All posts by lenoxhistory

Revolutionary War for Enlisted Men from Lenox

October 29, 2015 lenoxhistory Leave a comment

We know of no eye-witness accounts of Revolutionary War service by Lenox enlisted men. However, Joseph Plumb Martin from Becket gives a fascinating and colorful picture of what life would have been like for all the brave and long suffering ordinary soldiers of the Revolution. Joseph Plumb Martin wrote of his experiences in “Ordinary Courage.”

Why and How Joseph Enlisted

Joseph, working on his grandfather’s farm, explains how he came to enlist:

“I remember the stir in the country occasioned by the Stamp Act, but I was so young that I did not understand the meaning of it; I likewise remember the disturbances that followed the repeal of the Stamp Act until the destruction of the tea at Boston and elsewhere. I was then 13 or 14 years old and began to understand something of the works going on. I used to inquire a deal about the French War, as it was called, which had not been long ended; my grandsire would talk with me about it while working in the field…” (Ch. 1)

In the same chapter he describes the sense of local tension and alarm:

“I was ploughing in the field about half a mile from home (which would have been Connecticut – where his grandfather lived), about the 21st day of April (1775) when all of a sudden the bells fell to dinning and three guns were repeatedly fired in succession down in the village….The regulars are coming in good earnest, thought I.”

At first, Joseph has no interest in enlisting but then:

“This year there were troops raised both for Boston and New York. Some from the back towns were billeted at my gransire’s; their company and conversation began to warm my courage to such a degree that I resolved at all events to ‘to a sogering'”

However, his grandfather did not give him permission to enlist (he would have been only 15) and:

“Many of my young associates were with them; my heart and soul went with them, but my mortal part must stay behind. By and by they will come swaggering back, thought I, and tell me of all their exploits….”

In July 1776 Joseph got his wish when his town was required to provide enlistees for the defense of New York. Upon being told that the British had been reinforced by 15,000 men he reports, “I never spent a thought about numbers; the Americans were invincible in my opinion….”

Joseph’s Account of the Kip’s Bay ‘Affair’ and the Retreat from New York

Joseph has a laconic story telling style that would become classic yankee. He speaks of battle as things getting “warm,” and constantly makes sarcastic comments about food (and was probably hungry almost all the time.) Although many of his stories of duty in Westchester and New Jersey tell of indifferent patriots or tories, here he paints a picture of interactions between both friends and foes while on the march:

“I found myself in company with one who was a neighbor of mine when at home and one other man belonging to our regiment; where the rest of them were I knew not. We went into a house by the highway in which were two women and some small children, all crying most bitterly. We asked the women if they had any spirits in the house; they placed a case bottle of rum upon the table and bid us help ourselves. We each of us drank a glass and bidding them good-bye betook ourselves to the highway again. We had not gond far before we saw a party of men apparently hurrying on in the same direction with ourselves. We endeavored hard to overtake them, but on approaching them we found they were not of our way of thinking; they were Hessians.” (Chap. 2)

And in this retreat he tells (as he will in all the future campaigns) of the inadequacy of rest and food:

“I still kept the sick man’s musket; I was unwilling to leave it, for it was his own property, and I knew he valued it highly, and I had a great esteem for him. I had enough to do to take care of my own concerns: it was exceeding hot weather, and I was faint, having slept but very little the preceding night, nor had I eaten a mouthful of victuals for more than 24 hours.”

And he gives a personal account of the hopes of the enslaved to be freed by serving with King George:

“The man of the house where I was quartered had a smart-looking Negro man, a great politician. I chanced one day to go into the barn where he was threshing. He quickly began to upbraid me with my opposition to the British. The king of England was a very powerful prince, he said–a very power prince; and it was a pity that the colonists had fallen out with him; but as we had, we must abide by the consequences. I had no inclination to waste the shafts of my rhetoric upon a Negro slave. I concluded he had heard his betters say so. As the old cock crows, so crows the young one; and I though, as the white cock crows, so cross the black oe. He ran away from his master before I left there and went to Long Island to assist King George; but it seems the King of Terrors was more potent than King George, for his master had certain intelligence that poor Cuff was laid flat on his back.”

(This may refer to death by small pox which was rampant — particularly among the former slaves who enlisted with the British troops.)

Why Joseph Re-Enlisted for the Duration of the War

By 1777 the rage militare of 1775 had all but disappeared. It was now apparent the war would be a prolonged affair and that the ‘sogering’ Joseph had looked forward to was more hunger and exhaustion than glory.

Nonetheless, like soldiers throughout history, Joseph re-enlisted because his friends did — and perhaps we can speculate–because he was young and wasn’t sure what else to do.

The Suffering of the Continental Army

(From Chapter 3)

“One of my mates, and my most familiar associate who had been out ever since the war commenced, and who had been with me the last campaign, had enlisted for the term of the war in the capacity of sergeant. He had enlisting orders, and was every time he saw me, which was often, harassing me with temptations to engage in the service again. At length he so far overcame my resolution as to get me into the scrape again, although it was at this time against my inclination, for I had not fully determined with myself, that if I did engage again, into what corps I should enter. But I would here just inform the reader, that that little insignificant monosyllable–No–was the hardest word in the language for me to pronounce, especially when solicited to do a thing which was in the least degree indifferent to me; I could say Yes, with half the trouble.”

And he gives us an account of the army’s war on smallpox:

“….with about 400 others of the Connecticut forces, to a set of old barracks a mile or two distant in the Highland to be inoculated with the smallpox. We arrived at and cleaned out the barracks, and after two or three days received the infection….I had the smallpox favorably as did the rest, generally.”

And he describes the growing hardship of his squad:

“Their whole time is spent in marches (especially night marches) watching, starving, and in cold weather freezing and sickness. If they get any chance to rest, it must be in the woods or fields, under the side of a fence, in an orchard or in any other place but a comfortable one, lying down on the cold and often wet ground, and perhaps, before the eyes can be closed with a moment’s sleep, alarmed and compelled to stand under arms an hour or two, or to receive an attack from the enemy; and when permitted again to endeavor to rest, called upon immediately to remove some four or five miles to seek some other place, to go through the same maneuvering as before; for it was dangerous to remain any length of time in one place for fear of being informed of by some tory inhabitant (for there were plenty of this sort of savage beast during the Revolutionary War.)…..”

He recounts more on the lack of provisions:

“In the cold month of November without provisions, without clothing, not a scrap of either shoes or stockings to my feet or legs, and in this condition to endure a siege in such a place as that was appalling in the highest degree.”

Joseph’s suffering goes on throughout the war – and often in situations where surrounded by plenty. He rightly resents the lack of sacrifice of the civilians who claimed to be patriots.

It is interesting to note that there was no such thing as an “American” yet. Joseph refers to the Pennsylvanians as foreigners.

Peace and Prosperity – Not

When the war ended in 1783 Joseph was still only 22 years old. He had had little education and is grandfather’s farm was gone. After a brief stint teaching school among the Dutch settlers in the Hudson Highlands, he made for Maine in response to rumors that land was available on easy terms. Like most of the common soldiers of the Revolutionary War, he mustered out with little except whatever tattered clothes he had on his back.

Settling near the mouth of the Penobscot River, he married, had children and lived another 66 years. He was apparently well thought of by his fellow townsmen — elected to the board of selectmen seven times. However, he never prospered and, like many veterans of the war, received scant reward for his service. In 1797 he finally received title to 100 acres of land in the Ohio territory, but he was already in Maine and owed for the land he had settle on there. His bounty land was assigned to a land agent for whatever cash could be raised.

See:

Ordinary Courage, The Revolutionary War Adventures of Joseph Plumb Martin, Fourth Edition, Edited by James Kirby Martin, Published by Wiley-Blackwell, 2013 (e edition)

The Big Picture

The Revolution Came Early – 1774 – to the Berkshires

October 10, 2015 lenoxhistory

Although no shots were fired, the Revolution in the Berkshires could have been said to have begun in 1774. The revolt of 1774 was a demonstration by Berkshire and Litchfield County colonists (some estimates are as high as 1500) blocking the meeting of the Berkshire County Court in Great Barrington on August 15.

Sketch of Unknown Origin of Colonists Reacting to the Stamp Act

This could easily have erupted into open warfare. The size of the crowd (whatever the actual number) was huge for the sparsely populated Berkshires, it had been planned, and included carrying off some important individuals who disagreed with the protestors.

Why?

Since the end of the French and Indian Wars (1763), the English Parliament had tried (and largely failed) to collect taxes and tariffs from the American colonists to help pay the cost of maintaining their newly enlarged North American empire. Much of the American resistance to these taxes and tariffs was in the form of what, in modern parlance, would be called a boycott. The latest of these, the Boston Tea Party in December 1773 (dumping tea in Boston Harbor rather than paying the tariff)

Boston Tea Party - December 1773 — Boston Tea Party – December 1773

touched off a series of reprisals which included

appointment of a new governor who was also head of military operations – and who was no longer paid by the elected representative body
prohibition of town meetings except for the annual election of town officers or unless an agenda was approved by the royal governor
moving authority to appoint and pay judges from the elected representatives to the royal governor.

Technically the 1774 Great Barrington protest was a refusal to let the judges appointed by this new mandate be seated to hold court. As is so often the case, there was more to the protest than the stated objection.

It was critical to have judges the county property holders felt they could trust — and for them that meant having recourse through their elected representatives. Courts were important to early Berkshire County; with court decisions often making the difference between poverty and plenty. Everyone, even those with a profession such as the attorneys who came to these courts had a farm. Property was the primary source of wealth and boundary disputes were common. It was a hand to mouth existence and the currency that land holders had to have to pay taxes and buy manufactured goods was almost non-existent. Consequently, there was a great deal of borrowing – sometimes with the very land that was the property owners means of earning a living – pledged as collateral.
The elimination of town meetings was a lightning rod for these colonists who had been self governing for generations. They had important local issues to discuss – roads, schools, fencing – as well as wanting to have the opportunity.
Even though Berkshire County was still remote, they had organized themselves and were in regular communication, through the Committees o Correspondence, with Boston and the rest of the North American colonists.
Lacking a visiting governor or, as was the case in Boston, a standing British army, the meeting of the County Court was the only face of the royal government in this frontier area.

So, the Berkshire protesters definitely didn’t want judges that had no tie to their elected representatives but they also were, in retrospect, well on the road to Revolution.

For More Information

An excellent paper prepared by Ryan Bachman for History 499: The Western Massachusetts Agrarian Revolt of 1774, Dr. Peretti on December 12, 2011, “Popular Rage: The Background to the Closing of the Berkshire County Courthouse.”

The Big Picture

Lenox and the Non Importation Agreement

October 3, 2015 lenoxhistory

On July 14, 1774 one hundred and nine Lenox men made their first official act of rebellion against the British empire by signing an agreement not to buy British manufactured goods.

As early as 1764 colonists had been using refusal to buy goods imported from England as a way to avoid paying taxes and tariffs. The first boycott (a more modern term) occurred in response to the Stamp Act. It worked; the Act was repealed. However, Parliament kept trying new ways to collect taxes.

By 1774, lead by John Adams cousin Samuel, committees of correspondence had been organized to coordinate reaction to these waves of Parliamentary attempts to get the American colonists to help pay for the costs of running the empire.

The non-importation agreement signed in Lenox would have been modeled on similar agreements being signed all over the colonies. By this time the committees of correspondence had become (particularly considering 1774 roads and postal services) a surprisingly efficient organization. The agreement would have been discussed at the Berkshire Congress held at about the same time in Stockbridge at the site of the current Red Lion Inn.

Red Lion Inn, Stockbridge, MA; First Berkshire Congress Was Held at This Site in 1774

There are a number of remarkable things to be said about the Lenox signers.

To say they had a lot of other things on their minds is a modern understatement. Many of the signers would only have arrived in Lenox only a few years before and would still have been trying to clear enough land to plant and get up a rudimentary shelter. Nonetheless, they probably would have found time to make it to one of the taverns in town (yes – even though there were only a about a hundred households, there were multiple taverns) to have lively debates about taxes and who owed what to whom. Some of these debates would be a continuation of grievances their parents had been accumulating since the end of the French and Indian War.

This is From Munroe Tavern in Lexington, MA, But is Typical of Taverns - Really Rooms Set Aside for Drinking and Entertainment in an Ordinary Home — This is From Munroe Tavern in Lexington, MA, But is Typical of Taverns – Often Rooms Set Aside for Drinking and Entertainment in an Ordinary Home

Since they were all farmers (even those who had professions or other sources of income)who would have been growing their own food, one might wonder why doing without British imports would make much difference. Although Lenox would have had little currency in circulation and few manufactured goods available for purchase, doing without the British goods that came their way was a genuine sacrifice. Some of the foregone purchases – such as salt, sugar and tea – were easily transported and had few substitutes. Others such as paint, china, and fabric could have theoretically been made in the colonies, but the British had a monopoly on the manufacturing capabilities and had found it to their advantage to limit the colonies to being providers of raw materials. So again, these few opportunities to improve their lifestyle were realistically available to the colonists only through importation.
Finally Lenox (and perhaps all of the Berkshires) must have been at least as inclined to protest as their Boston fellow travelers. The 109 signers probably represented most of the households in Lenox at the time. By the 1790 census there were still only 181 households in Lenox. Also, the signers seem to have had the courage of their convictions since, by one estimate, 55 of them show up on military rolls for the Revolutionary War. It is also noteworthy that leading citizens were willing (a la the national founding fathers) to put their hard won gains on the line – nine of the signers were original proprietors or holders of county grants.

We can only speculate– but perhaps just because they were still wrapped in the struggle to wrestle a living from what was still really wilderness, the thought of losing their property to taxation of courts ruled by royal judges was felt even painfully. Or perhaps (many of these signers would have moved west by 1790), they were thinking ahead (and looking around at the last of the open land in Massachusetts) and were particularly concerned about the 1763 treaty that closed the Ohio frontier to settlement.

For more information see:

Original Non-Importatiaon Agreement available at the Lenox Library

Lenox Massachusetts Shiretown, David H. Wood, 1969

Non-Importation Agreements, Wikipedia, June 2014

George Tucker manuscript (unpublished but available at Lenox Library and Lenox Historical Society)

A People’s History of the American Revolution, How Common People Shaped the Fight for Independence, Ray Raphael, The New Press, 2001

The Marketplace of Revolution, How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence, T.H. Breen, Oxford University Press 2004

The Big Picture

Causes of the Revolutionary War – The Glorious Cause

September 20, 2015 lenoxhistory

We’ve discussed the economic and political reasons for the Revolution, but there were also emotions that drove colonial Lenox citizens to endure eight years of war and sacrifice. Idealistic reasons for the Revolution include the growing unity of the North American colonies, hopes for the future, and the increasing rift between the attitudes of Great Britain and their North American subjects. In short, Americans started to become Americans before the Revolution.

Unity

In The Marketplace of Revolution, T.H. Breen, describes the 18th century growth of trade and the increasing importance of British china, fabric and imported metal goods in homes around the world – particularly in the British colonies of North America. By the 1770’s North American consumption accounted for as much as a third of British production. The dawn of mass consumption had arrived in America and consumer mass movement was to follow.

Colonial dismay over the Stamp Act of led to the first attempt at mass boycott, but the boycott lost momentum after the comparatively speedy repeal of the Stamp Act.

However by 1774 when the Intolerable Acts had been passed, there had been almost a decade of accelerating grievances. The British had succeeded in creating a trade in which the colonists struggled to sell enough in raw materials to trade for British finished goods – at protected prices that were profitable for British industry. This cycle of the British attempts to tax (as well as manage the trade and expansion of their colonies) succeeded, Breen argues, in creating both mass consumption and then mass protest.

Even remote Lenox had, by 1774, become part of this mass protest. (see discussions of the non-importation agreement and the closing of the courts in Great Barrington)

The cooperation across the highly independent colonies proved they could work together. Revolution would have been unthinkable without this unity.

Idealism

The impact of the enlightenment and its emphasis on reason, secularism and optimism on both the American and French Revolutions is often discussed. Although Lenox had its share of well-educated individuals at the time of the Revolution, it is unlikely that the hard-working settlers had formal intellectual discussions about free-will and the nature of government. However, it is likely there were spreading and increasingly emotional debates going on in the surprisingly frequent social occasions available to early Lenox residents.

These debates may have been about what modern politicians would call “pocketbook” issues — taxes, closing the land west of the Appalachians for settlement, potential bias in settlement of property and debt claims through the courts, etc. Lenox residents would have taken risks (as there fathers had done) to move to a new area based on hoped for opportunities to provide for their families. Any threat to realizing growth potential would have been highly personal.

It is also likely there would have been some self-righteous religious fervor born of origins and – in New England at least – some vestiges of a sense of having a higher moral standard than the corrupt England of their fore-fathers.

In The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution 1763-1789, Robert Middlekauf writes about the impact of these origins. As noted elsewhere, many Lenox residents would have been descendants of the Great Migration of Puritans fleeing religious persecution of Charles I in the 1630’s. By 1765, there may also have been some descendants of the Scotch Irish Presbyterians who had fled religious persecution in Northern Ireland (although they tended to concentrate in the mid Atlantic and southern colonies). All would have been descendants of a group with continued kinship ties and deep memories of escape from poverty and/or religious persecution. They would have been well aware that they had established a better lives for themselves than those left behind in “the old country.” Imposition of “old” culture or government structure would have been resented deeply.

These ideas, as well as the tactical details of specific actions such was the non-importation agreement would have been debated at weekly Church services, militia drills (held regularly well before there was any thought of Revolution), and in the omni-present taverns. It has been argued that there were taverns in New England for every 40 adult males — must have been sort of a pre-TV man cave. We know of at least three (Hinsdale, Dewey, Whitlock) in Lenox. One only has to listen to modern talk radio for a few minutes to imagine the heat that could be created after a couple of glasses of ale. Additionally, we don’t know that sedition was preached from the pulpit, but we do have Rev. Munson signing the non-importation agreement. The British referred to the Congregational and Presbyterian clergy as “The Black Robe Brigade.”

The Viet Nam/ Iraq Problem

The English decided to impose statism on the colonies they had been semi-ignoring for 150 years at just the wrong time. And their understanding of their colonists was poor. They were separated by a two to four month journey and few in England had actually lived in the colonies. It was therefore , hard to recognize that their colonies had become bigger, prouder, and more self sufficient.

The Americans had played a major role in all the French and Indian Wars and particularly in the last (Seven Years War) which resulted in an enormous English victory in North America (Canada and what would become the USA west to the Mississippi). The American troops (including officers such as George Washington) felt belittled by the English officers and in fact many under-estimated the American’s willingness to fight all the way up to Bunker Hill. (Some British officers, however, knew what they were getting into and even refused to serve in the American Revolution – see The Men Who Lost America).

George III at the Time of His Coronation (James Ramsey)

Instead of recognizing the colonials growing pride in their own capabilities, George III and Parliament picked this time to start more rigorously imposing island based government. George III was, according to Andrew Jackson O’Shaugnessy, neither a tyrant or crazy (that came later), but did have sort of a Dick Cheney complex of wanting his views of good government enacted and respected no matter what. George III thought the colonists would welcome the redcoats as defenders of their Parliamentary rights.

American trade was growing and population had exploded. By the Revolution there were 2.5 MM** people in the 13 colonies (about 20% of whom were slaves). These Americans were not, like most Europeans, concentrated in limited areas. Ninety-five percent lived in rural areas. Conquering a city (even the capitol – Philadelphia) would not equate to capturing either hearts and minds– or even provisions.

The English, particularly those close to the actual fighting, knew they were dealing with challenging logistics and a vast country, but they thought they could overwhelm what they thought was a small number of radicals with “shock and awe” blows in Boston and New York. They continually over-estimated the degree of loyalist support they would get once they landed and ended up having to ship most of their manpower and provisions from Canada and Britain.

In fact, the American colonists were three to five generations removed from their English heritage. At the start of the Revolution only about a third (probably more in New England) were active participants, but that did not mean the many neutral to indifferent colonials were willing to fight their neighbors and countrymen. The Americans had evolved to a more egalitarian and future oriented culture and had become highly capable of self government.

*George Tucker Manuscript Galley 28-1

**Shmoop.com – Revolutionary War Statistics June 2014

Also see: The Marketplace of Revolution, How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence, T.H. Breen, Oxford University Press, 2004

The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789, Robert Middlekauff, Oxford History of the United States, 2005

The Men Who Lost America, British Leadership, the American Revolution and the Fate of the Empire, Andrew Jackson O’Shaughnessy, Yale University Press, Published with assistance from the Annie Burr Lewis Fund, Copyright 2013

The Big Picture

Causes of the Revolution – Political

September 7, 2015 lenoxhistory

Almost up to the time of the American Revolution, Lenox residents probably would have been satisfied that they could have the rights of self government to which they were accustomed and be loyal subjects of King George III.

However, from the end of the French and Indian Wars to the Revolution decision making at the local and colony level was -step by step – taken away. Eventually, the cumulative sense of loss of control over their own destinies moved even ordinary citizens to be willing to fight for a change in government.

Background – Colonial Government Structure

The governmental structure of Massachusetts had changed considerably since the early Puritan self-government compacts. By the 18th century Massachusetts, like many of the other colonies, had an appointed royal governor. That governor had the right to veto acts of the colony’s General Court, as did the king. The governor was the commander-in-chief of the militia and appointed all military officials; he had the right to summon and adjourn the General Court.

The rest of the government consisted of a 28 member Council selected by the House of Representatives and a House of Representatives consisting of Freemen (e.g. property owners) elected from towns across the colony.

The General Court appointed officers, passed laws and orders, organized all courts, established fines and punishments, and levied taxes, all with the consent of the governor. The House alone controlled the salaries of the governor and judicial officers.

The elected arms of the government had more power than this description of the charter suggests since they controlled appointments, land distribution, the salaries of the governor and judicial officers and could veto orders of the governor (although they rarely did).

In addition, as Englishmen, the colonists believed they had the right to pay only the taxes they had agreed to.

The Old State House - Boston — The Old State House – Boston

John Paterson was a representative from Lenox to the House of Representatives at the time of the Revolution.

Background – Local Government

The Puritans brought a history of local government with them from England. For 150 years Lenox and other towns carried on the tradition in at least three ways:

Towns were initially organized like corporations and run by the proprietors (original purchasers – owners of major tracts of land)
As the original proprietors sold off land, towns – such as Lenox – moved on to the town meeting form of government which we still use today
Congregational management – the Congregational Church (the descendent of the original Puritan Church) was still supported by local taxes; the members of the local Church worked together to organize construction of a meeting house and calling a minister.

Towns Used to Meeting to Manage Roads, Local Laws and Taxes

What Changed

As we have discussed, the end of the French and Indian War and the ascendency of King George III, touched off a flurry of attempts to bring North America more firmly into the imperial fold.

The economic impact of actions is discussed in the entry on Economic Causes of the Revolutionary War. However, the various actions taken by Parliament from the end of the French and Indian War to the Revolution, also had the effect of political clamp down.

First, there was the issue of enforcement. Prior to the 1760’s there had been duties on molasses and restrictions on who the colonists could trade with. However, with the help of a little bribery of customs officials, these duties and restrictions had not been strictly enforced. Beginning with a new Sugar Act in 1764 that changed and enforcement became confrontational with colonial merchant ships being stopped and searched. This became an even more visible interference with colonial prerogatives with the imposition of additional duties in the Townshend Acts of 1767.

Second, and more threatening, was the issue of taxation without representation. As far as the colonists were concerned the Stamp act of 1765 (which required payment for stamps for all nature of legal documents and other items) was a tax they had not agreed to. As a matter of fact the Virginia colonists, in March 1765, declared it illegal for “anybody outside of Virginia to assess taxes on Virginia.”

Finally, the “Intolerable Acts,” of 1774 (called the Coercive Acts in Parliament) directly stripped Massachusetts of its charter rights. Although the Stamp Act and most of the Townsend Act duties had been repealed, new King and the Parliament felt they had reached the end of their Royal patience when the colonists revolted against the Tea duties that remained. These “Intolerable Acts”

Closed the Port of Boston until the East India Company was reimbursed for its tea
Disallowed election of the upper house and made it a body appointed by the governor
Eliminated the lower house’s veto power
Made the governor or the King responsible for judicial and other appointments
Gave the governor the authority to order trials involving royal officials to be held in England
Prohibited any Massachusetts town meetings other than one annual town meeting.

And just for good measure, Parliament threw in

the Quartering Act, requiring, as the name suggests, quartering of British soldiers in all colonies
the Quebec Act enlarging the boundaries of what had been French Quebec and providing for more favorable treatment of French Catholics (particularly annoying to the formerly Puritan New Englanders who felt these were the people they had been fighting for almost 100 years.)

The “Intolerable Acts” were intended as a punishment for the Boston Tea Party in 1773. But instead of creating the desired obedience, these Acts touched off colonial unity in the form of the first Continental Congress, Committees of Correspondence, Non-importation agreements and general preparation for revolt.

See:

The Glorious Cause, The American Revolution 1763-1789, Robert Middlekauf, Oxford University Press, 1982

A People’s History of the American Revolution, How Common People Shaped the Fight for Independence, Ray Raphael, The New Press, 2001

The Marketplace of Revolution, How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence, T.H. Breen, Oxford University Press 2004

The American People, Creating a Nation and a Society, Volume One: to 1877, Third Edition, Nash, Jeffrey, Howe, Frederick, Davis, and Winkler, Harper Collins College Publishers 1994

“The Intolerable Acts”, Wikipedia as of April 2014

Note: add info on 1766 Declaratory Act — no law that does not conform to laws passed by Parliament??

The Big Picture

Causes of the Revolutionary War – Economic

September 1, 2015 lenoxhistory

Because records are limited for early Lenox, we probably will not be able to draw conclusions about why Lenox in particular took up the cause of independence from Great Britain. However, we can look at the issues that energized the colonies as a whole and guess which would have been most relevant to Lenox residents in the period leading up to 1775.

Getting Harder and Harder to Meet Basic Household Needs

It’s doubtful that the few hundred Lenox residents would have articulated economic policy as a rationale for war, but it is very likely they were feeling the effects of Great Britain’s increasingly heavy-handed attempts to make the colonies profitable for the mother country.

They struggled to acquire enough cash to pay taxes, pay debts, and buy English goods. They probably were acutely aware of growing pocketbook pain, and they knew it somehow was connected with the control distant lords of commerce seemed to be exerting over their daily economic lives.

Particularly after the French and Indian Wars, it was getting harder to satisfy household needs in the Berkshires. it is estimated it took 50 acres to support a family and the land available was increasingly marginal (particularly in Lenox!). It has also been etimated that it took an acre of trees a year to heat a household. In early days, that probably would have been hard work but doable in Lenox, but families would have had to go further and further to find wood and eventually would have to resort to the purchase of wood or coal. To the degree Lenox farmers could raise livestock or cut wood to sell for the hard currency needed they would have to face the additional challenge of getting to their goods to relatively inaccessible cash markets (Springfield? Albany?).

Why the English Did What They Did

In these early days of international trade the English came to excel at the practice of mercantilism. This meant protecting domestic industry and agriculture by charging duties on goods manufactured by any other country – making everyone else’s goods more expensive. If, like Great Britain, you have colonies even better – you can pay them a low price for raw materials and force them to buy your higher priced goods.

This was accomplished by requiring that all goods from the colonies be shipped to or through England – effectively eliminating the opportunity to shop internationally for the highest bidder. Also, if you’re England, you can choose to require the use of money backed by gold and silver to pay for land, repay debts and buy manufactured goods. If you’re the colony, you have to get that “hard” English currency by trading with other English colonies (including the West Indies) or hoarding what little hard currency you have by making as many exchanges as possible by using commodities. The clever colonists figured out how to acquire much needed hard currency by transporting slaves to the West Indies and the North American colonies, converting West Indian sugar to run and selling the rum and other raw materials to Great Britain or the English Carribean colonies. (More on this when we discuss the growth of slavery in the northern colonies.) They also started building their own ships.

2008 December WFA — Turning Raw Materials and Slaves into Hard Currency for Import Commodities and Manufactured Goods

The earliest attempt at colonial economic management was with the Navigation Acts of 1651 which required all goods that entered England be carried on English or Colonial ships. In 1660 further acts specified certain goods that colonies could only ship to England. In 1675 The Lords of Trade were established in an early attempt to enforce these laws. In the 17th century the royal succession was still pre-occupying Great Britain and the colonists were able to largely ignore any trade limitations that didn’t serve their purposes.

The Colonists’ Needs

However, over the course of the 18th century, colonial demand for goods imported from England or the southern colonies such as tea and sugar as well as manufactured items — particularly books, cloth, china, and fine metal goods picked up. Increased enforcement of trade laws and increased colonial demand doomed the colonies to constantly racing to keep up. And it left the colonies with few alternatives when demand for their trade goods and services cycled up and then down. The French and Indian wars – particularly the last – interrupted trade and inflated prices as demand spiked to feed, cloth, and house the military; and when the war ended the colonists suddenly had less demand for their goods.

And to add insult to injury, everything the English did after the French and Indian War worsened the economic bite. The peace settlement included outlawing settlement west of the Appalachians – cutting off expansion to the fertile Ohio River Valley. They (Currency Acts) cut out the colonies’ attempt to make up for the lack of currency by minting their own. And the English raised taxes on their North American colonies to try to cover the cost of the war and the continued policing of western boundaries; hence the Sugar Acts, the Stamp Act, and the Townshend Acts (see Non Importation Agreement.)

For further information see:

Revolutionary War Timeline, History.org

The American People, Creating a Nation and a Society Volume One, Third Edition, Nash, Jeffrey, Howe, Frederick, Davis, Winkler, Harper Collins

The Marketplace of Revolution, How Consumer Politics Shaped the American Independence, T.H. Breen, Oxford University Press, 2004

The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century, Bernard Bailyn

The Glorious Cause, The American Revolution 1763-1789, Robert Middlekauff, Oxford University Press, 1982

An Economic History of the United States from 1607 to the Present, Ronald E. Seavoy, Taylor and Francis Group 2006

Seavoy, Ronald (2013-10-18). An Economic History of the United States: From 1607 to the Present (p. 65). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

People and Places

Lenox Proprietors

August 17, 2015 lenoxhistory

Proprietors were akin to a modern corporation in that they owned a % of the land and acted as a board of directors for the town. The money they put in would have gone initially toward purchase of Lot #8. Further payments would have gone to legal costs, surveying and any remaining costs for Indian claims. Costs for meeting house and roads generally were shared among proprietors and settlers. Proprietors might or might not be settlers (see “New England Town Development”).

Proprietors may have wanted to get cheap land and have been willing to commit to the hard work of clearing or may have been pure investors hoping to gain by the appreciation in land value to be expected as the land was cleared and roads were built. The first distribution of property was by lots with later distributions being settled based on the % each proprietor had put in. In the case of Lenox, several rounds of distribution seem to have taken place as soon as the surveying was completed. Lenox proprietors held an average of about two hundred acres.

Our information on these important early investors is frustratingly sketchy.

The George Tucker manuscript lists (from documents now at the Berkshire County Middle Registry of Deeds) the proprietors below. If other sources* listed other information about the proprietor it is added here to give some flavor of the people involved. It is clear from the limited facts available that the investors who were not planning to settle, quickly monetized their holdings. In a non-money economy such as Colonial Berkshire County, and land changed hands numerous times from town founding to 1775 and seems to have provided cash for other uses, settlement of debt, etc.

Daniel Allen

Moses Ashley

Jacob Bacon – Dismissed from committee to build meeting house for failing to do anything

Issac Brown

Jonathan Bull

Christopher Cartwright

Samuel Churchill

Titus Curtis**

Israel Dewey** – Elected to Highway Committee, Meeting House Committee; the Deweys must have been major investors in Lenox, holding a half dozen of the original lots. There are 12 Deweys buried at Church on the Hill

Israel Dewey, Jr.

Solomon Glezen – Elected to Highway Committee; dismissed from original committee to build meeting house, elected to new one; in 1771, on behalf of the town of Lenox, Israel Dewey, Eliza Willard and Amos Stanley rented Lot# 6 (School House Lot – just north of the current location of the Church on the Hill) to him for use by the town; in 1772, 100 acres of the lot was sold to Jonathan Foster of Lenox with continued yearly rent by the town of “one peppercorn.”

Charles Goodrich – dismissed from committee to build meeting house for failing to do anything

Samuel Goodrich**

Eleanor Gunn – The only female listed as a proprietor, Eleanor (the former Eleanor Ingersoll) appears to have been the widow of Capt. Stephen Gunn who died at the age of 39 in 1759 of small pox in Great Barrington. Typical of other settlers of south Berkshire County, Capt. Gunn had been born in Westfield. Given the date and his title, his death may have been related to the last French and Indian War. The Registry of Deed records show “Gunn” on two lots near the Pittsfield line but descriptive information suggests Oliver Partridge (who along with other Ingersolls had an abutting lot) and or the ubiquitous Sam Brown of Stockbridge forced the widow to sign over her land in payment of a debt. Mention is made of “having found no goods in Widow Gunn’s house.”

Jonathan Hough

John Ingersoll

Daniel Jones

Elijah Jones

Josiah Jones, Jr.

Josiah Jones

Joseph Lee

Edward Martindale

Elisha Martindale – Elected to Committee to Build Meeting House and Committee to procure preacher; the Martindales were also holders of a large number of initial lots but there are no Martingales listed among the Church on the Hill burials.

Gershom Martindale** – elected to Highway Committee

Stephen Nash-dismissed from committee to build meeting house for failing to do anything; one of the Stephen Nash’s had participated in purchasing 1/2 of lot #6 (which was to be used for the school) from Sam Brown Jr. in 1764. It looks like Sam Brown may have purchased the same property from Josiah Jones in 1763. Of course the price was higher each time the property changed hands!

Stephen Nash, Jr.

Moses Nash

Asa Noble

David Pixley

David Pixley, Jr.

Abraham Root

Abel Rowe

Ashbel Treat

Timothy Treat

Ezra Whittlesey

Earlier settlers (such as Jonathan Hinsdale) may have already been resident on the land (whether proprietor or grant land) and may have rented or made arrangements to purchase after the initial lot selection.

*George Tucker Manuscript, Berkshire County Middle Registry of Deeds, Church on the Hill 1906 Centennial History, East Street Book

**Signers of the 1774 Non Importation Agreement

Institutions, People and Places

Official Lenox Beginnings

July 11, 2015 lenoxhistory

What were to become the towns of Lenox and Richmond began as one tract with the catchy name of Lot #8. Lot #8 was auctioned in 1762 as part of the Massachusetts General Court’s effort to settle newly formed (1761) Berkshire County with the sale of 10 potential township lots in this thinly populated portion of the state.

Initial Lot 8 Meeting

The area had been called Mt. Ephraim (now Richmond) and Yokuntown (now Lenox) in honor of the two Indian chiefs (Ephraim and Yokun)* who were the first claimants. They and their descendants had sold to the General Court and to the Brown proprietor group.

The first meeting was held April 17, 1764 at the house of Mr. John Chamberlin in Mt. Ephraim and, among other things, voted to build two meeting houses because the mountain range dividing the proprietorship made it difficult for settlers to attend worship in just one place. On July 6, 1766 Yokuntown and Mt. Ephraim petitioned the General Court for an official division.

Gov. Bernard OK'd Richmond/Lenox Split of Lot #8 — Gov. Bernard OK’d Richmond/Lenox Split of Lot #8

On Feb. 26, 1767, Gov. Francis Bernard signed a bill to incorporate the easterly part of the town of Richmond into the district of Lenox. As a district, Lenox was allowed to unite with Richmond each year in choosing a representative to the General Court. Apparently early Richmond and Lenox settler had better things to do than make the arduous journey to Boston as the records show them being assessed a fine in 1770 and 1771 for failing to send a representative.

Proprietorships were required to demonstrate certain conditions such as having sixty households, each having cleared seven acres. We know the Hinsdale, Post and other families were already settled in Lenox and perhaps many of the conditions for settlement had been met for Lot #8. The records we have found are not clear on whether both entities in Lot #8 had met the conditions.

Lenox and Richmond Town Names

Charles Lennox, 3rd Duke of Richmond — Charles Lennox,, 3rd Duke of Richmond (1735-1806)

Richmond was named in honor of the Duke of Richmond and Lenox in honor of his family name, Charles Lennox (the second “n” was lost somewhere in transcription).

The Duke was apparently so honored because of his favorable views toward the colonies. During the American Revolution he would be shown to be a full bore supporter by initiating debate to withdraw British troops from the rebelling colonies in 1778. It’s not clear from readily available resources what he had done in the 1760’s to receive such an honor (although with the state of transportation in those days it might have been quite a while before he knew two towns had been named in his honor!). He is known to have been a Whig and a supporter of Parliamentary Reform – in other words part of the political party favoring the colonies. He also had the honor of being intensely disliked by George III (the enemy of my enemy….)

The seat of the Duke of Richmond (Goodwood House) is in Weshampnett — part of Chichester, Sussex, England. Many of the Pilgrims came from that part of England and during World War II, Americans would have flown out of the nearby airbase.

Lenox Town Officers Chosen

According to Field’s 1829 “History of Berkshire County, ”

“The first town officers were chosen March 5, 1767,” and that date (or the 3rd) is generally celebrated as the birth date of the Town of Lenox.

The Birchwood Inn (Hubbard St. and Main) is at the Site of Israel Dewey's Home and Tavern — The Birchwood Inn (Hubbard St. and Main) is at the Site of Israel Dewey’s Home and Tavern

The proprietor’s minutes are spotty but the first Lenox Proprietor’s meeting (remember they were the owners and governing body) on August 3, 1768.*

Israel Dewey was one of the proprietors and the owner of the land now occupied by The Birchwood Inn. It was a tavern site in the 1760’s and the first meetings were alleged to have occurred at the then standing home and tavern.

This was an experienced and no-nonsense group that immediately moved to seek a minister, build a meeting house (in the location of the 1806 Church on the Hill that still stands today), levy taxes and build roads.

*George Tucker Manuscript

The Big Picture

Newport and Lenox

July 6, 2015 lenoxhistory

Newport talk — Paul F. Miller, head of Preservation Society of Newport and author of “Lost Newport”

Newport and Lenox had shared families, architects and roles in the Gilded Age. They also differed in several important ways that had impact on their future. We were fortunate to have had the two Gilded Age resorts compared in a June 2, 2015, lecture by Paul Miller at Ventfort Hall.

Newport and Lenox Families

Some families had homes in both places. For instance, Samuel Gray Ward (1817-1907) first built a home in Lenox (Highwood – considered one of the first cottages) in 1844 then a home in Newport in 1850. His Newport property was later sold to Edith Wharton.* One of the demolished Newport houses Mr. Miller described, Pen Craig, had been built by Mr. and Mrs. George Jones, Edith Jones Wharton’s parents.

Front Entrance — Bellefontaine, Foster Residence in Lenox

Mrs. Giraud Foster’s (Lenox’s Bellefontaine ) sister had a home in Newport and the two families often spent summers in Newport and fall in Lenox.

And there were, of course, the ubiquitous Gilded Age Vanderbilt and Astor relatives in both places as well as other resort towns..Bar Harbor, Adirondacks, etc.

Shared Architects and Designers

Here are just a few examples of the shared Lenox-Newport talent pool.

Anna Van Nest Gambrel (1865-1927) used Carrere and Hastings, as did did her sister Mrs. Foster for Bellefontaine in Lenox.

The Library - One of the Few Rooms that Survived the Bellafontaine Fire — The Library – One of the Few Rooms that Survived the Bellafontaine Fire

The sisters also used the same interior decorator, Jules Allard (died 1907), the most celebrated interior “decorateur” of America’s Gilded Age.

Homestead, Cliffwood Street Lenox, Burned 1905

Frequent Newport architect Charles McKim (later partnered with Sanford White) courted and married his client, Julia Amory Appleton (1859-1887) for whom he designed Homestead in Lenox, a leading example of the Colonial Revival style of architecture.

Taylor House Newport (1901) Shows Similarity to Lenox Mckim Houses

Edith Wharton’s friend and initial collaborator on The Mount, Ogden Codman, designed (now demolished) Villa Rosa in Newport.

Lenox and Newport Differences and Similarities

Unlike Lenox, which remained a frontier town until 1767 and never became a major commercial center, Newport was settled as early as 1636 and becme a thriving port city. It’s path from Colonial port to wealthy watering hole was quite different from Lenox’s path from county seat to Gilded Age resort.

Newport suffered decline after the Revolution because it had been occupied by the British from 1776 to 1779, and over half of the town’s population fled. This occupation had done irreparable damage to Newport’s economy. In the early 19th century the city was forced to re-invent itself. Newport had been bypassed by industrialization and its landscape became frozen in time. Ironically, this became an asset for the town as it transformed itself into a summer resort.

The large tracts of farmland in Lenox, which also had been largely bypassed by major development, were very attractive to the wealthy cottagers. In contrast, Newport was already somewhat “suburbanized” and many of its luxurious mansions were built on smaller lots than their Lenox counterparts.

Like Lenox and the General Electric employees who enjoyed living here, Newport had a major employer who left in the 1970’s — forcing the town to re-think itself once again. The US Navy had had major facilities in Newport beginning after the Civil War. By World War I, estates and resorts on Aquidneck Island were being replaced by Navy facilities and mansions were torn down to make way for housing developments.

Like Lenox, many of the mansions that survived to the mid 20th century were converted for use by schools or other institutions.

While Lenox’s re-invention as a tourist destination seems to have been built on cultural events (Tanglewood) and open land, Newport’s is primarily based on history and ocean recreation.

After World War II, one of the most successful historic preservation movements in the country saved hundreds of structures throughout Newport County. That effort began in the 1840s when George Champlin Mason fought to save Trinity Church. He helped found the Newport Historical Society, which preserved the Seventh Day Baptist Meeting House in 1884, and later acquired and restored the Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House, and the Great Friends Meeting House. Other groups who have taken the preservation movement to heroic levels include the Preservation Society of Newport County, the Newport Restoration Foundation, and several grassroots organizations such as Operation Clapboard.

With the success of the preservation movement, Newport began to recover from the economic downturn that came when the destroyer fleet was pulled out of Newport. A new kind of tourism – now referred to as “Heritage Tourism”- began to develop slowly. Visitors to Newport now come to learn about the area’s remarkable history as well as to enjoy the beauty of the ocean.

*“The Houses of the Berkshires, 1870-1930,” by Richard S. Jackson Jr., and Cornelia Brooke Gilder, Acanthus Press

Also

“Lost Newport, Vanished Cottages of the Resort Era,” by Paul F. Miller, Applewood Books

History of Newport, Newport Historical Society

The Big Picture

Gender Difference in Early America

June 28, 2015 lenoxhistory

Professor of History Emeritus John Demos is also a Bidwell House Board Member. He is Winner of the Bancroft Prize and the Francis Parkman Prize.

Yale Emeritus Professor of History John Demos explored gender relations in colonial America at a Bidwell House lecture June 20, 2015. He discussed how male-female difference was understood at the time and what that meant for everyday life.

A video of the talk is available on You Tube — Lenox History.

Throughout the talk John emphasized. that the Colonial period covered more than 150 years and that roles evolved over time.

In the Colonial era women were largely defined by what they lacked – powers of reason and moral discipline (fear of witches in its most primitive form). Only about 30% of women were literate vs. 60-70% of men and it was women’s role to receive guidance from men — even as to child rearing.

Tyringham Union Church - Location of Bidwell House Lecture June 20, 2015 — Tyringham Union Church – Location of Bidwell House Lecture June 20, 2015

However, somewhat in contradiction, women were also though of as “help mate.” Their role was to be self sacrificing and to help others – but not necessarily passive. Women would have been quite active in household management and for many of the home industries on which the local Colonial economy depended. These responsibilities included production of textiles, candle making, basket making, care of domestic animals tending the family garden, care of young children and for home medical care. When the husband was absent, the wife would be expected to act in his stead as a “deputy husband.”

The male-female dependency of Colonial household in early New England is demonstrated by the high marriage rate – there were almost no single person households in that era. There were fewer females than males but the imbalance was less than it had been in the south. As a frontier society, there would have been more need for everyone to pitch in to survive and it is likely New England females enjoyed more status than their counterparts in the mother country.

By the 19th century women had become more the rearers of children and had become more instrumental in administration of the church. Literacy among women probably had improved by this time and many women were involved in home education. Increasingly men were out of the home for work and women ran the household. Men and women started to have more distinct and separate spheres of influence.