  One of the most enduring mysteries of the Old Burying Ground is a low, long gravestone, adorned not with the usual winged soul of the Revolutionary years, but with six tiny, very human figures. These carvings represent six of the seven children of Sarah and Abijah Childs, who died within three weeks of each other in the summer of 1778. These children were among many casualties in an unnamed epidemic that swept through Lexington that year. Such a marker is a testament to how little some things change over the years, as we work our way through humanity’s latest deadly disease.
One thing that makes the current situation easier to bear, from a historical perspective, is the amount of documentation we have: newspaper articles, blogs, photos, videos…the amount of information a 22nd century historian will have on the coronavirus is staggering. But in the 18th century? Studying disease can be a frustrating process, involving poring over town books and letters, with much internal groaning over our ancestors’ lack of death records. Most 18th century vital records do not list what someone died of and, course, even when records do exist, they are often speculation, or use archaic terms for a variety of diseases. The outbreak in Lexington has been argued by some historians to be dysentery, an offshoot of noted outbreaks in other towns, but the possibilities are endless. Measles, whooping cough, diphtheria…all were rampant at different periods of time, particularly among children. The most popular possibility for any 18th century mystery epidemic is usually smallpox, being the most well-known and well-documented disease of the time period. But was it in evidence here? Boston did publicly notify of infections in town, mainly to ease the minds of the locals whenever rumors of illness started sweeping through the streets. It was not uncommon to see news reports specifying that a local case had been discovered, that the infected persons had been removed to the quarantine hospital on Rainsford Island, in the harbor, and that the town was currently free from disease. The spring of 1778 did see an outbreak in the city, and letters to the editor in Boston newspapers complained in mid-summer that the pox didn’t seem to be abating, despite reassurance from officials. The largest outbreak of smallpox in the greater Boston area was in 1776, and we do know that it made its way to Lexington by the end of that year. In December, Betty Clarke, the 13-year-old daughter of Reverend Jonas Clarke, contracted smallpox, possibly during a visit to the city. As soon as Betty showed signs of pox, Reverend Clarke rushed to make an appointment with a local doctor to inoculate the whole family. Whether Clarke urged the rest of the town to do the same to prevent the outbreak from spreading is unknown, so we still can’t rule smallpox out for what was plaguing the town in 1778. But the practice of inoculation was widespread at the time. The precursor to modern vaccines, inoculation, had been popularized in Boston a generation earlier during an outbreak in 1721. The process, involving depositing infected matter into the body of a healthy person to induce an immune response, had actually been in successful use in Asia and Africa for several centuries, while Western doctors looked on in distrust. It was actually the enslaved population of Boston who first told the locals about the practice. Onesimus, a man enslaved by Cotton Mather (of witch trials fame) told his master that a scar on his arm was from an operation he had had back in Africa, which made him immune to the pox. After corroborating this account with others, Mather began an extensive public campaign encouraging locals to adopt inoculation, but then, as now, it took the public a long time to get over fears of complications, or spreading the disease further. John Adams was inoculated before the Revolution, in 1764, and wrote of his experience: “They took their Launcetts and with their Points divided the skin for about a Quarter of an Inch and just suffering the Blood to appear, buried a Thread about half a Quarter of an Inch long in the Channel. A little Lint was then laid over the scratch and a Piece of a Ragg pressed on, and then a Bandage bound over.” The thread mentioned would have been soaked in fluid from a fresh pustule, allowing the virus to enter the bloodstream through the cut. Not something that would work in a modern hospital! The development of vaccines has clearly come a long way since the 18th century, no longer dealing in live viruses and mass cross-contamination. But at the time, this was (in America, at least) a revolutionary new technology that allowed people to believe they had a fighting chance against the most infamous disease in the world. While our experiences of dealing with medical mysteries have been frustratingly similar through the centuries, hopefully flu shots this winter, and COVID shots to come, won’t seem nearly as harrowing now. And in the future, we will hopefully have our stories preserved so that future historians won’t be quite so in the dark as they try to piece our long and complicated story. If you would like to add your story of what it’s like to live in Lexington during the COVID-19 pandemic, please consider contributing to the COVID-19 History Project! -Sarah McDonough, Programs Manager
3 Comments
 Two of the "Oak Bluffs women," Boston Herald, September 1950 How can a jury of peers be guaranteed when it excludes a large number of possible peers?
There is no good answer to this question. It simply cannot be done. The right to a trial by jury - an impartial jury of peers - is one of the principal American rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. And of course, as we have seen throughout history time and again, women were largely excluded from this right. Women were prohibited from serving on juries due to a “defect of sex” as stated in the English common law and because of the widely held belief that their primary role was in the home. As a result, most American juries were not representative of the population. This is not a jury of peers, but of the unfairly privileged. This year, we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment. We all can name the year women earned the right to vote, but too often we forget the many other achievements that were still in the making. Yes, women’s suffrage was accomplished in 1920, but did you know women were prohibited from serving on juries in Massachusetts until 1950? 30 years later! How is this possible? The anti-suffrage movement played a crucial role in keeping women off of juries, particularly in Massachusetts. Many anti-suffragists argued that giving women the right to vote implied the right to serve on juries, which was “unthinkable.” They believed that women would lack the skills necessary to come to an objective decision in court. Various cartoons were published solely to persuade states to prohibit women from jury duty; one anti-suffragist and political cartoonist Kenneth Russel Chamberlain depicted the imagined effects in the illustration above, arguing “women are too sentimental.” This notion that women were ill-equipped to serve on juries came from the widely-held belief that their sole responsibility was in the home. It was so commonly accepted by Americans that proponents of women on juries often incorporated this assumption into their argument. Supporters turned the roadblock of the household obligation into a qualifying factor: since women stayed primarily in the home, they had less experience on juries and would therefore be more careful in consideration as well as objective and impartial in decision-making. Still, opponents of women jurors cried that women were simply too emotional to handle jury duty; women would be “confronted with unseemly matters” and could be “embarrassed” by court cases. After gaining traction, this idea made its way into the juror service law in 1949. The law, which granted women the right to serve on juries in Massachusetts, limited jury service to be voluntary for women and allowed the judge to bar women from service if the case would “embarrass them.” However, this did not stop the determined women of Massachusetts from serving when they could, once the women-on-juries law was passed. The "Oak Bluffs women," as the first two women to sit on a jury of the Massachusetts superior court were called, were “thrilled” to be in a courtroom for the very first time. The first five women from Massachusetts selected for federal grand jury in 1950 (two of the five pictured) were quite excited with the prospects of serving and had a lot of confidence in their abilities. One of the women, 55-year-old Edythe Sullivan from Worcester, saw the opportunity as “a welcome change.” She even told the Boston Herald that “women [may] end up doing a much better job than men!” In the federal case, half of the women selected claimed exemption -- because they could. It wasn’t until 1975, in the Supreme Court decision Taylor v. Louisiana, that courts were required to treat women jurors equally to men. When only 10% of the jury was female despite the fact that 53% of eligible jurors were women, defendant Billy Taylor filed to reject the jury but was dismissed by the state. The case eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled “a representative cross section of the community” is a necessary part of a jury of peers, which is validated by the sixth amendment. Now women could no longer claim exemption from jury duty; they were required to serve alongside men. In 1975. As I sat down to write this article, I was absolutely shocked. My initial response was: Why is no one talking about this?! Women were not even permitted on juries in Massachusetts until 1950, much less required to serve until 1975! Even then the Supreme Court had to decide for the nation. It is all kinds of ridiculous to me that women were banned from jury duty for so long and that this part of history is not even acknowledged. As a rising freshman in college, I am looking forward to four more years of education. Education where I want to learn about history so that it is not repeated. So that I do not repeat it. We live in a world that so desperately needs justice and equity. If we could not find fair representation in our justice system until 45 years ago (and even still, there is more work to be done) why do we not recognize that? Why is it swept under the rug? What are the consequences of this ignorance about our past? This critical turning point in the women’s rights movement cannot go unnoticed, or else we are sure to repeat history. We need to recognize where we have failed in order to succeed and find true justice, even when our system is hurting right now. Where can we find justice? -Amy Palmer, local student and guest blogger. Sources
 Dear Friends:
It has been five months since the state shut down and Lexington Historical Society closed its doors. I thought I would give our members and friends an update on how we have coped, what we have continued to do normally, and what we have done differently. And of course, how this might affect our future. When we decided to close our museums and gift shop and work remotely on March 13, I thought it would last for a month; perhaps a bit more or a bit less. Our Treasurer suggested we should prepare for the fact that our museums may be shut down through Labor Day. When he suggested that, I thought he was being far too pessimistic: yet, here we are, in the middle of August, and our museums are still closed (on the inside at least). Sorry I doubted you, Dave. Like everyone else, I was at a loss on how to proceed. How would we fulfill our mission? Would it even be possible without our museums open? Would we have to cancel our programs indefinitely? Could we even continue as an organization? These questions kept me up at night. We began to explore our options, holding committee and staff meetings on Zoom to figure out how to proceed. We soon realized it might be possible to also hold a program via Zoom. After all, we had a full slate of programming scheduled for Patriots Day, just a few weeks away. It was worth a shot, right? Sarah McDonough, our Programs Manager, contacted our scheduled speakers to find out if they would be willing to present their program virtually. Most agreed. Soon we had a full “Virtual Patriots’ Day” weekend planned, with several virtual programs scheduled all three days of the weekend and into the following week. Our Virtual Patriots’ Day was a smashing success. We attracted hundreds of people from all over the world, many of whom would not have been able to engage with us in a traditional format. Over the course of spring and summer, we became virtual programming experts, hosting Q&As, lectures, collections presentations, tours, and even our First Shot! summer camp with sixteen children. We continue to plan our upcoming programs virtually, including those that are part of the town-wide “Lexington Remembers WWII” commemoration. We have begun outdoor tours, offered with a guide, as well as self-guided with our online “Lexington by Foot and Phone” experience. While we have only seen a few visitors, it feels encouraging to offer some kind of in-person experience. What we have learned over the course of the last five months is that, despite the pandemic and subsequent shutdown, we have been able to effectively fulfill our mission, and engage even more people than ever before. Because of the virtual format, physical and geographic barriers are removed allowing for a broader audience. I believe that even in a post-COVID-19 world, we will continue to offer many of our programs virtually because of what we have learned during this period. I like to talk about the silver lining, and our ability to fulfill our mission during this time is certainly a silver lining. However, the pandemic has had a negative impact on Lexington Historical Society too. I would be remiss in my role as Executive Director to ignore it. From March 13 until recently, we have had to furlough our guide staff, as we were unable to offer tours. Our guide staff members are our representatives to the community and to the world, as they are often the first to greet visitors when they walk through the doors of Buckman Tavern. To be unable to have our seasonal guide staff work in our museums was very unfortunate. In addition, our wonderful volunteer greeters have been unable to give their time this summer, something we truly value at our organization. Every spring, summer, and fall, members of the community volunteer to greet visitors at Hancock-Clarke House and Munroe Tavern. They too serve as ambassadors, welcoming visitors from around the world, selling tickets, and offering information about Lexington, its history, and things to do in the surrounding area. Our volunteers are a major part of our team, and to not be able to offer them that experience was devastating. Of course, one of the more lasting ways COVID has impacted us is financially. Because of this pandemic, we have lost the ability to rent the Depot, host field trips, open the museums, and hold traditional fundraisers. Without these activities, we will lose over a third of our revenue this year. While we are being creative about the ways we can raise money, the fact remains that we will end the year in a deficit. Like most non-profit organizations, this leaves us wondering what we should expect for 2021. No one can fully predict what the 2021 tourist season will be like, if it even takes place, and we do not know if gatherings will be possible next year. Therefore, our revenue sources could, and most likely will, be affected by this pandemic well into 2021. The future is unknown and we, along with most other museums, may have to reevaluate and change the way we do things to adapt to this New Normal. However, some things will never change. Lexington Historical Society was founded in 1886 as an organization dedicated to preserving Lexington’s history. Since then, the world has changed and our organization has changed, but we are still dedicated to preserving our four historic properties and fulfilling our promise to be a premier interpreter of the events of April 1775, and the faithful steward of all of the town's history through time. We have always had wonderful support from our members, friends, and the community. We need your support now more than ever before. To help us continue our important work, please pitch in. No amount is too small. You can give online or mail a check to Lexington Historical Society, PO Box 514 Lexington, MA 02420. My hope is that someday we can look back at this time with gratitude and pride: gratitude for the lessons it taught us and the ways it encouraged us to be more creative and pride in how we weathered the storm, survived it, and came out stronger than before. Thank you for your support. Yours in history, Erica McAvoy, Executive Director  Boston Herald, September 1950 How can a jury of peers be guaranteed when it excludes a large number of possible peers?
There is no good answer to this question. It simply cannot be done. The right to a trial by jury - an impartial jury of peers - is one of the principal American rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. And of course, as we have seen throughout history time and again, women were largely excluded from this right. Women were prohibited from serving on juries due to a “defect of sex” as stated in the English common law and because of the widely held belief that their primary role was in the home. As a result, most American juries were not representative of the population. This is not a jury of peers, but of the unfairly privileged. This year, we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment. We all can name the year women earned the right to vote, but too often we forget the many other achievements that were still in the making. Yes, women’s suffrage was accomplished in 1920, but did you know women were prohibited from serving on juries in Massachusetts until 1950? 30 years later! How is this possible? The anti-suffrage movement played a crucial role in keeping women off of juries, particularly in Massachusetts. Many anti-suffragists argued that giving women the right to vote implied the right to serve on juries, which was “unthinkable.” They believed that women would lack the skills necessary to come to an objective decision in court. Various cartoons were published solely to persuade states to prohibit women from jury duty; one anti-suffragist and political cartoonist Kenneth Russel Chamberlain depicted the imagined effects in the illustration above, arguing “women are too sentimental.” This notion that women were ill-equipped to serve on juries came from the widely-held belief that their sole responsibility was in the home. It was so commonly accepted by Americans that proponents of women on juries often incorporated this assumption into their argument. Supporters turned the roadblock of the household obligation into a qualifying factor: since women stayed primarily in the home, they had less experience on juries and would therefore be more careful in consideration as well as objective and impartial in decision-making. Still, opponents of women jurors cried that women were simply too emotional to handle jury duty; women would be “confronted with unseemly matters” and could be “embarrassed” by court cases. After gaining traction, this idea made its way into the juror service law in 1949. The law, which granted women the right to serve on juries in Massachusetts, limited jury service to be voluntary for women and allowed the judge to bar women from service if the case would “embarrass them.” However, this did not stop the determined women of Massachusetts from serving when they could, once the women-on-juries law was passed. The "Oak Bluffs women," the first two women to sit on a jury of the Massachusetts superior court, were “thrilled” to be in a courtroom for the very first time. The first five women from Massachusetts selected for federal grand jury in 1950 (two of the five women pictured here) were quite excited with the prospects of serving and had a lot of confidence in their abilities. One of the women, 55-year-old Edythe Sullivan from Worcester, saw the opportunity as “a welcome change.” She even told the Boston Herald that “women [may] end up doing a much better job than men!” In the federal case, half of the women selected claimed exemption -- because they could. It wasn’t until 1975, in the Supreme Court decision Taylor v. Louisiana, that courts were required to treat women jurors equally to men. When only 10% of the jury was female despite the fact that 53% of eligible jurors were women, defendant Billy Taylor filed to reject the jury but was dismissed by the state. The case eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled “a representative cross section of the community” is a necessary part of a jury of peers, which is validated by the sixth amendment. Now women could no longer claim exemption from jury duty; they were required to serve alongside men. In 1975. As I sat down to write this article, I was absolutely shocked. My initial response was: Why is no one talking about this?! Women were not even permitted on juries in Massachusetts until 1950, much less required to serve until 1975! Even then the Supreme Court had to decide for the nation. It is all kinds of ridiculous to me that women were banned from jury duty for so long and that this part of history is not even acknowledged. As a rising freshman in college, I am looking forward to four more years of education. Education where I want to learn about history so that it is not repeated. So that I do not repeat it. We live in a world that so desperately needs justice and equity. If we could not find fair representation in our justice system until 45 years ago (and even still, there is more work to be done) why do we not recognize that? Why is it swept under the rug? What are the consequences of this ignorance about our past? This critical turning point in the women’s rights movement cannot go unnoticed, or else we are sure to repeat history. We need to recognize where we have failed in order to succeed and find true justice, even when our system is hurting right now. Where can we find justice? -Amy Palmer, local student and guest blogger Sources
|
AuthorsFeaturing the voices of Lexington Historical Society permanent staff and occasional guest authors. Archives
January 2021
Categories |
RSS Feed
