 It’s no secret that while I am a terribly impatient cook in the modern day, I do love learning about the history of food, gizzards and all. There are a variety of historical cookbooks on my shelf which yield recipes both astonishingly modern (beer-battered apple fritters) and decidedly stuck in the past (calves’ chitterlings dressed “curiously”).
Historical cooking tends to come up often as a topic of conversation this time of year, as people prepare for Thanksgiving. While over time most of us have grappled with the knowledge that this holiday actually celebrates a dark time in our country’s history, it can be hard to break away from the desire to gather with family and indulge in nostalgia. Education here is key. I highly recommend visiting the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Museum when it is safe to do so, and to also do some reading on this history. This is, after all, the 400th anniversary of the Mayflower’s arrival on these shores! One quick way to get a good historical view of what the “First Thanksgiving” was all about is to go back to the source: Governor William Bradford’s account Of Plimoth Plantation: “Others were excersised in fishing, aboute codd, & bass, & other fish, of which yey tooke good store, of which every family had their portion. All ye som̅er ther was no wante. And now begane to come in store of foule…And besids water foule, ther was great store of wild Turkies, of which they tooke many, besids venison, &c. Besids they had aboute a peck a meale a weeke to a person, or now since harvest, Indean corne to yt proportion.” Keep in mind that not only were the Pilgrims working with fairly meager supplies compared to what they were used to back in England, but they were also known for austerity. Extravagance in religion went hand in hand with extravagance in culture, and fashion, and food, and dissident religious groups like the separatists and Puritans wanted nothing to do with it. In fact, one of the most useful cookbooks of the time was actually published as an elaborate insult. Published at the end of English Puritan rule in 1664, The court & kitchin of Elizabeth, commonly called Joan Cromwel, the wife of the late usurper : truly described and represented, and now made publick for general satisfaction (whew, that’s a mouthful) was designed to showcase that Cromwell and his ilk made their food just as bland and soulless as their religion and government. After several long essays on the horrors of the Cromwell administration, the book proceeds to expose Mrs. Cromwell’s favorite dishes, “most of them ordinary and vulgar . . . of which it will be no unpleasing Labour to the reader to peruse.” The Pilgrims likely would have been viewed in the same way. Even these dishes, which were deliberately meant to sound horribly plain and dowdy, would have seemed downright exotic to the inhabitants of Plimoth Colony, who lacked many of the basic ingredients that the English could get from the Continent, such as fine wine, citrus fruit, and large quantities of spices. Depending on what ingredients were at hand, the group may have attempted to cobble together something similar to one of Mrs. Cromwell’s recipes, a boiled cod’s head with oyster stuffing and a wine-butter sauce. “Cut off the Codds head beyond the Gills, that you may have part of the body with it, boyl it in water and salt, to which you may add half a pint of Vinegar, the head must be little more than covered before you put it into the Caldron, take a quart of the biggest cleanest Oysters, and a bunch of sweet herbs and Onions, and put them into the mouth of the head, and with a packthread bind the Jawes fast, you must be sure to pick it and wash it very clean, when it is boyled enough, take it up and set it a drying over a Chafing dish of Coals, then take the Oyster Liquor, four Anchoves, and a sliced Onion; put to them a wuarter of a pint of white Wine, and sweet butter, and melt them together, and pour it on the Cods head, still all or most of the Oysters upon the head, or where they will enter, and garnish it over with them, grate on a little Nutmeg, and send it smoking up, garnish the brims of the dish with Limon and sliced bay Leaves.” To our modern palates, the food that the Wampanoag were cooking was often much tastier than that of the English, and if roasted eel isn’t your thing, Native cuisine from across the country is amazingly diverse and delicious! To get a closer look at the history of Native American food both before and after 1620, we are teaming up with Cary Library for their November book club, which will be hosted by chef Lois Ellen Frank. Lois' website notes that “Lois has spent over 25 years documenting foods and life ways of Native American tribes from the Southwest. This lengthy immersion in Native American communities culminated in her book, Foods of the Southwest Indian Nations, featuring traditional and contemporary recipes.” Lois will be sharing her expertise on Native American cuisine and how food can be used for health and wellness. Register here to join us this Wednesday, November 18, at 7:00 PM. -Sarah McDonough, Programs Manager
0 Comments
Tomorrow is the 2020 Presidential Election. We have newly installed an exhibit on women's suffrage in the windows of the CVS Pharmacy on Massachusetts Avenue in Lexington center. The national suffrage movement spanned 70+ years and women in Lexington were involved for as long. We honor and appreciate their long fight and reaffirm our commitment to equitable history.
The following is an excerpt from Dr. Emily Murphy's white paper on Lexington suffrage. This excerpt covers some important events in the early years of the movement. If you would like to read Dr. Murphy's full paper, it is available here or on the "Something Must Be Done: Bold Women of Lexington" exhibit page. Lexington’s iconic place in American history has always made it a touchstone for any number of movements and the same can be said of the women’s suffrage movement. The battle of Lexington and Concord often featured in suffrage speeches, particularly as speakers pointed out that women were paying their fair share of taxes, but could not vote for representation. However, when it comes to participation in the suffrage movement, Lexington does not feature as a critical point in the Massachusetts story. Suffrage in Lexington can be described as typical; neither more nor less active than any number of small rural towns in the greater Boston area. And as such, its activity ebbs and flows as the greater tide of suffrage enthusiasm did in Massachusetts. There are not a lot of records of suffrage activities in Lexington, but this is a chronological list of what has been found in newspaper articles and other papers. 1875: Centennial Celebrations The first time that Lexington really gets mentioned in relation to women’s suffrage after the Civil War is at the 1875 Centennial Celebrations that happened in Lexington and Concord. In The Women’s Journal, Lucy Stone and her husband Henry Browne Blackwell both wrote scathing reviews about the lack of participation or even mention of women, let alone women’s suffrage in either of the celebrations, even though many of the speakers were in favor of suffrage. “It will be seen how small a share women received of the thought and attention of the celebration. It would seem a small return to the women of Concord and Lexington, whose taxes next fall will be over $3000—one fifth of the whole sum voted by the men at the town-meetings from which these women were excluded.” One bright spot that Blackwell found was “the one man who did not forget to recognize the rights of American women at the Lexington Centennial,” African-American caterer J. B. Smith, who managed the supper for the Lexington event. In response to a letter from nineteen young women from Arlington offering to help with table service for the event, Mr. Smith wrote: “. . . for myself I thank you, and for the sentiment that prompted the act I thank God. It will quicken the pulsation of the patriotic heart of the world, it will hasten the day when all persons will be born free and equal . . .” Blackwell then goes on to point out that there were no women speakers, very few women in the audience or at the supper, and “the fact remains, that it was a celebration of men, by men, for men, and not in any true or complete sense a celebration of the people.”[1] 1877-1887: Lectures, but no League The next mention of women’s suffrage we find is two lectures being held in Lexington on the subject, both mentioned in The Woman’s Journal: MEETINGS AT ARLINGTON AND LEXINGTON On Monday and Tuesday evenings of this week [December 10 and 11, 1877], Suffrage meetings in the above-named places were addressed by Lucy Stone. Mrs. Nancy C. Gilman, who is more than three score and ten years of age, had secured a hall in Arlington, and Rev. Mr. Elder’s Church in Lexington [The Follen Church in East Lexington], and in part, attended to the arrangements. Mrs. Gilman was the inspiring cause of the meetings being held. Younger persons may take a lesson from the courage and perseverance of this venerable woman. Owing to insufficient notice and the first snow-fall of the season, both meetings were small, but those who were present gave close attention. Tracts were distributed, and it is hoped that some, at least, will be induced to take a more active part hereafter.[2] Lucy Stone came back to Lexington to speak that same week, on Sunday, December 16, 1877: WOMAN SUFFRAGE IN LEXINGTON Last Sunday evening, the birth place of American liberty held a meeting in the Town-Hall, which was given without charge for the purpose, to consider the “moral and religious bearings of Woman Suffrage.” We had been told that there was “little sympathy felt in Woman Suffrage in Lexington,” but the large hall was filled by an intelligent and interested audience numbering several hundreds, and it was evident that this was a mistake, or at least that the people were willing to consider the question. Lucy Stone and Henry B. Blackwell were the speakers. After the meeting, several citizens of Lexington waited to express their sympathy and to offer their co-operation in circulating a Woman Suffrage petition. This successful meeting was due to the effort of Mrs. Nancy C. Gilman, of Arlington, aided by the co-operation of those tried and true friends of reform, the Wellingtons of East Lexington.[3] From these two items, it seems that what women’s suffrage interest there was in Lexington at the time was still centered in East Lexington, in the Wellington/Simonds/Stone/Robbins families who were interconnected by marriage and who were the mainstay of the pre-Civil War abolitionist programming in Lexington. Mrs. Nancy C. Gilman, who was from Northfield, New Hampshire, was born in 1806, making her about seventy-one at the time of these lectures and she was a former teacher and a female physician who studied at the Boston Female School of Medicine, graduating in the early 1850s. She lived in Arlington, then in Lexington, between 1868 and 1890, before returning to Northfield, and it seems she was an active member of the MWSA.[4] Further proof that the impetus for reform was still coming from East Lexington is found in the October 2, 1880 Woman’s Journal in a letter from Ellen A. Stone. It’s not apparent which Ellen A. Stone it was, as there is no title attached to the name, and both mother and daughter were very active at this time. It is more likely that it was Miss Stone, as she was the more interested in education: MISS EASTMAN IN LEXINGTON Editor Journal: The friends of educational Suffrage in Lexington, held a somewhat informal meeting at the Selectmen’s room in the Town Hall the afternoon of Monday last (13th). Miss Mary F. Eastman was present and spoke at some length upon our present school system, its aims, its defects, and its needs. The direct and earnest manner of Miss Eastman commanded the closest attention on the part of those present, and her remarks were the more forcible as it became evident that she spoke from practical knowledge of her subject. The meeting was very interesting as well as instructive. Very truly yours, Ellen A. Stone, Lexington, September 25, 1880[5] Mary F. Eastman was one of the best speakers in the MWSA roster. Born in Lowell, she became a teacher and worked under Horace Mann at Antioch College. She had a distinguished career in both public and private schools, and became a women’s suffrage advocate along with an education reformer, and was known for her logical, persuasive style of speaking.[6] She was in Lexington about a year after women gained the school committee vote, so school reform was a hot topic among women’s groups. In the 1870s and 1880s, the suffrage movement annually presented petitions to the legislature for a women’s suffrage amendment to the constitution. In 1882, Sarah Morell Millet, a widow who had been involved for many years in both abolitionist and women’s suffrage activities (she had been one of the founding members of the Lexington Female Charitable Association), reported her success at getting signatures on that year’s petition: WELL DONE LEXINGTON! The town of Lexington, in which the first gun was fired for American independence, is still true to the principle of the consent of the governed. A Woman Suffrage petition signed by seventy-eight citizens, all residing in the eastern part of the town, was received last week, accompanied by the following interesting letter: East Lexington, Jan 17, 1882 Mrs. Lucy Stone: The names on the enclosed paper are from East Lexington only. Every person to whom I presented the petition, with the exception of two, seemed pleased to give me their names, I rejoice that the auguries for the future of our cause are today so encouraging. The addresses of the late meeting in this week’s Woman’s Journal, and also the notices in the [Cambridge] Transcript are very inspiring to those interested in the great work. Truly Yours, Sarah Millet.[7] This was not the first time that Sarah Millet had worked a petition drive; in 1879, she was one of the petitioners who started the bill for school committee suffrage.[8] Because of its proximity to Boston, Lexington was an easy trip for Boston-based speakers, and so the town was host to many lectures from well-known speakers like Mary Eastman, and some who when they appeared in Lexington were not well known, but later became extremely important. In May of 1885, the Woman’s Journal narrated a week in the MWSA speaker’s rounds: SUFFRAGE MEETING AT LEXINGTON April 30—We were entertained by Mrs. E. J. Cogswell, within a stone’s throw of the spot where the first gun was fired for “No taxation without representation.” The Town Hall was opened to us, as to any political party. Here was the largest meeting of the week. Rev. Mr. Staples [First Congregational Church] presided. He advised that the School Committee be enlarged to five, two of them to be women. Professor Emerson, of the Monroe School of Oratory, Boston, was there. He attended our Salem Convention, and heard Miss Shaw speak. He said he thought it worth while to hear her again, so pleased was he before. A league will be formed in Lexington. The next day the old scenes were reviewed by Mrs. Cogswell, who made it very interesting for us. In the Library, Mrs. Stone, of Lexington, has placed Judge Samuel E. Sewell’s bust with Hancock and Adams, with an appropriate tablet telling all who read that he is doing to-day for women what they did for men in ’76.[9] “Miss Shaw” was, in fact, Anna Howard Shaw, who at that time had only recently been ordained as the first female Methodist Protestant Minister. A product of the Boston University Theological School (1878) she was at the time she spoke at Lexington just finishing up another degree in medicine from the Boston University School of Medicine (1886). However, although she was often referred to as Rev. Shaw, shortly after getting her medical degree she decided to use her significant oratorical powers to fight for women’s rights. She eventually moved to work with Susan B. Anthony, whose niece became Shaw’s lifelong partner, and by 1892 she was Vice President of the National American Women’s Suffrage Association, then in 1904 became president of the organization.[10] Judge Samuel E. Sewall was a major figure in both abolitionism and woman’s rights. As a lawyer, he defended fugitive slaves and women, and worked to change the divorce laws to be more favorable towards women. Mrs. E. J. Cogswell is an interesting person. Emily Johnson was born in Lexington in 1818, and both her mother and sister were members of the Lexington Female Charitable Association, which indicates a familial interest in doing good work. She was an early graduate of the Lexington Normal School, and is known to have taught in Vermont in the early 1840s.[11] Emily married William Cogswell in 1850, but after losing an infant son in 1853, her husband in 1859, and her mother in 1862, she turned to Unitarian missionary work, moving to North Platte, Nebraska in 1868 to start a Sunday School and Unitarian congregation. As can be seen from this news item, she returned to Lexington before 1885, and became active in the suffrage movement for a few years. She died in 1897.[12] -Dr. Emily Murphy, National Park Service curator and "Something Must Be Done" exhibit research consultant [1] (H. B. Blackwell, Only Half a Celebration 1875) (L. Stone 1875); [2] (Meetings at Arlington and Lexington 1877); [3] (H. B. Blackwell, Woman Suffrage in Lexington 1877); [4] (Hurd 1885, 545); [5] (E. A. Stone 1880); [6] (Howe, et al. 1904, 484-489); [7] (Well Done Lexington 1882); [8] (Massachusetts General Court House of Representatives 1879, 225); [9] (Suffrage Meeting at Lexington 1885); [10] (Gordon 2000); [11] (Mann 1845, 73); [12] (Paoletti 2016) We are very pleased to be the recipient of a generous $35,000 grant from the Coby Foundation that will help fund a large textile conservation project. The Historical Society cares for a set of bed hangings made by Rachel (Dwight) Gould circa 1768. They are one of only two essentially complete bed hanging sets made in this area during this time. The bed hangings are on display in the Hancock-Clarke House, in the room where Dorothy Quincy and Lydia Hancock were staying when John Hancock was participating in the Provincial Congress in spring of 1775.
The goal is to preserve this historic and rare treasure so that the hangings can be viewed and enjoyed by visitors and researchers for generations to come. These bed hangings received remedial stabilization cleaning and on-site installation assistance in 2009, but now will receive a much more comprehensive treatment. The conservation work will be carried out by Deirdre Windsor of Windsor Conservation. In addition to working with Lexington Historical Society for the past decade, Deirdre completed the conservation project for the Mary Bulham bed hangings at Old York Historical Society in 2016-17. The textile conservator proposes a comprehensive conservation treatment including vacuuming, cleaning, and stabilization. After the hangings are cleaned, areas with tears, weakened binding edges, weakened curtain loops, and deterioration will be addressed. Valances and the head cloth will be lined to offer structural support. After conservation, the bed hangings will be reinstalled with a historically accurate hanging system that provides the best support for long-term display. The bed hangings are one of visitors’ and guides’ favorite items in the houses. Embroidered leaves, vines, flowers, and other motifs are still vibrant and beautiful. Visitors often express their admiration for the size and scope of the crewelwork, which took nine years to complete. Seeing the bed hangings in person with no physical barrier feels very intimate and personal. The hand of the seamstress is very evident and they provide a window into the past. However, the textiles are stained, worn, and fragile from 50 years of display and inherent stress due to their age. Lexington Historical Society strives to interpret 1775 with as much accuracy as possible, and having artifacts of the period in the museums brings history to life. They engage visitors and help them to understand the daily lives and struggles of those who fought for American independence. The Coby Foundation’s generous grant will enable these unique and important bed hangings to continue to tell its tale for years to come. -Stacey Fraser, Collections and Outreach Manager & Erica McAvoy, Executive Director The Coby Foundation, Ltd., located in New York City, funds projects in the textile and needle arts field. Its funding is limited to non-profit organizations in the Mid-Atlantic and New England. The Foundation was established in 1994 by Irene Zambelli Silverman in honor of her mother, Irene Meladakis Zambelli. Mrs. Silverman described her mother as “the finest needlewoman in New York.” Since it began its grant making in 2002, the Foundation has awarded more than $5 million to over 170 projects. https://cobyfoundation.org/ Back in February of 2019, I wrote a blog post concerning a collection of personal papers that were donated to us by the Phillips Library at the Peabody Essex Museum. In that post, I focused on the fascinating life of Margaret Kimball as told through these recently acquired personal items, newspaper clippings, photographs, and a large scrapbook. Margaret’s life was certainly worthy of this extensive discussion.
One might wonder, though, what happens to an archival donation like this after Lexington Historical Society has accepted these items. How do we process them? Where do they go? How do researchers access them? Well, I will shed a little bit of light on this process, while continuing to use the Margaret Kimball Collection as a kind of case study. When I was contacted about the Margaret Kimball Collection, I first wanted to establish that this was, indeed, a collection with a strong Lexington connection, as the Society’s collecting policy requires. When that was established, I met with a manuscript archivist at the Phillips Library. I had some paperwork prepared for her, including a thank you letter (thanking them for the donation and acknowledging that we received it) and a Deed of Gift form. This is standard paperwork for any archival donation, whether the donation is coming from another institution or an independent individual. Whenever a donation comes into the archives, we require that this kind of paperwork be signed. A Deed of Gift is especially important, as it serves as a legal document that transfers ownership of any stated items from the donor (who must have legal rights to the items they are donating) to the Society. Without a signed Deed of Gift transferring ownership, the Society has no legal rights to the items, which can be a liability. After the paperwork has been signed and the donated items become the legal property of the Society, the Society has then taken on the responsibility (and associated costs!) of processing, housing, and caring for these items, as well as making them available to the public when possible. The same held true for the Margaret Kimball Collection. Once I got this collection back to the archives, I took some time to see what was in the boxes. In this case, the contents were in no particular order, but included items like aviation atlases, personal correspondence, memberships, memorabilia, and, most notably, a very large scrapbook pertaining primarily to Margaret’s flying career. Many may wonder what we do with these boxes of “stuff” when they come into the archives. Processing a collection like this, even a small one, can take a significant amount of time. First, an initial assessment is conducted, where we determine the rough condition of the items, remove any obstacles such as paperclips or staples, and get a general sense of the types of materials with which we are working. Then, the materials are divided into “series”; for example, the items in the Margaret Kimball Collection were organized into an Aviation series, a Photograph series, etc. Then, each of the items within the boxes are organized so that that each item falls within a specified series. The collection essentially needs to be organized in such a way that we have both physical control and intellectual control over all of the items. After that is done something called a “Finding Aid” is created. A finding aid is a document that gives an overview of the collection, where it is from, what it is about, what is in it, etc. We can give this to researchers before or during their visit to the archives to help them understand what they are looking at. Finding Aids can be incredibly detailed and time consuming to create, but they can also be a huge help to researchers. There is a kind of “formula” that must be followed in the creation of a finding aid. When you factor in both the creation of the finding aid and the intellectual/physical organization of the collection, you can see why it can take weeks to assess and arrange a collection from start to finish! For Margaret’s collection specifically, her amazing scrapbook made up a significant chunk of the collection and was a series within itself. In this case, after seeing this scrapbook and realizing what a treasure trove it was regarding Margaret’s life, I immediately thought of it as a candidate for future conservation efforts. The scrapbook contained numerous photographs, newspaper clippings, and memorabilia pasted inside, as well as additional items such as licenses and passports stored between the pages. Many of the pasted items are falling apart or peeling off the pages, and the adhesive was beginning to disintegrate. The items being stored between the pages were also, at this point, holding up the binding of the scrapbook to some degree, so it was not very safe or stable to remove them individually either. As we do whenever we have items that are candidates for conservation, I brought this scrapbook to Northeast Document Conservation Center (NEDCC) for appraisal, which is our go-to conservation laboratory, and one of the most premier in the nation. NEDCC specializes in treating collections made of paper or parchment, such as works of art, photographs, books, documents, maps, and manuscripts. We visit NEDCC when we need help preserving and conserving items that we have designated as conservation priorities. These can vary from items that are in particularly rough shape that we do not want to degrade further to items of particular historical or research value. They have done amazing work with our conservation projects in the past. Something like this scrapbook was certainly one of a kind, and it was not in the best condition, so it qualified on a variety of levels as a conservation priority. I asked NEDCC to assess the scrapbook and provide us with some treatment options. A variety of options were presented (including conservation, custom housing, digitization, etc.), and the most expensive option was estimated to cost about $14,200. This is not uncommon - conservation can be particularly expensive. It requires significant fundraising to take on these types of restoration projects. This type of conservation work, while expensive, is imperative to our ability to provide these types of fragile items to researchers and scholars within the archives. As it stands, I would not be comfortable allowing anyone to handle the scrapbook (which has not yet been conserved due to limited financial resources) in such a fragile condition, and this is the case with many of our more delicate archival items that we do not allow researchers to access. After conservation, though, the scrapbook would be much more stable for handling. Not only that, but it would also be digitized, which means that I would be able to provide digital access to this scrapbook to researchers around the world – and it would not harm the original item in the slightest. In the meantime, the scrapbook sits safely with the rest of the Margaret Kimball Collection – now fully processed with a completed Finding Aid – in acid-free archival boxes on the shelves of our newly constructed Archives and Research Center. It anxiously awaits researchers when the archives are open to the public after the pandemic has subsided. There are certainly some aspects of processing an archival collection that are standardized, but each collection is unique and comes with its own individual challenges, issues, and history. In any other year, September becomes a month of reflection and planning for me. I would be reflecting on the summer season, beginning preparations and planning for the remainder of the fall season while also looking ahead towards the following Spring opening of our historic houses.
However, as we can all attest, this has been anything but a normal year. Absent this summer were the curious questions of students and visitors asking “What time did Paul Revere arrive at Hancock-Clarke House?” or “How did Buckman Tavern end up with a musket ball hole in the front door?” Instead, there were questions of “Is Lexington Historical Society open?”, “Is Lexington Historical Society opening the historic houses?”, or “What types of tours does Lexington Historical Society offer?” As the summer has progressed, Lexington Historical Society has moved from offering 3D online virtual tours to self-paced phone tours (with 2 new tour options!) to guided walking tours. While these transitions have been happening, I have been delving deep into webinars, COVID-19 regulations, and social media groups for museum best practices - all to plan for that wonderful day where we would be able to welcome visitors back inside the historic comforts of our buildings. I am now happy to announce we will be able to open Buckman Tavern on a limited basis with a hybrid outdoor/ indoor guided tour! During the tour, participants will gather outside with a Lexington Historical Society guide to learn the history of Buckman Tavern and the role it played in the Battle of Lexington. After this brief chat, visitors will be guided through the historic 1710 tavern and be able to view the period rooms that up until this point have been closed to visitors since March 2020. Visitors will have time to view artifacts and ask questions of LHS guides during this abbreviated tour of the interior of Buckman Tavern. During the tour, all social distancing practices and mandated Massachusetts State Regulations and Requirements will be observed. Please remember to stay the length of a British Grenadier (6 feet) away from other visitors and to always wear your mask so that we can keep both our visitors and staff as safe as we can. Hybrid tours of Buckman Tavern will begin on Saturday October 3 and will be offered daily through Thanksgiving from 10 AM – 2:30 PM every 45 minutes. Online reservations are recommended and will be available for booking starting on October 1. I think I speak for all of our guide staff when I say that we are excited to have the public back inside our building and look forward to seeing everyone if you feel comfortable visiting! Finally, I want to thank everyone for their support over these past few months as we have attempted to serve our loyal audience while at the same time “building an airplane as we fly it” during this ever-shifting pandemic. -Chris Kauffman, Education and Interpretation Manager   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  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
 Photo from britishredcoat.blogspot.com. Lexington draws an annual 10,000+ visitors who seek to watch April 19, 1775 come to life before their eyes. They chat with a costumed interpreter, read Longfellow’s poem, and dress up as a Redcoat. If they’re especially fascinated, perhaps they’ll investigate for themselves where that “first shot” may have come from.
Over my seven years as a tour guide in Lexington, though, it’s been rare that I’m asked about people of marginalized identities who lived in the town and/or took part in the events of April 19th—particularly Black people. I always make a point on tours to address the presence and roles of Black people and women, and that they ought to be viewed as more than just a supplement to the main story. I was once asked why I dared to make such a “political statement” on tour. The fact is that Lexington is by no means immune from the perils of slavery; there exists documentation proving well over a century of involuntary servitude in our town. You may be asking yourself what this fact has to do with the history of April 19, 1775, but in reality it is the only reason necessary to further examine the place of slavery in “the birthplace of American liberty.” The lives and stories of enslaved people work just as much to define “American” as do the actions of Paul Revere and Captain John Parker. It’s important that they’re told. A 1754 census showed twenty-four enslaved people living in Lexington – the highest number in the state. It’s especially worth noting that Lexington, at that time, was a small town of less than 700 people. Reverend John Hancock (grandfather of the signatory of the Declaration of Independence), was himself a slave owner, having used town funds to purchase a man referred to as “Jack” in family records. The Hancock family later bought a second enslaved person, Dinah. By 1775, the number of enslaved people in Lexington had decreased to eight. A number of free Black people also resided in the town, possibly including former enslaved people who either chose to remain in Lexington or continued working for the families by whom they had been owned. Of this Black population at the time, at least three were present on the common when the opening shots of the Revolution were fired: Silas and Eli Burdoo, both free, and Prince Estabrook, an enslaved person. We don’t know exactly why Prince served with Captain Parker’s militia, although it’s likely that it was in lieu of his master. Prince, then 35, was among the ten militiamen wounded that morning, making him the first person of color of the war to suffer injury. (This would, of course, depend on how one defines the true “beginning” of the war; one could argue it was Crispus Attucks at the Boston Massacre.) Though set off for a time to recover from his wound, Prince continued serving in the Continental Army in the following years. Prince eventually did meet freedom – either through his enslaver Benjamin Estabrook or with the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts in 1783. However, a 1790 census of the town showed that “a nonwhite freeman” lived on the Estabrook farm, meaning that Prince may have continued to live near the family. After his former master’s death in 1803, Prince followed three of his sons to Ashby, Massachusetts, where he lived until he died around the age of ninety; he is buried there. In 2008, a memorial was placed outside of Buckman Tavern, where Prince would have met with some eighty other militiamen early on April 19th, to commemorate his military service (pictured above). As many as forty other people of color, both free and enslaved, are known to have participated in the events of April 19th in some capacity. History tends to see them today as “staunch patriots” who were fabulously loyal to the cause – but claims such as this are not based on material evidence. While it may be easy to come to the conclusion that the war brought a sense of unity that eventually resulted in the end of slavery in Massachusetts, it’s important to note that few, if any, accounts exist from Black people themselves. Thus, it’s impossible to say for certain why these soldiers served, and, more generally, how they viewed the rebellion. Patriotism truly had a different meaning to those who were enslaved; Reverend Jonas Clarke (Rev. Hancock’s successor) regularly used the term “slavery” to chronicle the conditions of simply living under British rule in the colonies. Lexington may be known as a progressive suburb today, but by no means was it always like this. Lexington Historical Society is committed to promoting diversity and inclusion in its interpretation of our town’s history – all of it. Last year the LHS began a multi-year project dedicated to research on Lexington’s Black residents and the integration of it into our historic tours, particularly that of the Hancock-Clarke House. On your next visit to our historic sites (and any others you visit), I invite and encourage you: ask about Black people, enslaved and free. Ask about Indigenous people. Ask about women. Much of what we may hope to know has been lost to history – but every bit of research must begin with an inquiry. -Ben Bernier, Tour Guide |
AuthorsFeaturing the voices of Lexington Historical Society permanent staff and occasional guest authors. Archived Posts
November 2020
Categories |
RSS Feed
