tumblin, Covil (1) Twiford, Archibald L. (58) Twiford, Solomon (43, 58, 59) Twiford, Zorobabe Smith (58) Twyford, Elizabeth (46, 58, 59) Twyford, Jonathan (46, 57, 58, 59)

Vickars, Celia (46) Vickars, John (38, 45) Vickars, Joseph (45) Vickars, Richard (36, 38, 39, 46, 49)

Walker, John (18, 21, 31, 34) Ward, Daniel (34, 37, 50) Ward, Henry (34, 35, 37, 47) Ward, James (54) Ward, Mary (37) Warren, William (1, 2) Watkins, Thomas (1, 10, 11, 36) Webb, James (1) White, Joshua (2) Williams, Delila (59) Williams, Eleanor (53) Williams, William (31, 59) Willis, Andrew (9, 14, 15, 19, 25) Willis, Ann (47) Willis, Jessee (47) Willis, Mary (14) Willis, Milley (47) Willis, Sina(i) (22, 23, 47) Willis, Thomas (2, 4, 8, 10, 13, 17, 18

19) Willis, William (38, 42) Wilson, Ann (54) Wilson, Catharine (54) Wilson, Elizabeth (54) Wilson, Hannah (37, 50) Wilson, James (37, 40, 45, 47) Wilson, John (50, 54)

SIDELIGHTS 79

Wilson, Mary (50) Wilson, Rachel (40) Wilson, Rebecca (40, 54) Wilson, Sarah (54) Wilson, Solomon (37, 40, 47, 54) Wilson (Willson), William (35, 37,

47, 54) Worrilaw (?), John (2) Wright, Ann (13, 39) Wright, Anna (30, 39) Wright, Celia (26, 28) Wright, Daniel (28, 29, 31, 32, 36, 39,

41, 42, 49, 53, 58) Wright, Edward (11) Wright, Elisha (26) Wright, Esther (27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 49) Wright, Euphama (43) Wright, Hatfield (26, 27, 28, 29, 31,

32, 38, 39, 41, 43, 46, 49, 50, 58)

Wright, Jacob (28, 29, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, 41, 46, 53)

Wright, James (12, 20, 27, 30, 33, 38, 41, 53)

Wright, John (2, 5, 11, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 48, 55, 56)

Wright, Lemuel (1, 2, 3, 12, 17, 20, 26, 28, 30, 39)

Wright, Levin (1, 3, 5, 11, 13, 17, 20, 27, 32, 33, 39, 41, 42)

Wright, Levin Jr. (11, 20) Wright, Levina (20) Wright, Lovey (11) Wright, Mary (27, 32, 42, 43) Wright, Peter (34, 53) Wright, Rhoda (49) Wright, Roger (10, 11, 20, 26, 27, 28,

32, 42, 52) Wright, Sarah (17, 26, 27, 28, 30, 53) Wright, William (5, 7)

NICHOLITES ADMITTED INTO THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS

A. BY THIRD HAVEN MONTHLY MEETING

[1/11/1798] James Harris, Mary Harris, Peter Harris, Mary Stevens, Johnson Swigget, Mary Swigget, John Wright, Hester Wright, Willis Charles, Sarah Charles, Elisha Dawson, Lydia Dawson, Elizabeth Wright, Mary Wright, Jacob Wright, Rhoda Wright, Daniel Wright, Sarah Wright, Richard Foxwell, James Wright, Sarah Wright, Hatfield Wright, Lucretia Wright, Mary Richardson, Margaret Conneiy, John Pool, Ann Pool, Levin Pool, Elizabeth Pool, Moses Leverton, Rachel Leverton, James Murphey, Mary Murphey, William Murphey, Ruth Murphey, Elizabeth Frampton, Elizabeth Twiford, William Melona, Sophia Melona, George Hardy Fisher, Daniel Fisher, Thomas Gray, Sarah Gray, William Poits, Adah Poits, Anthony Wheatley, Sophia Wheatley, William Gray, Elizabeth Gray, Jesse Hubbert, Sarah Pool, Sarah Poits, Ann Gray, Lovey Gray, John Barton, William Peters, William Wilson, James Wilson, Rebecca Wilson, James Wilson Jr., Sarah Wilson, Solomon Kenton, James Boon, Sarah Boon

[2/15/1798] James Anderson, Celia Anderson, John Berry, Ann Emmerson, Dennis Kelly, Hannah Kelly, Mary Ann Barton, Esther Chance, Elizabeth Kenton, Jonathan Shannahan, Margaret Shannahan

[3/15/1798] Ann Love, John Wilson, Ann Wilson [5/17/1798] John Dawson, Ann Dawson, Elijah Russel, Esther Russel, Sarah

Swiggett, Richard Vickers, Celia Vickers, Catharine Harvey, Henry Charles, Mary Charles, Elijah Bartlett, Esther Bartlett, Celia Bartlett, Sarah Vickers, Jesse Leverton, Clement Melona, William Melona Jr., Comfort Melona, Elizabeth Melona, Joshua Crainer, Perry Gray, Joseph Gray, Esther Gray, William Wheatley, Bing Wheatley, Elizabeth Wheatley, Euphamy Wheatley, William Wilson Jr., Rachel Wilson

[7/12/1798] Solomon Kenton, Jr. [8/16/1798] Archabald Ross, Elizabeth Ross, Joseph Anthony, Ann Anthony,

Esther Chilcutt, Mary Perry [11/15/1798] Jacob Wilson, Nathan Wilson, John Pool, Daniel Pool, William

Pool

80 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

[1/17/1799]

[2/14/1799]

[4/11/1799]

[5/16/1799]

[6/13/1799] [7/11/1799] [8/15/1799]

[11/14/1799] [4/17/1800]

[8/13/1800]

[9/10/1800] [11/12/1800] [12/10/1800] [1/14/1801] [3/11/1801] [4/14/1801] [6/10/1801]

[7/15/1801" [11/11/1801" [6/15/1803'" [1/16/1805 [6/12/1805 [9/11/1805]

[10/16/1805] [3/12/1806] [8/13/1806] [2/10/1819]

Jacob Leverton, Daniel Wheatley, Arthur Wheatley, Anthony Wheatley, Isaac Wheatley Eli Anderson, Joseph Man, Elizabeth Gray, William Gray, Lydia Gray, Sarah Gray Jacob Charles, Lydia Barton, Andrew Barton, Levin Barton, Anna Barton, Elizabeth Barton, Nathan Harris, William Harris, James Barton, Peter Barton, Rhoda Barton, William Barton, James Barton, Elizabeth Barton, Celia Wright, Ann Wright, Harris Wright, Samuel Wright, Lidia Wright, Nathan Wright, Levisa Wright, Millah Wright, Elisha Wright, Aaron Wright, Sarah Wright, Ann Meiony, James Melony, Tilghman Melony, Priscilla Melony, Mary Melony, Johua Vickers, William Vickers, John Vickers, Sarah Leverton, John Leverton, Samuel Leverton, Charles Leverton, Elizabeth Leverton, Rececca Leverton, Mary Leverton Tilghman Wright, Roger Wright, Celia Wright, Isaac Frampton, John Melona, Eleanor Melona, Rachel Fisher, Sarah Fisher, George Fisher, Alexander Fisher, John Swiggett, Henry Swiggett, Sarah Swiggett, Esther Swiggett, Solomon Swiggett, Adar Swiggett, James Wright, William Wright, Peter Wright, Willis Wright, Rhoda Wright, Mary Wright, Daniel Dawson, Deborah Dawson, William Dawson, Mary Kelley, William Kelley, Anna Kelley, Hicks Kelley, William Ross, Noah Ross, Mary Anderson, Lydia Anderson, Wright Anderson, Jesse Hubbard, John Hubbard, Wright Charles, Esther Charles, Lydia Dawson, Sarah Barton, Ann Barton William Poits, Isaac Poits Deborah Shannahan, Elizabeth Shannahan Isaac Pool, Rhoda Pool, Sarah Poits, Mary Ross, Elizabeth Man, William Berry, Naomi Berry, John Pritchett, Sarah Pritchett James Ward Mary Berry, Elizabeth Wilson, Rebeccah Wilson, Mary Wilson, Lucretia Ward

B. BY NORTHWEST FORK MONTHLY MEETING

William Williams, Delilah Williams, Celia Williams, John Vickars, Pheba Vickars, Southy Pruitt, Thomas Tilor James Wright, Ann Wright Edward Hubbert John Vickars Daniel Wright William James Wright, Elizabeth Gray Hubert Framptom Joshua Williams. William Williams, Mary Williams, Sarah Williams, Adah Williams Ann Foxwell, Daniel Foxwell, Adams Foxwell, George Foxwell Seth Hill Evitts Margaret Emmerson Elijah Cromean Beachump Stanton Sarah Stanton, Peter Stanton, Mary Stanton, Anna Stanton, James Stanton, Elizabeth Stanton, Thomas Stanton Amilla Chance Blender Kelley Perry Kelley, Jonah Kelley, Mary Kelley, Blender Kelley Jonathan Twiford, Elizabeth Twiford *

* Elizabeth Twiford first applied for membership in 1797 and was received on 1/11/1798. Shortly thereafter she asked to be released from membership in the Society of Friends. It was not until 1819 that this widely travelled Quaker minister of later years asked once again to become a Friend—this time accompanied by her husband, Jonathan

REVIEWS OF RECENT BOOKS

James Wilson: Foundmg Father 1742-1798. By CHARLES PAGE SMITH.

Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, for The Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1956. xii, 426 pp. $7.50.

Since most of us Americans are vague about this particular Founding Father, we may have assumed that his biography has gone unwritten because he was a vague kind of person. Mr. Smith's book proves now, beyond a doubt or cavil, that the reason for his past neglect must be sought elsewhere.

"James Wilson was a Scottish man," Mr. Smith tells us. Erst of all. " The Scottishness was in his speech, with its soft burr; in the rather dour earnestness of his florid face; in the tall, strong frame; in the bent of his politics and his piety. Perhaps most of all in his fierce restlessness and boundless energy. Politics and metaphysics are a volatile brew. Scots—at once stonily practical and wildly visionary—have a taste for this potion. For whatever it meant, James Wilson was a Scot."

He was an ambitious Scot, not the kind who would have been contented to stay out his life on a small farm, as his father had done. Fortunately his father and mother—she especially as strong in religion as she was weak in reading and affairs—had vowed him to the Kirk. And though he never entered the ministry—we must hope that his mother never knew about his leaving the Presbyterian Church itself when another one seemed to offer more valuable contacts—events proved they had chosen the right little Wilson to educate. The other six would never have soaked up so voraciously what the school and universities had to offer. Unfortunately, they did not offer a course in public relations.

James Wilson's grim, unswerving desire to make his way in the world overmastered his parents' opposition. He sailed for America. The year was 1765, the year of the Stamp Act. Within a few months he had become a Latin tutor at the College of Philadelphia; but this was only a step up. After study in the office of John Dickinson, no less, he was admitted to the bar. Vistas opened. The law meant not only money, but the chance to travel and buy up speculative land. Already he had the itch that would be his ruin. There was also the chance of entering politics. Wilson loved politics for its own sake, apparently, as he loved money and learning and gambling in land. His excellent mind soon focussed on the troubles between Great Britain and her American colonies—or, as he thought the relationship more properly expressed, '" the different members of the British empire . . . distinct states, independent of each other, but connected together under the same Sovereign." It was no wonder that when he wrote

82 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

his Considerations along those lines—the pamphlet his biographer finds " perhaps the most far-sighted, coherent, and logical that came from the pen of any colonial disputant "—he was advised not to publish it for a few years.

Unfortunately, by the time the Declaration of Independence was in the air, Wilson's views had become more moderate than his Considerations— appearing in 1774—had been. While the Founding Fathers' descendants will forgive a patriot who has made a slow start but ends in a great burst of speed for American independence, they do not like regressions. Nor did James Wilson's contemporaries. And it is significant of his personality that, although other eminent Whigs joined him in delaying the vote on independence, he was the one singled out for public castigation as " an enemy of popular liberties and independence. The hue and cry against him became so intense that a Defence of Wilson was finally prepared . . . and . . . signed by all the delegates. . . ." To no avail. Nor was his signing of the Declaration. He was still heartily hated when he opposed the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776. His days in Congress were numbered; he knew he would be ousted in the next election; but he did not change.

The temper of his fellow-citizens was such that, out of office, Wilson decided to spend the winter of 1777-8 in Annapolis. It will be disappoint- ing to Maryland readers that Mr. Smith passes over this period in his subject's life without special comment.

In any case his winter away did not assist him in his relations with his fellow-citizens at home. They received him back with undiminished rancor.

Mr. Smith is at his best describing the violent episodes in which James Wilson's personal unpopularity, his defence of certain Tories charged with treason, and the schemes by which he had made considerable money during wartime finally climaxed on October 4, 1779- A mob had congre- gated to " drive off from the city all disaffected persons and those who supported them." James Wilson could figure that one out; even before the cry " Get Wilson " arose, he had appealed for official aid, received instead reinforcements from friends like Robert Morris, and barricaded himself in his house.

Several people were killed that day, and more wounded. James Wilson's wound was merely personal and political, but he had many of those already, old but unhealed. Complete recovery was too much to expect. On the face of it, he continued a brilliant career. He was elected to Congress again— the moderates being back in the saddle—and both his law business and his other interests flourished awhile. He was, for instance, counsel for his state in the important Marbois-Longchamps affair. He became truly eminent " In his role of champion of the Bank of North America, [where] Wilson established himself as the country's leading apologist for a system of national finances based on a national bank." He was president of such high-sounding companies as the Illinois and Wabash. He was, of course, a towering figure in the Constitutional Convention—" The Con- vention was the central fact of Wilson's life," Mr. Smith says—where he

REVIEWS OF RECENT BOOKS 83

fought manfully for direct popular election of House, Senate, and Chief Executive. The College of Pennsylvania, where he had taught Latin his first year in America, appointed him to its chair of law and his lectures were lastingly distinguished and brilliant. And he ended his life on the Supreme Court. But—that word, with that dash after it, could have been carved appropriately on James Wilson's tombstone, below the list of his achievements.

Never backward about promoting himself, Wilson had " ached to be chief justice," Mr. Smith says. He never realized, apparently, how lucky he was to be a justice at all. True that he was a brilliant lawyer, one of the ablest judges ever to wear the gown. But his longtime disease, speculation, had been progressive. He was now unable to see clearly the line between justice and self-interest. Then too the spectacle of a justice of the Supreme Court fleeing from justice, hiding out in another state again, this time to avoid paying his debts, was not edifying.

But as we make allowance for the speculations themselves—heeding Mr. Smith's eloquent plea that they deserve to be "" considered against the background of his age "—-we must make allowance for James Wilson too. Toward the end of his life, like his brilliant son Bird Wilson after him, he was not in mental health. Dr. Benjamin Rush, the eminent physician who was in some ways the father of American psychiatry, noticed an ominous sign—Wilson had begun to read novels—and considered it "' the final measure of his friend's deterioration." Actually, deterioration had much farther to go. "' As it would not be his will," his biographer says, " it had to be his mind and body that broke."

The criticisms of this excellently researched and interpreted and written book will be few. There are some mistakes of carelessness. Mr. Smith knows perfectly well, for instance, that Henry Lee, who was only nineteen years old in 1775, was not a candidate for the chief command of the Continental army; but Henry, not Charles, is what he says on page 65. When he says the Philadelphia Shippens supported the Crown he is merely forgetting to except such family members as Dr. William Shippen, Jr., director-general of the military hospitals and physician-in-chief of the Continental army. There are various legal generalizations with which various readers may not agree. There are some sins of omission in the index. Sometimes Mr. Smith seems overgenerous, as in attributing to Alexander Hamilton " a dashing military career "; sometimes overharsh, as in saying Benedict Arnold was "' living high off the graft he extracted from Philadelphians in the role of military governor "; and often, as is the occupational disease of biographers, overimpressed with James Wilson. But none of this, obviously, is serious. The publishers' pricing his book higher than comparably bound biographies of similar size and no illustrations except a frontispiece may prove so. But the book itself is fine. This reader was truly impressed.

ELLEN HART SMITH

84 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

The South Lives in History: Southern Historians and Their Legacy. By WENDELL HOLMES STEPHENSON. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1955. xiii, 163 pp. $3.

Wendell Holmes Stephenson is a native of the Middle West and a Professor of History at the University of Oregon. Despite these ante- cedents, he has been for many years a dedicated student of the history of the South, having published several works dealing with the ante- bellum period. The present work is an account of the historical writing by Southerners from the last two decades of the nineteenth century, with special emphasis on the lives and works of William E. Dodd, Ulrich B. Phillips and Walter L. Fleming.

In an introductory essay, which he calls '" The Southern Avenue to Now," Professor Stephenson seeks to place Dodd, Phillips and Fleming in the context of the times in which they taught and wrote. The evolution of a Southern school of history is traced to The Johns Hopkins University in the eighties and nineties of the last century. There the desires of Southern students to probe the history of their region received sympathetic encouragement from Herbert Baxter Adams, a man whom Woodrow Wilson describes as " a great Captain in Industry, a captain in the field of systematic and organized scholarship." From the Hopkins of this period poured a steady stream of young Southerners armed with the Ph. D., who returned to the region of their birth to propagate the study and writing of Southern history. Around the turn of the century, after the death of Adams, Hopkins ceased to be the mecca for young scholars from below the Potomac. The torch passed instead to Columbia University where William A. Dunning had acquired a reputation for directing disser- tations in Southern history, particularly in the areas of the Civil War and Reconstruction. It was at Columbia that both Phillips and Fleming received their graduate training. Dodd, on the other hand, received his Ph. D. from the University of Leipzig.

Professor Stephenson characterizes William E. Dodd, as an historian of democracy, Ulrich B. Phillips as an historian of aristocracy, and Walter L. Fleming as an historian of conservatism. While these characterizations are useful, they should not be allowed to conceal the similarities of background and approach to historical writing which are evident in the lives and thought of these men. Each was a product of the rural South of the seventies and eighties. Each derived from yeoman or middle-class rather than aristocratic stock. All three received undergraduate degrees from Southern colleges, but went North or abroad for graduate instruction. Most important, in the minds of all three the greatest service they could render in the field of history would be to revise the older interpretations of James Ford Rhodes, Ellis Paxson Oberholtzer, John Bach McMaster and others, which, they felt, were notoriously unfair to the South. As Ulrich Phillips put it, " The history of the United States has been written by

REVIEWS OF RECENT BOOKS 85

Boston, and largely written wrong. It must be written anew before it reaches its final form of truth. And for that work ... the South must do its part in preparation."

Of the three, William E. Dodd best succeeded in freeing himself from his native Southern prejudices; Ulrich B. Phillips was the most accomplished literary craftsman; Walter L. Fleming was the most diligent re- searcher and wrote the best documented history. Today, Phillips is chiefly remembered for his Life and Labour in the Old South, the classic description of plantation life and slavery. Fleming's Sequel of Appomattox is still one of the standard works on Reconstruction, as is his Civil War and Reconstruction in Alabama. Dodd's works have not survived too well, though his book The Cotton Kingdom has some claim to remembrance.

Though almost all the works of these three historians are marred by special pleading on behalf of the South, they provided at the time materials and arguments for a more balanced treatment of such controversial subjects as slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction. If their apologetic nature gives us little reason to believe in the possibilities of "' scientific history," they at least provide us with arguments for the consideration of histori- ography as a dialectical process. The older syntheses of American history contained in the works of Rhodes, Oberholtzer, and McMaster contained the germs of their own revision. This revision was accomplished by the theses of Dodd, Phillips and Fleming, theses which led naturally to anti- theses as contained in the works of re-revisionists such asW. E. B. DuBois, It would, indeed, require considerable temerity to predict the nature of the next synthesis.

Professor Stephenson knows his subjects intimately. His work is the product of painstaking research and mature scholarship. Unlike so many works of which this can be said, a high degree of literary skill is also evident. It is to be hoped that this little volume may be the forerunner of a larger study which will comprehensively treat the history of historical writing in the South.

ROBERT P. SHARKEY The Johns Hopkins University

As They Saw Forrest: Some Recollections and Comments of Contempo- raries. Edited by ROBERT SELPH HENRY. Jackson, Tenn.: McCowat- Mercer Press Inc., 1956. xvii, 306 pp. $5.

Reminiscences of Big I. By WILLIAM NATHANIEL WOOD. Edited by BELL IRVIN WILEY. Jackson, Tenn.: McCowat-Mercer Press Inc., 1956. xxviii, 138 pp. $3.95.

If, as the late Dr. Freeman once suggested, the most successful Con- federate history is that which tries the least to be persuasive, then these two volumes will be numbered among the best Confederate books of 1956. Easily paced, with appropriate illustrations and maps, these two

86 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

products of an enterprising press under the editorship of Seale Johnson and Bell Wiley give promise of more good books to come.

The Forrest volume seems to have grown out of Robert Selph Henry's " First With The Most" Forrest, the best biography of the great Con- federate cavalry general to date. By making available to the public selec- tions of some of the rarer Forrest sources, Mr. Henry has done a courteous act, and while this book does not pretend to tell the whole story of Forrest's genius, it does throw additional light on his most famous battles, the Sooy Smith raid, Brice's Crossroads, and the Memphis raid. Particularly enjoyable is the cross-section of comment, for we see Forrest from the point of view of troopers of " the crittur company," officers in his command, worthy opponents, civilian observers, and even Field Marshal, Viscount Wolseley.

Lieutenant Wood's Reminiscences is a short little volume of no particular significance other than the fact that it was prepared thirty years after Appomattox by a man who had fought in the ranks, risen early to a lieutenancy, and remained in that role for the rest of the war, despite the hazards usually associated with combat infantry company officer careers. Only seventy-nine pages long, followed by several appendices and frag- ments of the original manuscript, the narrative tells of the author's experiences in Company A, Nineteenth Virginia, A. N. V., from his first day of soldiering, a day before First Manassas, through Gettysburg where he led his company to the stone wall on Cemetery Hill, to the final surrender at Sayler's Creek, April 6, 1865, and prison camp on Johnson's Island in Lake Erie.

Many amusing scenes are recorded, including a session with Maryland cherry bounce and an attempt at cooking a camp cat. The account of Gettysburg will interest the reader, but this reviewer cannot help feeling indifferent on completion of the book. While interesting reading for those who had read just about everything else on the Army of Northern Virginia, Reminiscences of Big I does not compare with As They Saw Forrest, nor will its contribution to the Confederate bookshelf be as great.

C A. PORTER HOPKINS Glyndon, Md.

A Study of the Movement for German National Parishes in Philadelphia and Baltimore (1787-1802). By VINCENT J. FECHER, Rome: Gregorian University Press, 1955. Sold in the U. S. by Divine Word Missionary Publications, Techny, 111. xxxi, 283 pp. $4.

As the title of this dissertation suggests, the author describes the attempts that were made prior to the end of the eighteenth century to create separate Catholic parishes for German-speaking immigrants in Philadelphia and Baltimore. The early developments of Holy Trinity Church in Philadelphia

REVIEWS OF RECENT BOOKS 87

have been often told in the past, but the author was able to add much important information gleaned from European sources which had never been tapped before. Less was known about the Baltimore parallel, St. John's Church, which was located on Park Avenue and Saratoga Street. Early in 1797, a young German Franciscan Conventual, Father Frederick Caesar Renter, had appeared in Baltimore. Bishop Carroll took him in and appointed him to care for the German Catholics attending the pro- cathedral. Father Renter in compliance with the desire of the Germans tried to organize a separate congregation for them so as to prevent immigrants ignorant of the English language from joining any of the three German Protestant churches in the city. The Bishop strongly opposed his plans. Renter left for Europe to enlist the aid of the Holy See for his German church, a German catechism and even for his high-flung plans for the creation of a German diocese in America. Eventually, after having received reports from Carroll, Rome denied Renter's request. Carroll did his best to prevent the Baltimore Germans from forming their own congregation. Renter and his Germans, however, went ahead and built their church, henceforth acting independently from the Bishop. Reuter even published a German catechism (Baltimore, 1797, printed by Samuel Saner. The only extant copy, in the library of Woodstock College, was evidently not consulted by the Reverend Mr. Fecher). The feud went on for a number of years until 1805 when the Separatists returned to the juris- diction of Bishop Carroll. A year later Reuter was succeeded by Father F. X. Brosius who took over the pastorate of St. John's Church which in 1842 formed the nucleus of St. Alphonsus, a center of fervent German activity for many decades. Father Renter's labors thus cannot be denied a certain success.

While Father Fecher describes in great detail (pp. 58-87) the feud during which the Baltimore Germans " appear to have crossed the line that separated them from rebellion against the authority of the Holy See " and provides excellent documentation which adds some important knowledge to the ecclesiastical history of Baltimore, he obviously lacks an indis- pensible familiarity with the conditions among the Baltimore Germans, particularly the Roman Catholics among their number. It is surprising to note that the author has never consulted the pertinent article by Charles R. Gellner, " Ecclesiastical History of the Catholic Germans in Maryland," in the Twenty-sixth Report of the Society for the History of the Germans in Maryland, nor a comprehensive work like The Maryland Germans by Dieter Cunz, who mentions the fact that the German Roman Catholics of Baltimore held their first services with a German sermon delivered by Father John Baptist Clouse as early as February, 1792.

Father Fecher's study nevertheless has its own merit. It makes many European sources available to the student of American church history. When he reaches the conclusion that the insistence on the sole use of English instead of German and other immigrant languages contributed to the growth of the Catholic Church in America, he overlooks the fact that the Church lost a great many souls to the national Protestant churches

88 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

in those days where the German immigrant found a ready welcome in his own tongue and among his own kind. The creation of many German parishes all over the country in later years proves that Catholic authorities themselves realized this fact. Eventually all these German parishes have become truly American congregations like St. Alphonsus in Baltimore which owes its inception to a stubborn Franciscan by the name of Renter.

KLAUS G. WUST Arlington, Va.

NOTES AND QUERIES

House and Garden Pilgrimage—The 1957 tour of Maryland houses and gardens commences on Wednesday, May 1, with the Green Spring Valley, and concludes with the visit to Queen Anne's County on Sunday, May 12. Tour books giving full information may be obtained from Pilgrimage Headquarters, 217 Sheraton-Belvedere Hotel, Baltimore 2, Md. Information and tickets are also available at the American Automobile Association Headquarters, 1712 G St., N. W., Washington, D. C.

Archives and Genealogy Courses—Summer institutes are offered by the American University, in cooperation with the National Archives and Records Service, the Library of Congress, and the Maryland Hall of Records in Preservation and Administration of Archives, June 17-July 2, Records Management, June 3-14, and Genealogical Research. The latter is sponsored by the American Society of Genealogists. For further information about these specialized summer study groups, write to Dr. Ernst Posner, Office of the Dean, School of Social Sciences and Public Affairs, American University, 1901 F Street, N. W., Washington 6, D. C.

Old Dover Days—The Friends of Old Dover are sponsoring tours of Dover, Delaware, Saturday, May 4 and Sunday, May 5. Descriptive folders may be obtained by writing to Friends of Old Dover, P. O. Box 44, Dover, Del.

Howard-Wells—In the account of Grey Rock and the Howard family, published in this Magazine for June, 1953 ('" The Re-creation of Grey Rock, Baltimore County"), it was stated on page 89 that Elizabeth, one of the daughters of Joshua Howard and his wife Joanna O'Carroll, was the wife of William Wells. This statement also occurs in George A. Hanson's Old Kent. The fact is that Elizabeth Howard married Thomas Wells, as recorded in St. Paul's Episcopal Church Register. The date was September 16, 1736. Mackenzie, in his Colonial Families of the United States of America, Vol. I, has correctly recorded the marriage of Elizabeth to Thomas Wells, though other genealogists, notably members of the Howard family itself, have said she married William Wells. Furthermore, additional confirmation of her marriage to Thomas is found in a deed of

90 MARYLAND HISTORICAL MAGAZINE

1771 by which Cornelius, her brother, gave "Elizabeth, wife of Thomas Wells, Lot No. 522 in Baltimore Town." As a descendant of Thomas Wells and Elizabeth Howard, I have traced the burial place of Elizabeth (Howard) Wells to the property called '" Rogue's Ridge " on Garrison Road near St. Thomas' Church, now part of the property of the Maryland State Training School.

LAURA DEMPSTER GRONEMEYER (Mrs. Henry H.) 1409 Delaware Avenue, Wilmington, Del.

Berry—In the list of miniatures in the collection of the Maryland His- torical Society which appeared in the Maryland Historical Magazine, (December, 1956), page 341, the following errors appeared in connection with the miniature of Mrs. Washington Berry: Mrs. Berry was born in 1802, not 1808, and married in 1822 instead of 1882; her mother, Elizabeth Thomas, died on January 1, 1803, and not in 1802. We thank Mrs. Anne Middleton Holmes, donor of the miniature, for these correc- tions.

Barnum's Hotel—Does anyone know what became of the hotel register of Barnum's Hotel for the fall and winter of 1864-1865? I am interested in tracing the movements of John Wilkes Booth in and out of Baltimore at that time and in particular whether he checked in on the evening of January 28, 1865, and how long he stayed.

JOSEPH E. MISSEMER,

3644 3rd Ave., San Diego 3, Cal.

Wilson—At the present time I am engaged in writing a biography of General Ambrose Powell Hill of the Confederate Army and in gathering material for this work I have discovered that he was at one time engaged to a Miss Emma Wilson of Baltimore about the year 1850. Miss Wilson was a schoolmate of General Hill's sister at Patapsco Female Seminary, Ellicott City, Maryland. This meagre information is all that I have been able to discover.

Rev. CAMERON L. MEACHAM,

First Christian Church, 7th & Jefferson, Paducah, Ky.

CONTRIBUTORS 91

CONTRIBUTORS

DOROTHY MACKAY QUYNN, a frequent contributor to this Magazine, is preparing a definitive biography of Elizabeth (Betsy) Patterson-Bona- parte. Because of the interest and mystery attaching to the life of Godefroy, she sought out all available information about him while she was ex- ploring European and American sources for material about Betsy. •& EDWIN M. BARRY is Chief of Inland Fish Management, State of Maryland Game and Inland Fish Commission. He was active in the preservation of the old Wye Mills, of which he has given us a brief history. •& WARREN W. HASSLER, JR., is the author of General George B. McClellan, Shield of the Union, just published by the Louisiana State University Press (Baton Rouge 3, La.) and also distributed by the Civil War Book Club. Hassler's article on the Battle of South Mountain is based upon a chapter in his biography of McClellan. it A collector of Clifton ware and Rookwood pottery, NANCY R. FITZPATRICK was curious about the firm which made some of her fine pieces. The article on the Chesapeake Pottery Company is the result of her investigations. •& MARSHALL SMELSER

is a James Forrestal Fellow at the United States Naval Academy. The article on the location of the national capital was an offshoot of his current research. iV KENNETH L. CARROLL has presented in the additional material from Nicholite records published hese, a supplement to his previous articles on the Nicholites in this Magazine.

TONGUE, BROOKS & COMPANY

INSURANCE

(All Coverages

213 Saint Paul Place

Baltimore

TRADITIONAL FURNITURE From America's outstand-

ing 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

CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING

BOOKBINDING FRANK W. LINNEMANN 1 North Paca St. (Formerly 233 Park Ave.)

Magazines, medical books, Old books rebound

PHOTOGRAPHY 5i>ice 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 & BLUEPRINTS Baltim^1PEaTBf.t1WePstint C0,

Photo copying of old records, genealogical charts LE 9-6881 and family papers. Enlargements. Coats of Arms.

PLUMBING Established 1909

HEATING BE 5-2572

M. NELSON BARNE.'

3 West 23rd St.

IN 1897 hen we were 18 years old w

400 merchants from North Carolina arrived in Baltimore to do their fall shopping—August 25. Next day 1100 more from various Southern states reached the city, all " hospitably enter- tained."

The ]uniata of the Merchants and Miners Line was launched at Wilmington, Del.—Sept. 2.

A protest against annexation of Hawaii, signed by 20,000 residents of the islands, reached Washington—Dec. 10.

Congress appropriated $200,000 for the relief of gold hunters in the Yukon and Klondike regions. The War Dept. was to send provisions by the reindeer express lines—Dec. 18.

The Relay Hotel, at Relay on the Patapsco River, burned— Dec. 24.

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 furnish- ings 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 crafts- men; mothproofing, dyeing and cleaning of upholstered furniture.

Co// on ffie combined experience of 740 years.

onumental-

eourity STORAGE co., inc. MOVING DEPT: 1110 PARK AVE.—SAratoga 7>3480 - MUlberry 5-7900

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

One of tl oldest

Popular since 1831. this safe and more profitable plan is Ihe fastest growing meth- od of building personal savings in Amer* ica today.

Try it yourself —you'll see!

PLUS

MODERN CONVENIENCE

SAFETY and

HIGH EARNINGS

it THREE DRIVE-IN-WINDOWS

•&• 3 minutes from downtown traffic

•A" FREE PARKING LOT

-it SPEEDY SAVE-by-MAIL

•& SAVINGS INSURED to $10,000

•A- LIBERAL DIVIDENDS twice yearly

FRATERNITY FEDERAL

SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION

764 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD BALTIMORE 30, MARYLAND

(PDF) Maryland Historical Magazine, 1957, Volume 52, Issue No. 1msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5800/sc5881/000001/00… · NOTES AND QUERIES, 89, 170, 260, 363 KENT ISLAND, PART - PDFSLIDE.NET (2024)

References