Color Print Boston 1848 Edwin Whitefield

Boston in 1848
From an original drawing by Edwin Whitefield

Boston: Byways and Folkways… a Brief History Part I 

From the Great Migration of 1635 to the political upheavals of the late 1960’s this course follows the
development of Boston through the lens of its geography, changing population, and neighborhoods. 

 Boston Beginnings

“Where is Boston?”  The answer to this question is not as simple as one might expect.  “It's where it's always been,” you reply. But that is not the case.  Depending upon which geologic period you are considering, what we call the Boston Basin has traveled a considerable distance.  Originally part of what geologists call Avalonia, a microcontinent that developed during the Paleozoic Era some 538 million years ago, the Boston basin has migrated from the southern hemisphere, collided with several other early continental plates and eventually joined the North American Plate comprising the coastal areas from the Avalon Peninsula in Newfoundland [hence its name] southward to, and including. Rhode Island. Interestingly, part of Avalonia drifted to  the northeast, forming part of modern Ireland, all of England, and parts of coastal Europe from northern France to Denmark.  In one sense, the East Anglian founders of Boston, who settled  the Shawmut Peninsula in 1630, had not really traveled very far at all. 

Avalonia Today

Avalonia Today

Courtesy of Wikimedia

The present-day topology and contours that we associate with Boston Proper would be entirely unfamiliar to the original Puritan settlers of the Great Migration of 1630.  Called Shawmut in the Algonquin language, the peninsula consisted of less than 500 acres connected by a narrow isthmus to what is now Dorchester Heights.  With very high tides, the peninsula became an island. Boston Proper today is approximately 60% landfill. The overlay map below shows the original contours of Boston in dark green with landfill in light green, tan, and rose.  An excellent interactive atlas of Boston over time can be found at 

Mapjunction
Boston 1630 - 2000 overlay

Click on the link below to see a history of landfill in Boston.

Click Here

Geography as Destiny

While geography is not determinative  in the absolute sense, it does impose constraints on population, land use, and economic development.  While fresh spring water and a deep harbor attracted the first settlers, the lack of an easily accessible hinterland limited Boston's potential as a major shipping center.  While New Amsterdam's Hudson River and Connecticut Colony's Connecticut River provided navigable waterways deep into the interior, Boston's meandering 80 mile long Charles River travels only as far as Hopkinton, while the Mystic River's 7 mile course ends in Medford.  For this reason Boston's early economy would be dominated by maritime coastal industries and mercantile trade with Britain, East Africa and the West Indies. Both required  skilled craftsmen, merchants and the capital to finance them.  Through out the three phases of its development, mercantile, industrial, technological, Boston has relied on its human capital as the chief source of its economic vitality. 

Mystic and Charles River Watersheads

Charles River Mystic River Watersheads

Topology of Boston

When viewed from what is now Charlestown, the Shawmut skyline was dominated by three hills: Trimount, consisting of ​Mt. Vernon, Beacon Hill, and Pemberton Hill, with​ Copps Hill to the northeast and Fort Hill to the southeast.​ There are no extant sources describing what the original settlers saw when they arrived on Boston's shore other than that of a young girl, Anne Pollard, who described Shawmut as " very uneven, abounding in small hollows and swamps, covered with blueberries and other bushes." In the late 17th century print below, the three hills of Trimount are quite prominent, including the beacon from which Beacon Hill derived its name; to the left can be seen Copps Hill.

The "uneven" topology "abounding in small hollows and swamps" that Anne observed from the shore of Charlestown was largely the product of the Laurentide ice sheet's retreat some 12,000 years ago.  The retreat of the glacier resulted in the creation of moraines, drumlins,  and kettles across the New England landscape.  Beacon Hill is an excellent example of an end moraine formed as the ice sheet paused in its retreat leaving a deposit of gravel, boulders and sand behind.  The islands of Boston Harbor are almost entirely drumlins, rounded, teardrop shaped hills  created by the scouring action of the retreating glaciers.  Boston Harbor's "swarm" of drumlins is quite unique being only one of three partially submerged "swarms" in the world.  Jamaica Pond is an example of a kettle pond created by the melting of a large mass of ice that calved from its retreating glacier and created a depression that filled with water  over time. 

Stepping back in time, the underlying geology of the Boston Basin developed approximately 600 million years ago during the late Neoproterozoic and Precambrian periods.  A considerable part of the underlying bedrock consists of  Cambridge Argillite, a formation of shale-like layered sedimentary rock. An older formation, known as Roxbury Conglomerate, also underlies parts of the basin. It is more popularly known as Roxbury Puddingstone, an apt name for a matrix of stones, cobbles, and boulders of varies sizes cemented together by finer materials.  As you traverse the various neighborhoods of Boston you come to realize how popular Puddingstone became as  a favorite building material, especially in the construction of its public buildings and churches.  



















One of the most beautiful views of Boston occurs when driving into the city on Route 2 in Arlington Heights.  From this 300 foot elevation the entire basin is spread out before you.  Similar views can be obtained from Needham Heights, Wellesley Hills, Prospect  Hill in Waltham or Chestnut Hill in Newton.  These sites form the escarpment that surrounds Boston and hence the word "basin." Volcanic in origin, consisting of various granites and gneisses, they were formed during late Precambrian times when Avalonia was somewhere near the Equator. 

Old South Church Boston Roxbury Puddingstone

Old South Church
courtesy of Ajay Suresh

Roxbury Puddingstone
Courtesy of James Hobin

Topographical map of the Boston Basin

Topographical map of the Boston Basin
Courtesey of the Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres

View of Boston from Pine Hillk, Middlesex Fells Reservation

View of Boston from Pine Hill, Middlesex Fells
Notice the granite outcropping in the foreground

Suggested Readings

Geological History of Massachusetts.  A basic introduction that is not too technical

Hyperlink

Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area:  Geologic Resources Inventory Report.    From the National Park Service, a more technical indepth analysis of the geologic formation of the harbor islands.

Hyperlink

Paleomar Project, Christopher Scotese.  If you want to dig deepler into the history of plate tectonics, this is the place to go.  Excellent graphics. 

Hyperlink

Written in Stone...Seen Through My Lens, Parts I & II.  One of the most informative and easy to follow desdriptions of the geologic history of the Boston area, excellent photos and graphics.

Return to Top

The Great migration

The 1620 arrival of the Pilgrims at  Plymouth will always have pride of place in the American origins narrative, but our story  begins 10 years later and 40 miles to the north-west with The Great Migration of 1630-1640. The arrival of seventeen ships and the flagship Arabella under the leadership of John Winthrop initiated the beginning of a mass exodus of over 80,000 English emigres to the shores of Massachusetts.  While this migration emanated from all parts of England, a substantial number were drawn from the parishes of East Anglia, often leaving as a group, often with their pastor.  

One has to wonder what  motivated that first group of some 800 or so souls who boarded the five ships which sailed on April 8, 1630 from Yarmouth, Isle of Wight, England. At the completion of the two month voyage, 200 had died and 100 more would return to England shortly after landing.  With the exceptions of the small colonies at Plymouth Plantation and Salem, this group of mostly middle class, well educated tradesmen, craftsmen, and shop keepers faced a largely uncharted wilderness with only the limited means they had brought with them.  Why indeed?

It is difficult to fathom the complex motives and desires of each individual who took part in the Great Migration, but there was an overriding religious context that provides an  answer for many. This can be  found in understanding what Harvard professor Perry Miller, in his book of the same name, called  An Errand into the Wilderness.  The accent mark here should be placed on the word errand rather than wilderness.  These sons and daughters of the Protestant Reformation were inspired by their belief that they were chosen by God to be an example of what a Christian Commonwealth could and should be.  The wilderness, remote and free of the old world's  influences, would become, what Governor John Winthrop, in his sermon delivered in Southhampton just before their departure, called "a city upon a hill." 

The Lord will be our God, and delight to dwell among us, as his oune people, and will command a blessing upon us in all our wayes. Soe that wee shall see much more of his wisdome, power, goodness and truthe, than formerly wee have been acquainted with. Wee shall finde that the God of Israell is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when hee shall make us a prayse and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, “the Lord make it like that of New England.” For wee must consider that wee shall be as a citty upon a hill. The eies of all people are upon us. Soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our God in this worke wee have undertaken, and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from us, wee shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. Wee shall open the mouthes of enemies to speake evill of the ways of God, and all professors for God’s sake. Wee shall shame the faces of many of God’s worthy servants, and cause theire prayers to be turned into curses upon us till wee be consumed out of the good land whither wee are a goeing.

The larger political and social context of this decision to emigrate in 1630 certainly included increasing dissatisfaction with the restoration of more traditional religious rites and clerical authority under King Charles I. However, The Great  Migration was not so much a flight from religious persecution as it was a bold embrace of an opportunity to create a Christian Commonwealth in an unsullied environment.  

In 1670, Samuel Danforth, pastor of the church in Roxbury, delivered a sermon marking the election of members to the General Court of Massachusetts.  In A Brief Recognition of New-Englands Errand into the Wilderness,  he reminded his listeners that they had endured "this waste and howling Wilderness" for one reason only: to give testimony freely to their faith in the Gospel.

“You have solemnly professed before God, Angels and Men, that the Cause of your leaving your Country, Kindred and Fathers houses, and transporting your selves with your Wives, Little Ones and Substance over the vast Ocean into this waste and howling Wilderness, was your Liberty to walk in the Faith of the Gospel with all good Conscience according to the Order of the Gospel, and your enjoyment of the pure Worship of God according to his Institution, without humane Mixtures and Impositions.”

This is a heavy burden to shoulder. The daily ​exigencies of survival in this ​wilderness ​, combined with the increase in population and corresponding diverging viewpoints, would test and reshape the nature of this great experiment.

The Beginning

Most cities get their start by happenstance, often evolving from some fortuitous geographic feature.  Such was the case of  Saxon Oxnaford,  oxen's ford now Oxford.  It was at this point that a ford across the River Thames allowed the passage of cattle being driven from the Midlands towards London some 50 miles away. Soon a small village developed into a town important enough to be mentioned in AD 912 in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

 Boston, however, is the result of a decision made some 3000 miles away on August 26, 1629 at Cambridge University where John Winthrop and eleven other members of the Massachusetts Bay Company entered into a covenant to each hereby freely and sincerely promise and bind himself ... to embark for the said plantation by the first of March next, ... to inhabit and continue in New England. A meeting of the entire General Court of the Company on the August 28 and 29 confirmed this decision voting that the government and patent should be settled in New England.  At a further meeting of the General Court on October 2o John Winthrop was elected Governor for the following year.  The members of previous English joint stock companies formed to exploit the  riches of the new world remained in England together with their royal charters while sending out others to extract the wealth of the wilderness, as was  the case of the Virginia Company.  But here we have something quite unique, this Company, together with its charter, would embark as a group to establish their new plantation.  Their royal charter, unlike other joint stock companies, did not specify where the governing board would meet yearly.  The General Court would meet thousands of miles away from the supervision of the Crown, and thus Massachusetts Bay became a self-governing commonwealth.  The seeds of a future revolution were planted early. 

John Winthrop, 1588-1649

John Winthrop, 1588-1649

Arrival

In 1626 several members of a disbanded colony at Cape Ann had established themselves at  the entrance of the Naumkeag River.  In 1628 the New England Company was formed to enlarge the community, renaming it Salem, and elected John Endecott as governor. It was in Salem Harbor that the  Arabella  dropped anchor on June 12, 1630.  Previous to their arrival, Winthrop had engaged Thomas Graves, an engineer from Kent, to establish the beginnings of a settlement on the Mishawum peninsula, renamed Charlestown, in honor of King Charles I.  On July 12 Winthrop's fleet arrived and set about the work of establishing a town.  Overtime, the health of the settlers  deteriorated.  The only source of water on the peninsula was a brackish spring that was under water at high tide.  

The community at Charlestown had a nearby neighbor, William Blaxton.  ​Blaxton was the only remaining member of the ill fated  Gorges Expedition of 1625, but rather than return to England, he established himself  on the Shawmut peninsula along with his library of several hundred books, building a small house, establishing an orchard and tending his garden.  By all accounts he was quite happy in his solitude.  But that was about to change.  Hearing of the devastating conditions at Charlestown, Blaxton wrote a letter to Isaac Johnson, a former classmate at Cambridge University, now a member of the Charlestown community, inviting them to Shawmut where there was an abundant supply of sweet water from a natural spring.  The offer was accepted, and on September 7, 1630 the Charlestown community relocated.  Apparently the overcrowding which ensued, and the religiosity of the Puritans [Blaxton was Anglican] compelled William to search out a less crowded location for his library to the south.  In 1635 he became the first settler on the Pawtucket River in what is now Rhode Island. The acerage he sold to the newcomers comprises today's Boston Commmon. 

Rev. William Blaxton Plaque

On 1924 the City of Boston erected this plaque in Blaxton's Honor
It is located on Beacon Street near the Common.

The aforementioned Isaac Johnson died on 30 September 1630, but before his passing he bequeathed the name of his home town in Lincolnshire to the new community, henceforth it would be Boston.  The backstory of this name has a rich and deep history.  In the early seventh century a Saxon, monk renown for his piety  established a monastery on  River Alde in Suffolk.  The fisher folk of the area, because of his concern for their well being, held him in great esteem and hence, they referred to him as the "boat helper" which in the Anglo Saxon of that time was Bot-holph. Over time Saint Botolph's Town was contracted into Boston. 

 Of course, the land that Blaxton vacated, as well as all of Eastern Massachusetts, already had an indigenous population.  The Massachusett band, part of the Algonquin language group, had been established in this region for some time.  The earliest evidence of indigenous habitation of the coastal areas of New England date back some 12,000 years. Small bands lived in established villages growing corn, beans, pumpkins and squash.  Hunting, fishing and shellfishing complimented their diet.  By the time our story begins the native population of this region had been decimated by what epidemiologists call a virgin soil epidemic. In the great epidemic of 1616-1619 it is estimated that fifty to seventy-five percent of a native population of approximately 60,000 had succumbed to diseases they were exposed to by contact with early European explorers and fishermen.  The effect was devastating on many levels.  One estimate places the number of warriors left in the Massachusetts band at  60.  When William Bradford established Plymouth, it was built on the site of the recently abandoned Wampanoag community of Patuxet.  Corn stubble was still visible as well the graves of the dead. 

 It is perverse, to say the least, that this event made the settlement of Boston and its satellite communities a far easier project.  The mind set of the settlers only added to this effect.  The issue of appropriating native land was explored in a letter by John Winthrop before the Great Migration in which he asked, “By what warrant have we to take that land, which is and hath been of long tyme possessed of others the sons of Adam?” His answer is below.   

This savage people ruleth over many lands without title or property; for they inclose no ground, neither have they cattell to maintayne it, but remove their dwellings as they have occasion, or as they can prevail against their neighbours. And why may not christians have liberty to go and dwell amongst them in their waste lands and woods (leaving them such places as they have manured for their come) as lawfully as Abraham did among the Sodomites? For God hath given to the sons of men a twofould right to the earth; there is a naturall right and a civil right. The first right was naturall when men held the earth in common, every man sowing and feeding where he pleased: Then, as men and catell increased, they appropriated some parcells of ground by enclosing and peculiar manurance, and this in tyme got them a civil right ... 2dly, There is more than enough for them and us ...4thly, We shall come in with good leave of the natives.

The rest, of course, is history.

It was never the intention of the first settlers to stay put in Boston. By the end of the first year, there was a population of 2000, by 1640 it had increased to 40,000. During the first year alone, Cambridge, Watertown, Roxbury, and Dorchester had been founded, by 1641 there were a total of 16 communities within Mass Bay Colony. The increase in the number of communities was often the result of a process called hiving. ​New arrivals often found themselves at a great distance from the center of town civic life.  The proximaty of a meeting house for Sunday worship  was a determinative factor  in the minds of many who decided to eventually move on and establish a new village with its own meeting house. In 1635 the town of Watertown begat Dedham, which in turn begat Medfield in 1649, as well as my hometown, Needham, in 1711.  

Like the birth of Aphrodite, some towns came into existence out of nowhere. Individuals and groups, some local, some new arrivals, would coalesce and petition the Great and General Court for permission to establish a new town. Such was the case of Salisbury, Massachusetts. In September of 1638, Simon Bradstreet and eleven others petitioned the Governor and General Court for the establishment of a plantation on the banks of the Merrimack River.  At first called Colchester, in 1640 it was incorporated as Salisbury.
Isaac Buswell settled in the newly established town in 1638 where he received land in the first division. He was a weaver and was a townsman of Salisbury in 1650. He had left Southampton, England, on the Ship Confidence, on 24 April 1638.  Born in Husbands Bosworth, Leicestershire, in 1592, he died in Salisbury at the age of 91 in 1683.  He was my eighth great-grandfather.

Probate Record of Isaac Buswell, 1683

Probate Record of Isaac Buswell, 1683

Settling In

It is an oft mentioned artifact of Boston lore that its meandering streets follow the the cow paths of the early town.  The origin of this bit of folklore is unknown, but our first written reference was from Ralph Waldo Emerson who quipped that  “we say the cows laid out Boston. Well, there are worse surveyors.”¹  The reality is less fanciful and more prosaic.  Boston was a 17th century city.  It came long before the more formal grid patterns that informed the layout of Washington D.C. or Chicago.  Boston grew higgledy-piggledy.  An early settler was assigned his site, built his home, facing this way or that, to suit  his taste.  The roads would come after and conform to the already established dwellings. There were, however,  a few straight main thoroughfares such as King Street , now State Street,  where property was aligned in a more orderly manner. The other factor affecting the layout of the city was the fact that it was on an irregular shaped penninsula, with many small coves and inlets as well as several large hills that roads had to conform to.  In a later time, when the city filled in the Mill Pond, the South Cove, and Back Bay, a grid layout became the order of the day.  

The earliest residents lost no time in transforming the terrain of Shawmut Peninsula. A cove to the north-east of Beacon Hill was almost enclosed by a small island positioned across its entrance. With a burgeoning population to be fed, the need for a mill was paramount. A company was formed in 1643 to dam the cove and build two corn mills within three years. A creek was also extended to connect the pond to the South Cove of the town. Tidal action provided the power to the mills which eventually also included a rum mill and a chocolate mill. The Mill Pond was active until 1804 when the Boston Mill Corporation bought the pond and began the task of filling it in with earth from Beacon Hill and Copps Hill. It took 21 years to finish and added 50 acres to the town. Charles Bulfinch was engaged to design the layout of the streets. As you step out onto Causeway Street leaving TD Garden, you are walking on the causeway that enclosed the Mill Pond, and if you perhaps walk down Canal Street to look for a bite to eat, you are reminded that a canal once connected the Mill Pond the South Cove.

Map of Boston 1648, Mill Pond

1648 Boston
Showing the Mill Pond 

Given the religious motivation of settlers it is no surprise that the first pubic building to be constructed was a meeting house in 1630. First Church Boston was erected near today's State Street, and was very rudimentary consisting of plastered stone walls and thatch roof. A burial ground was established in that same year and is located next to King's Chapel. Originally called The Old Burrial Ground its name was changed upon the construction of King's Chapel in the 1750's. Of note, the burial ground is not affiliated with a church, but has always been municipally owned. As  you would expect, many of the founding fathers of the colony are to be found there including Govenor John Winthrop, John Cotton, grandfather of Cotton Mather, and William Emerson, father of Ralph Waldo Emerson. 

Literacy is central for a religious community based upon scriptural revelation, and the first school was founded in 1635, five short years after settlement. Boston Latin School was based upon the Free Grammar School of Boston, England, and instructed boys in Latin and Greek in preparation for a college education. ​To fulfill that need a college was established in 1636 in Newe Town . Originally called New College, it was renamed Harvard after Reverend John Harvard bequeathed his library and half of his estate to the college. While not formally affiliated with any particular religious establishment, its intended purpose was to advance Learning and perpetuate it to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate ​Ministery to the Churches, when our present Ministers shall lie in the Dust. ​Using Cambridge University as its model, instruction was in Latin and the curriculum included Greek, Hebrew, Logic, Rhetoric and Mathematics. By the mid 18th century the curriculum became more secular adding subjects such as Astronomy, Algebra and Physics.

Harvard College First Buildings

Harvard's first  buildings purchased on land from Goodman Peyntree
located on the edge of Cow-Yard-Row.

Throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, coastal maritime and mercantile trade dominated the economy of the town. While each dwelling had its small garden, Boston depended upon its surrounding communities for staples such as grain which could be grown more efficiently on larger plots of land. Wharfs, markets, rope-walks, shipyards, smithies, and all the allied trades dominated the activity of the town from the start. A survey of the occupations of the first settlers tells the story.

P0pe's analysis is based on data from those who arrived in Massachusetts between 1620 and 1650. It includes communities beyond Boston, but the range of occupations gives a picture of the distribution we would find in Boston, but in Boston's case more weighted towards the mercantile occupations, craftsmen, and trades.  Prominent are the skills one needs in the shipping and construction trades: 39 blacksmiths, 23 bricklayers, 54 coopers, 75 merchant seamen, and 103 merchants. Of special interest are the 30 ordinary keepers along with six brewers. With this pool of talent available, Governor Winthrop was able to order the construction of a thirty-ton barque, The Blessing of the Bay.  Constructed at Mistic, now Medford, it was launched on July 4, 1631. In less than one year Boston had been able to bring together the resources necessary to build a thirty-ton ship.  This is indicative of the planning that preceeded this mass migration.  All the tools were there, the millwrights, the shipbuilders, the cord wainers, the coopers, and the sailors.   The Blessing of the Bay was put to immediate use in the coastal trade venturing as far south as New Amsterdam and Virginia.  Using your imagination, you hear the sounds and see the activities on this very small peninsula. Boston was a bustling town. 

Suggested Readings

Bremer, Francis J. (2003) ​John Winthrop, America's Forgotten Founding Father, ​New York: Oxford University Press.

Bremer, Francis J. (1995) ​The Puritan Experiment: New England Society from Bradford to Edwards. Hanover, NH:​ University Press of New England.

Deetz, James. (1996) ​In Small Things Forgotten : an Archaeology of Early American Life. ​New York: Anchor Books.

LePore, Jill. (1998) The Name of War:King Philip's War and the Origins of American Identity. ​New  York: Knopf.

Footnotes

1. Ralph Waldo Emerson (1872). “The Prose Works of Ralph Waldo Emerson: Representative men. English traits. Conduct of life” 379.

2. Henry Pope (1900). ​The Pioneers of Massachusetts.​  Boston: Charles Henry Pope 523-24. This book has  been reissued by the 

New England Historic Genealogical Society

Return to Top

A Covenant Community

I had previously explained how the Province of Massachusetts Bay was unique. Unlike other colonies, they had brought their Charter with them, and were free of any supervision by the Crown.  Almost immediately they began the process of establishing a system of governance.  The Company, at this point, only existed of about a dozen individuals, who as member of the Company were considered ​freemen.  ​They met in August 163o electing John Winthrop their governor, Thomas Dudley, Deputy Governor, and a board of seven Assistants who would act as both a judicial court and a legislature.  All together this was known as the General Court.  In a further meeting in October it was voted to enfranchise all adult males as freemen.  They were given the right to consent to the selection of the Assistants, who in turn selected the Governor and Deputy Governor.

In 1632 there was a tax revolt in Watertown concerning a tax imposed for the building of fortifications. The townsmen bristled that they were being taxed without their consent. Winthrop promoted a compromise that mandated each town send two representatives to discuss taxes. In the same year, it was decided that all freemen would directly elect the governor and his deputy. Pressure from freemen grew for a more direct role in the approval of legislation, and in 1634 all towns were to now ​elect, not ​send,​​ representatives to meet with the ​Assistants to enact legislation. This quickly evolved so that in 1644 they were meeting as two separate chambers.  In 1635 this new body enacted “The Massachusetts Body of Liberties,” containing 98 provisions regulating both civil and religious behavior. 

Excerpts from the Massachusetts Body of Liberties 1635

1 “No man’s life shall be taken away. . . nor in any way punished. . . [or] no man’s goods or estate shall be taken away. . . unless it be by virtue of. . . some express law of the country warranting the same. . . .” 

8. “No man’s cattle or goods. . . shall be. . . taken for any public use. . . without such reasonable prices and hire as the ordinary rates of the country do afford. . . .” 

18. “No man’s person shall be restrained or imprisoned. . . before the law has sentenced him thereto, if he can put in sufficient security. . . for his appearance, and good behavior in the meantime. . . .” 

26. “Every man that finds himself unfit to plead his own cause in any court shall have liberty to [use] any man against whom the court does not except, to help him. . . .” 

29. “In all actions at law it shall be the liberty of the plaintiff and defen- dant by mutual consent to choose whether they will be tried by the bench or by jury. . . . The like liberty shall be granted to all persons in criminal cases.” 

42. “No man shall be twice sentenced by civil justice for one and the same crime, offense, or trespass.” 

70. “All freemen called to give any advice, vote, verdict, or sentence in any court, council, or civil assembly shall have full freedom to do it according to their true judgments and consciences. . . .” 

While we can see the origins of our ​​Bill of Rights and the structure of our federal government in the above, there is one glaring anomaly, only male church members could vote. In effect, Massachusetts Bay was a theocracy. This was rule by the elect.  To be elect meant that you could demonstrate to the members of your congregation that you had a religious experience, a conversion, that demonstrated your being selected by God for salvation. This was central to Puritan theology in which the individual had no agency in affecting his salvation.  It had already been decided. All one could do was to lead a moral life in the hope and expectation that you were one of the preordained, a member of what was called the "covenant of grace."  In a larger sense, the entire undertaking in Massachusetts Bay was a covenant between God and his people.  It followed then, that the spiritual health of the entire community was of paramount importance to its success. Success would consist, not only in the physical survival of the community, but in its spiritual survival as well.  Success would give proof that they had kept their covenant with God. As Winthrop had admonished in his departure sermon,  The eies of all people are upon us.

This was the ideal, but then there was reality.  Many in this founding generation were well educated with strong opinions, opinions that at times differed from the official ecclesiastical view.  The spiritual struggle that each person engaged in fostered an individualism that could and did undermine the  common weal ​ of the colony.  Perry Miller put it best in  Errand into the Wilderness.
³

There was, it is true, a strong element of individualism in the Puritan creed; every man had to work out his own salvation, each soul had to face his maker alone.  But at the same time, the Puritan philosophy demanded that in society all men, at least all regenerate men, be marshaled into one united array. The lone horseman, the single trapper, the solitary hunter was not a figure of the Puritan frontier...

Conformity and intolerance were the order of the day. One should not look to Puritan Boston for the antecedents of our cherished ideals of religious liberty and separation of church and state. The first to fall victim was Roger Williams, expelled in 1636 for sedition and heresy. Williams was an avowed Separatist, whereas the Church in Boston still considered itself as part of the larger Church of England. When Williams assumed the ministry of the Salem congregation, the elders in Boston reacted quickly, calling him to trial for his ​erroneous and dangerous opinions ​and removing him from his ministry. Not satisfied, the General Court called him before them again in October of 1645 and found him guilty of spreading diverse, new, and dangerous opinions.  In the spring of 1636 Williams and his followers founded Providence Plantation in what is now Rhode Island.

Williams would not want for company, very soon he would be joined by Anne Hutchinson. What has come to be known as the "free grace controversy" came to dominate the political life of Boston from 1636 to 1638. Hutchinson had considerable influence in Boston, holding weekly meetings in her home where the sermons of the week were discussed. In these meetings Anne took the viewpoint that many ministers were preaching a "covenant of works," rather than a "covenant of grace."  She further asserted that one's own inner spiritual experience took precedence over Biblical revelation. Governor Winthrop summarized the controversy in his journal:

The two years of public controversy came to a head in early November 1637 when Anne was brought to trial before the General Court meeting in Newtown. She was charged with countenancing the public controversy that had disturbed the peace of the Commonwealth. After two days of trial, Anne, in her final statement predicted that God's curse would fall upon the colony for its behavior. Found guilty, Governor Winthrop read the verdict: Mrs. Hutchinson, the sentence of the court you hear is that you are banished from out of our jurisdiction as being a woman not fit for our society, and are to be imprisoned till the court shall send you away. Massachusetts Bay was not yet through with Hutchinson. Her church trial followed in March of 1638 where she was excommunicated from the Church and delivered up to Sathan.  ​By April, Hutchinson and her family were safely in Providence Plantation. From there they would found the town of Portsmouth on Narragansett Bay.   Hutchinson's Boston property eventually passed on to one Thomas Cresse who built his home on the site in 1718.  It became the Old Corner Book Store, one of the oldest buildings in the city.  In 1945, the Great and General Court of  Massachusetts rescinded Anne's banishment.  Sometimes it takes a while.

One of those attending Hutchinson's weekly meetings was Mary Dyer. Her arrival in Boston in 1635 with her husband William signaled the next chapter in Boston's history of religious intolerance. Hutchinson's religious viewpoints appealed to Mary who became a close friend and regular attendee at the infamous meetings. With the banishment of Hutchinson, the Dyers left Boston. On the recommendation of Roger Williams they set up a small colony on Aquidneck Island, now Newport, Rhode Island. Our story might end here if it were not for Mary's return to England in 1650 and her encounter with George Fox, founder of the Society of Friends, more popularly known as Quakers. Fox's emphasis on the equality of both men and women before God, as well as the emphasis on the individual's inner voice as a source of spirituality, appealed to Mary.  

In 1657 Mary returned to Boston in the middle of what can only be called a state-sponsored persecution of Quakers who had recently arrived in the city. In October of 1657, the General Court enacted a series of laws to deal with the heretical influx. For males, the first offense of being found within the colony was the loss of one ear, upon the second offense, was the loss of the other ear. A third offense would be punished by the piercing of the tongue with a hot iron. Whippings were the punishment for women.  These draconian laws were not enough to stem the tide and a second law, passed in October of 1658, mandated banishment with the penalty of death if one returned. Mary, hearing of the harsh punishments several of her friends had suffered, returned to Boston that summer. What followed is possibly one of the most cruel acts perpetrated by a sitting Governor of the Commonwealth. 

Upon her arrest and conviction, Mary and two other Quakers were paraded to the elm tree on Boston Common for execution on October 27, 1659. The first two, William Robinson and Marmaduke Stevenson, were hung while Mary watched. Dyer ascended the ladder and had the noose placed over her head. At the last moment, Governor Endecott ordered her to be brought down and escorted out of the colony. Mary would return to Boston in the summer of 1660, but there would be no reprieve this time. She was immediately arrested and executed on June 1, 1660. The execution of Dyer foreshadowed the end of the Puritan theocracy in Boston. The newly restored King Charles II, hearing of the events in Boston, issued a royal mandate ordering that all execution of Quakers cease. 

Mary Dyer statue Massachusetts State. House

Mary Dyer's statue in front of the Massachusetts State House

The thirty short years following the death of Mary Dyer witnessed the transition of Boston’s government of the elect to one that was secular and less intolerant.  The roots of this transformation are found both in the Commonwealth’s fraught colonial relations with England and the evolving temperament of the populace. 

During the first half of the seventeenth century,  Boston had been largely left to its own devices, England being consumed by the Civil War and the Puritan Commonwealth that followed.  With the restoration of the Stuarts in 1660 there was a dramatic change in the attention the mother country paid to the affairs of its colonies. Massachusetts, in particular, was a source of concern. The period of benign neglect had reinforced Mass Bay’s sense of independence. Non-compliance with the various Navigation Acts from 1651 to 1696 was of particular concern, as was their insistence on minting currency.  ​The Pine Tree Shilling  was particularly infuriating in that it lacked the image of Charles II. Also of concern was the limitation of the franchise to those who were members of the Puritan faith. 

After much back and forth of royal delegations to the colony and colonial representatives to the Board of Trade, events came to a head in 1686 with the revocation of the Massachusetts Charter by James II. The Charter of 1691, which replaced it, explicitly extended the franchise to non-Puritans. The larger context of this change reflects an underlying change in the sentiments and sensibilities of the populace at large. We often overlook the fact that the establishment of Mass Bay occurred at the very end of the Middle Ages with all that implies for how they saw their relationship to God and civil society.  It would never occur to a person of the seventeenth century that church and state should be separate, God being the author of all governance. It is hard to draw a line between when the Middle Ages ended and when modernity began. We can see the beginning with the publication of Francis Bacon’s  Ovum Organum   in 1620 and certainly by 1687 with the publication of Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica , we have entered the Age of the Enlightenment. Historian Perry Miller succinctly describes the transformation:

For the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire religion could be separated from politics, doctrinal orthodoxy divorced from loyalty to the state, and the citizens of a nation be permitted to worship in diverse churches and to believe different creeds without endangering the public peace. Various factors contributed to effecting this revolution; the triumph of scientific method and of rationalism made impossible the older belief that government was of divine origin; the rise of capitalism, of the middle class, and eventually of democracy, necessitated new conceptions of the role of the state.⁵

Boston was a literate society. In 1722 Boston could boast five printing shops, more than all the other colonies combined. The rationalism of the Enlightenment gradually infused the mindset of colonial thinking. The notebooks of Obadiah Ayer, who graduated from Harvard in 1710, show that he was attending courses in logic, geometry, metaphysics, and geography. In 1753, sophomore John Adams was leafing through Gravesand’s Mathematical Elements  of Natural Philosophy [1720] where he read that he should  Lay aside all feigned hypotheses. The properties of Body cannot be known a priori...  He only, who in Physics reasons from Phenomena, and pursues this Method inviolably to the best of his Powers, endeavors to follow the footsteps of Sir Isaac Newton....⁶ 

 In Boston, the once unquestioned convictions of Puritanism gave way to a more humanistic conception of life and its meaning.  The 1741 Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God of Jonathan Edwards would give way to the …God [who] is infinitely good, kind, benevolent… of William Ellery Channing in his 1819 speech that launched Unitarianism. It is but a short journey from Channing to the Transcendentalism of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s 1838 Harvard Divinity School Address, in which he rejected the idea of a personal God. 

Ralph Waldo Emerson William Ellery Channing

Ralph Waldo Emerson

William Ellery Channing

Suggested Readings 

LePore, Jill. (1998) The Name of War:King Philip's War and the Origins of American Identity.  New  York: Knopf.

Miller, Perry. (1954) The New England Mind: the Seventeenth Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  

Morrison, Samuel Elliot. (1930) Builders of the Bay Colony: A Gallery of Our Intellectual Ancestors, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company.

Ulrich, Laurel Thatcher. (1982) Good Wives, Image and Reality in the Lives of Women in Northern New England, 1650-1750, New York: Random House.

Footnotes

3. Perry Miller,  Errand into the Wilderness  (New York: Harper & Row, 1964) 143.

4. Robert Charles Anderson,  (2003). The Great Migration, Immigrants to New England 1634–1635. Vol. III G-H. Boston:  New England Historic Genealogical Society 482.

5. Perry Miller, op. cit. 141-2

6. Catherine Drinker Bowen,  John Adams and the American Revolution  (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1949) 90.

Return to Top

Boston:  Rebellion or Revolution

Peter Oliver, 1713-1791

Peter Oliver
1713-1791

It is a truism that whosoever wins a war writes its history, and that history then becomes the sanctioned national narrative. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule.  The historiography of America’s Civil War comes to mind. Late nineteenth and early twentieth-century southern historians, sympathetic to the Confederacy, spoke of The Lost Cause,  or The War Between the States rather than use terms such as The Civil War or War of the Rebellion. To them, the South was defending a superior culture and way of life from the depredations of Northern politicians hell-bent on dominating the nation’s government at their expense. The endurance of this narrative still resonates for us today in disagreements over flying the Confederate flag or dismantling Confederate monuments. 

You can look far and wide to find a history of the American Revolution from the Loyalist side. Not that it does not exist, but rather, that it is not promoted or particularly acknowledged by We The Winners.  Contemporary American History textbooks work hard to avoid the charge of political correctness, attempting to examine all sides of any one particular issue, but concerning  Loyalists during the Revolution, their narratives’ when mentioned at all,  are portrayed as distorted or partisan. Well, after all, they lost the war. Historian Douglass Adair summarized this state of affairs in his introduction to Peter Oliver’s Origins and Progress of the American Rebellion, a Tory Point of View: 

But even today the Loyalists have not found their historian, and in most textbooks and scholarly accounts of our War of Independence, the Tories still receive only grudging understanding. Paradoxically, while it has been possible for American scholars to accept the arguments of Beer, Andrews, and Gipson that Great Britain's policies toward the unruly colonies in the 176o's are both understandable and defensible, it has been difficult for many of those same scholars to accept as reasonable the position of those Anglo-Americans of 1775 who paid the price for their loyalty in exile and expropriation.¹

This section of Byways and Folkways will examine the events in Boston leading up to the War of Independence through the lens of one one of Boston's loyalists: Peter Oliver. On August 23, 1775, King George III issued a proclamation declaring the colonies had “proceeded to an open and avowed Rebellion.” His choice of “rebellion” is significant. Parliament saw the actions of the colonists as a direct assault upon the legitimacy of the established government, forgetting their “Allegiance which they owe to the power that has protected and sustained them.” Was this rebellion also a revolution?  This question is central to the debate among historians as to the significance of the War of Independence. Often both words are used interchangeably. Some see rebellion as the attempt to overthrow a government, thus a revolution is simply a successful rebellion. For other historians, the issue revolves around whether the War of Independence produced a profound change in the colonial social order, not just independence from British rule.  In other words, was the American Revolution, revolutionary?  How did Peter  Oliver perceive the events that so drastically altered his life?
   
Before starting, if you would like a brief review of the historical events leading up to the War of Independence, The Library of Congress has put together an excellent set of timelines to guide you through the thicket of events from 1764 to 1768.  Follow this
LINK


History Is Complicated

  
We do not learn from history, we learn from what historians tell us that history is. But historians are bound by the constraints of their particular era, this becomes the lens through which they interpret the past. Those interested in historiography, the history of historical analysis, identify at least five separate schools of thought on the origins of the War of Independence, each somewhat idiosyncratic to the period in which the historian lived.  The earliest, reflecting the nationalism of the new republic, is represented by Boston Brahmin, George Bancroft.  In his ten-volume History of the United States, he celebrated the war as a victory of liberty over tyranny, and as the opening chapter in America’s destiny to become an example of democracy triumphant for the world at large.  ​His interpretation is understandable for an historian living in the afterglow of America’s newly acquired independence. A hundred years later, Bernard Bailyn, Harvard professor and author of The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, proposed that the roots of the war lay in the intellectual evolution of how Americans understood themselves.  Written during a period when social sciences such as cultural anthropology were coming into their own, Bailyn, and others of the “new intellectual school,” emphasized the importance of an evolving set of political ideals in precipitating historical events. 
 
What is one to do in the light of the above? ​ Approach history with humility.  Accept that you cannot encompass the totality of any particular historical period, nor understand its meaning with complete surety.  Avoid the temptation of reductionism. It is in our nature to seek patterns, to discover similarities, to impose order on information. But it is an understatement to say that the past is complicated, reflecting the complexity of the people who lived it. Lastly, avoid using the past as some sort of mine, from which to extract nuggets of information to support your point of view. Journalist Lydia Polgreen put it well: We see the past through the prism of the present and often in the blinding light of our hopes for the future, eliding and emphasizing the role of the past as suits our present purpose.² 

Peter Oliver

In 1632, Thomas Oliver, together with his wife Anne, and their seven children, disembarked in Boston from the William Francis.  On the ship’s manifest, his trade was listed as chirurgeon or surgeon.  The Olivers were early members of the Church of Boston and were granted land at Muddy River. Oliver was active in the political life of the community and served as a Selectman in Bogston for several terms.  That same year, Henry Adams, aged 49, of Braintree, county Essex, England, landed in Boston with his wife Edith and their nine children. They were allotted land near Mount Wollaston, now Braintree. His trade was listed as maltster, a person who converted grain into malt for the brewing of beer.  Four generations glater, two descendants of these families, Peter Oliver, Chief Justice of the Superior Court of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, and Samuel Adams, Clerk of the Massachusetts Assembly, would occupy the roles of chief protagonists against and for separation from England.  In asking the question of how this came to be, we are asking the larger question of how over one hundred forty years the descendants of the errand into the wilderness evolved into factions so vehemently divided. 

In today’s parlance, Peter Oliver’s family was “well-connected.” His father Daniel had married the sister of Jonathan Belcher, the Royal Governor of Massachusetts. Through his brother Andrew’s marriage, he was related to John Hutchinson, future governor of Massachusetts. In 1760, Oliver’s namesake and son would marry then-Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson’s daughter. Later, as governor, Hutchinson would appoint Andrew as Lieutenant Governor and Oliver as Chief justice of the Superior Court. His country residence in Middleborough, Oliver Hall, reflected wealth acquired frovm farming and an iron foundry that supplied ordinance during King George’s War, 1744-1748.   His wealth allowed him time to pursue a life of public service both in Middleborough and in Boston, serving as a justice of the peace, a judge in the Court of Common Pleas, and then associate judge of the Superior Court before he became chief justice in 1772. It is not surprising that Oliver’s sentiments during the twenty years of conflict leading up to the War of Independence were loyalist. 

 Oliver was both an observer and an active participant in the events leading to the war. When General Gage ordered the evacuation of Boston in March of 1776, Oliver retired, at first to Nova Scotia, and then to London where, in 1781, he wrote “The Origin & Progress of the American Rebellion.”  This is by no means an objective reflection on the origins of the conflict, nor would we expect it to be. Oliver is unrelenting in his view that an unwitting public had been manipulated by a junto of malicious provocateurs conspiring to overthrow the legitimate government of the colony.  

We have seen them also rising, by easy Gradations, to such a State of Prosperity & Happiness as was almost enviable, but we have seen them also run mad with too much Happiness, & burst into an openRebellion against that Parent, who protected them (upon their most earnest Entreaties & humble Solicitations) against the Ravages of their Enemies. This, in private Life would be termed, base Ingratitude; but Rebellion hath sanctified it by the Name of, Self Defence and why is the sudden Transition made, from Obedience to Rebellion, but to gratifye the Pride, Ambition & Resentment, of a few abandoned Demagogues, who were lost to all Sense of Shame & of Humanity? The generality of the People were not of this Stamp; but they were weak, & unversed in the Arts of Deception. The Leaders of the Faction deceived the Priests, very few of whom butwere as ignorant as the People; & the Wheel of Enthusiasm was set on going, & its constant Rotation set the Peoples Brains on Whirling; & by a certain centrifugal Force, all the Understanding which the people had was whirled away, as well as that of the Clergy; & a Vacuum was left for Adams, & his Posse to crowd in what Rubbish would best serve their Turn.

When first reading Oliver’s 157-page polemic, one has to adjust themselves, not only to the literary style of the late 18th century, but to a mindset and worldview that reflects the sensibilities of a specific class at a specific time. Reading Origins takes one back to the world of Locke and Hobbes and their contesting theories on the nature of the social contract.  Origins reflects an interesting amalgam of both philosophers’ viewpoints. On the one hand, Oliver would agree with Locke in that one 

…must abate of that self sufficiency which he had imbibed in the simple State of Nature, of doing what was right in his own Eyes; & submit his private Opinion to the publick Judgement of the many, confiding in their united Sense, as of more Authority than the Sentiments of any Individual. Nay, he must also consent to the Opinion of the Majority of the Society, be it never so small a Majority.

Then again, while Oliver seems to accept the basic Lockean concept of the necessity of a social contract freely entered into, he consistently denies the ability of individuals to conform their behavior for the good of the whole society.  In this, he reflects a more Hobbesian view on the nature of man, one in which our worst instincts inform our actions creating a brutish world in need of authoritarian control.  Oliver consistently uses the word mob when describing the behavior of Bostonians in general: He [Hancock] had always a Mob at Command. Insofar as Bostonians were capable of self-government he found that As for the People in general, they were like the Mobility of all Countries, perfect Machines, wound up by any Hand who might first take the Winch… Again, reflecting the need for absolute authority, Oliver often takes to task the reluctance of the British government in reigning in Boston’s rebellious nature: Timidity, in Suppression of Rebellion, will ever retard the Subdual of it.

As Oliver marches through the catalog of British-American confrontations, beginning with the Stamp Act and ending with Lexington and Concord, he attributes the motivation of the conspirators to their basest instincts, usually vengeance or self-aggrandizement.  He dates the actual beginning of the entire concatenation of Incidents to the year 1761, to a single event, the preferment by Governor Bernard of Thomas Hutchinson, then the Lieutenant Governor, for the position of Chief Justice of Massachusetts Bay, over James Otis Sr., a member of the Massachusetts Assembly.  According to Oliver, Otis’s son, James, Jr. then vowed that if his Father was not appointed a Justice of the superior Court; he would set the Province in a Flame if he died in the Attempt.  

Bostonians Paying the Excise Man 1774

Bostonians Paying the Excise Man
Attributed to London Engraver Philip Dawe, 1774.
The engraving depicts the tarring and feathering John Malcolm, 
Commisioner of Customs, four weeks after the Boston Tea Party.

When it came to the Stamp Act of 1765,  Oliver accused the merchant class, who were notorious in the smuggling Business, from the Capital Merchant down to the meanest Mechanick, of placing their avarice ahead of their duty to s ociety.   He then marries that characterization to his earlier assessment of James Otis Jr. 

He accordingly engrafted his self into the Body of Smugglers, & they embraced him so close, as a Lawyer & an useful Pleader for them, that he soon became incorporated with them. They were bold & daring in Defiance of Government, so was he. He was brutish in his Behavior, & bullyed for them, untill he had bullyed his self almost into a Mad-House. Besides, through his Opposition to Government, he was elected a Representative for Boston. And in this lower House of Assembly, he could rail, swear, lie & talk Treason impunite, & here he never failed to take Advantage of his Priviledge, so that the Assembly, in his Time, was more like a Bedlam than a Session of Senators.

Peter Oliver’s castigation of James Otis and the Boston mob following the Stamp Act riots of the summer of 1765 reflects not only a principled position but also the fact that his family was now the direct target of the mob’s violence.  On August 14, 1765, an effigy of Oliver’s brother, Andrew, who had been appointed stamp distributor for Massachusetts, was hung from what would become known as the Liberty Tree. Not satisfied with this, the mob marched his effigy through the Town House, then to Fort Hill to burn it. They then proceeded to destroy his counting house and attack his nearby home.  Andrew resigned his office the next day. On August 26 a riotous alcohol-fueled mob attacked, ransacked, and set fire to the home of Thomas Hutchinson, Peter’s brother-in-law. 

Reacting to the events of August 14th, John Adams asked in his diary entry of the 15th “…has not the blind, undistinguishing Rage of the Rabble done him, irreparable Injustice?”  While at first seeming empathic to Andrew’s situation, Adams answers his question with the following: lament.

But on the other Hand, let us ask a few Questions. Has not his Honour the Lieutenant Governor discovered to the People in innumerable Instances, a very ambitious and avaricious Disposition? Has he not grasped four of the most important offices in the Province into his own Hands? Has not his Brother in Law Oliver another of the greatest Places in Government? Is not a Brother of the Secretary, a Judge of the Superiour Court? Has not that Brother a son in the House? Has not the secretary a son in the House, who is also a Judge in one of the Counties? Did not that son marry the Daughter of another of the Judges of the Superiour Court? Has not the Lieutenant Governor a Brother, a Judge of the Pleas in Boston? and a Namesake and near Relation who is another Judge? Has not the Lieutenant Governor a near Relation who is Register of his own Court of Probate, and Deputy Secretary? Has he not another near Relation who is Clerk of the House of Representatives? Is not this amazing ascendancy of one Family, Foundation sufficient on which to erect a Tyranny? Is it not enough to excite Jealousies among the People?

Adam’s justification of the mob’s action opens up another window into understanding Peter Oliver’s position in Origins. There is a history here, over many years, of rising animosity between the governing class of Massachusetts, the Country Party, and those who considered themselves patriots, the Whig Party.  Clearly, for those directly involved in the escalation of events,  hostility had escalated to the point where the motives of their counterparts were perceived as manipulative and greedy. Although writing some 150 years later, William Butler Yeats captures in The Second Coming the impasse that had been reached by 1765 in Massachusetts; there was no political center around which to coalesce; passionate intensity had replaced reason. 

Things fall apart; 
the centre cannot hold; 
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, 
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere    
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; 
The best lack all conviction, while the worst    
Are full of passionate intensity. 

Throughout the entirety of Origins Oliver adheres to a formulaic analysis of the motivation for the War of Independence: personal vendettas combined with avarice motivated a few of the better sort of society to manipulate the mob, inflaming them to the point of open rebellion. For Oliver, there is no sense that there was something more profound, more deeply embedded in the unfolding events. This was rebellion, pure and simple, not a change in the underlying character of the American identity, resulting in principled disagreement and eventual violence.  Given Oliver's background and rootedness in the present, perhaps we are asking too much for him to reflect rather than react.  In 1815, after the reconciliation of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, Adams wrote to Jefferson:  Who shall write the history of the American revolution? Whocan write it? Who will ever be able to write it?"⁷

Suggested Readings 

Bailyn, Bernard. The Ordeal of Thomas Hutchinson. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press Of Harvard University Press, 1974. 

Morgan, Edmund S, and Joseph J Ellis. The Birth of the Republic, 1763-89.  Chicago: The University Of Chicago Press, 1956. 

Morgan, Edmund S. Inventing the People : The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America. New York: W.W. Norton, 1989.

Oliver, Peter. Peter Oliver’s Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion: A Tory View. Edited by Douglass Adair and John A Schutz. Stanford (Calif.): Stanford University Press, 1961.

 Tyler, John. “From First Citizen to Arch-Villain: the Downfall of Thomas Hutchinson.” Colonial Society of Massachusetts,  https://www.colonialsociety.org/node/2511.

Footnotes

1. Peter Oliver, Peter Oliver’s “Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion,” ed. Douglass Adair and John A Schutz (Stanford University Press, 1967). p. vii.
 
2. Lydia Polgreen, “Restoring the Past Won’t Liberate Palestine,” New York Times,  February 18, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/opinion/israel-gaza-palestine-decolonization.html.
 
3. Peter Oliver, p.145.
 
4. Ibid. p. 6.
 
5.  Ibid. p. 48.

 6. The Adams Papers, Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, vol. 1, 1755–1770, ed. L. H. Butterfield. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961, pp. 259–261.]
 
7. John Adams to Thomas Jefferson and Thomas McKean, July 30, 1815, The Adams-Jefferson Letters, ed. Lester J.   (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1959), II, 451.

Return to Top

Yankee Boston

The Sacred Cod

The "Sacred Cod" has been watching over the House of Representatives since its installation in 1784

The death of the first generation of Boston’s Puritans presaged a gradual change in Boston. As population proliferated and new immigrants of diverse backgrounds settled, there was a corresponding change in the character of the community. No longer were ears being severed on Boston Common, new comers were not being banished, and in 1679 the first Baptist Meeting House was built in the North End of Boston. The Puritan faith evolved as controversies, such as the Half-Way Covenant of 1662, were resolved, leading to the emergence of Unitarianism in the early 19th century. In a word, Boston was becoming more cosmopolitan, though not necessarily more tolerant.

The economic life of Boston continued to evolve as well. Fisheries, shipping and all their allied trades still dominated the economy, but the French and Indian Wars, the American Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution initiated a shift towards finance capitalism as the chief business of the city. Lack of land, lack of sufficient water power, and lack of a hinterland continued to shape the direction of Boston’s economic life. More and more, Boston came to rely on its human resources as the source of its prosperity. This class of Yankee businessmen, entrepreneurs, bankers, and merchants, in turn, sponsored a thriving academic, cultural, and intellectual life in the city. By the time of the Civil War, Bostonians considering themselves the Hub of the Universe and the Athens of America. Ironically, it was at this point that the economic and political fortunes of the city began to deteriorate.  

Three distinct issues are discernible and interlinked as we look at the evolution of the city from the late colonial period to the end of the Civil War:




















Economic Disadvantages
The desire to compete in international trade, especially with New York City, resulted in the creation of more wharfage and storage facilities resulting in the filling in of considerable parts of the shore line. Despite this, Boston continued to fall behind, essentially because it lacked commodities to export. Distilled rum and salted cod were no longer competitive in the post colonial economy. With the advent of the railroad, a similar decision to be competitive, resulted in bridges and more land filled to accommodate railroad crossings and terminals. The industrial revolution put Boston at a disadvantage. Boston’s tidal drop provided insufficient water power to build at scale the mills that were needed to be competative with English producers. When steam power replaced water power, Boston again lacked sufficient land for both the infrastructure and the space to house workers.

An Expanding Population
The Irish potato famine of the 1840s dramatically changed the character and politics of the city. By 1850, 26 percent of Boston’s population of 136,000 were Irish. Settling in the North End, South Bay, and Fort Hill neighborhoods, they brought few skills and lived in dire poverty. With little land for expansion, established neighborhoods became over crowded and increased the strain on an allready stressed infrastructure.  Anti-Catholicism, its roots originating  in Boston's Protestant heritage, only intensified as the number of Irish Catholics increased. An early type of "white flight' occurred as Boston Yankees began moving out of the city.  

Infrastructure
As growing population severly taxed Boston’s rudimentary infrastructure to handle sewerage and supply fresh water. Boston’s bays, coves, and mudflats became open cesspits. Additionally, there was less open space for parkland to offset the ills of living in a densely populated city.

The sum and substance of this constellation of factors was that: 

1. Boston’s economy was increasingly dominated by the financial and  insurance industries. The mills might be in Lowell, Lawrence and Fall River, but the money and ownership was in Boston.  

2. The demand for space needed for additional infrastructure and an expanding population would result in the filling in of the Great Cove, South Cove, and Back Bay.  The original Boston peninsula was doubled in size adding 500 acres to its original 487. The filling of these tracts necessitated the development of a corresponding infrastructure to service the dwellings being built.  No longer could the city afford to drain their privies into the mud flats of the  Back Bay. 

3. Immigration from Ireland would dramatically affect the political life and social norms of the city. Intolerance was evident throughout this period, from the burning of the Ursuline Convent in 1834, to the development of the Back Bay as an alternative for Yankees threatening to move to the suburbs.  It would be Irish workmen who filled the bay, and their wives and daughters who served in the brownstones built there. This caste system would inform Boston's social, political, and cultural life through the nineteenth and into the twentieth century.

The Industrial Revolution  Comes to Boston

In one of those unintended consequences of history, it was Thomas Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807 that changed the course of Boston’s history.  The Napoleonic Wars had placed the neutral United States in an untenable position as harassment by both English and French warships prevented free trade in European waters. With the second largest merchant fleet in the world, Jefferson had to take a stand .  The Embargo Act was an effort to put pressure on both nations by banning any exports from American ports, and restricting imports from England.  The Act failed to achieve its ends and severely punished the merchant class, especially in Boston.

Francis Cabot Lowell was the scion of a wealthy Boston Brahmin family, he had attended Phillips Academy, graduated from Harvard, and established himself as a prominent Boston merchant engaged in the China Trade. Lowell was particularly affected by the Embargo Act. The owner of eight merchant ships, he, together with Uriah Cotting and Harrison Grey Otis had developed India Wharf, its adjacent warehouses, as well as a retail district in the area of Broad Street. Lowell had always had an interest in textiles,  and saught an opportunity to redirect his family's wealth away from shipping and into manufacturing.   A family tour of England in 1810 allowed him to visit the textile mills of Lancashire and Scotland. England jealously guarded the secrets of it textile technology prohibiting any note-taking or drawings in its factories. Lowell spent two years in the English Mills studying and committing to memory the complexities of the power looms and spinning jennys he observed.  Upon return, in a two-year period, he was able to recreate and improve upon what he had seen and was ready to establish the first integrated textile mill in the United States.  

Boston Manufacturing Co. Waltham MA, 1814

Boston Manufacturing Company, Waltham, Massachusetts

Forming the Boston Manufacturing Corporation, he built his mill in Waltham on the banks of the Charles River in 1814. The way he employed  the technology he had recreated was unique.  His mill was an integrated factory.  Every step of the process, cleaning, carding, spinning, and weaving were under one roof.  This innovation would forever change the nature of manufacturing. More importantly were the changes he instituted in financing the company and managing it.  At that point businesses were individually owned or partnerships which limited their financial resources and increased their liability. Boston Manufacturing was organized as a joint stock company, selling $1000 shares of stock to the Boston elite, who, as share holders had no liability for the actions of the corporation.  In 1821 the dividend was 27.5%. Lowell also instituted a new system of management, creating a Board of Directors to oversee corporate policy and systemized the management of the mill from acquisition of raw materials to marketing of the finished product. 

In 1822 the Boston Associates decided to expand production to a site with more water power. They chose land at the Pawtucket Falls on the Merrimack River and named this new, planned city, Lowell, in honor of their founder who died in 1817 of pneumonia at the age of 42. Lowell's factory system proliferated across Massachusetts. Approximately 45 mills were built during this period, from Holyoke to North Andover. Textile mills needed a source of cheap raw materials, principally cotton.  In another ironic twist, another Massachusetts inventor, Eli Whitney, received his patent on the cotton gin in 1794. This revolutionized the plantation economy in the South, making cotton ​King, ​and wedding Boston's economy to that of the slave holding South. As mentioned earlier, while the mills were in Lowell, the profits flowed to Boston, where Brahmins such as Nathan Appleton, Patrick Tracy Jackson, Abbott Lawrence, and Amos Lawrence were busy creating the Hub of the Universe, ​which in no small part rested on the fruits of slave labor.

And the Cabots speak only to God. 

And this is good old Boston,
The home of the bean and the cod,
Where the Lowells speak only to Cabots,
And the Cabots speak only to God. 

This oft-quoted quatrain, known as the “Boston Toast,” was delivered by John Collins Bossidy at the 1910 Holy Cross College Alumni Midwinter Dinner in Boston. The context should make it clear that, under Bossidy’s humorous mockery, a deep-seated resentment of their Brahmin neighbors persisted among Boston’s Irish.  This was still a time when, if you wanted a higher education and you were Irish Catholic, Jewish, or Black, you did not apply to Harvard.¹  While over the previous century, Boston’s elite had gradually surrendered control over the city’s government, police force, and school system they had maintained their dominance in the financial and business community as well as in the academic and cultural life of the city. 

 As late as the 1950’s a small group of Yankee descendants of this class still exercised considerable influence over the economic and political life of Boston.  Meeting secretively in a room at the Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Company, earning themselves the name of “The Vault,” they worked behind the scenes to restore Boston’s flagging economy in the same patrician spirit of their ancestors who felt an obligation to oversee the well being of the community.  

Interestingly enough, the Brahmins of Boston did not trace their roots back to the founding fathers of the Great Migration. Rather, their origins lay in the successful merchant class that amassed wealth in the 18th century. Thomas H. O’Connor, known as the “dean of Boston historians,” described this caste quite aptly in his The Athens of America. 

Partners in industry and colleagues in business, heirs to old shipping fortunes, and amassers of new factory money, they now became part of the same extended family circle, living in close proximity to one another in their elegant mansions on Beacon Hill. Out of what historian Samuel Eliot Morison has described as a marriage between "the wharf and the waterfall" came a new Boston aristocracy whose members Oliver Wendell Holmes labeled as the "Brahmins," and who could be identified by their "houses by Bulfinch, their monopoly of Beacon Hill, their ancestral portraits and Chinese porcelains, humanitarianism, Unitarian faith in the march of the mind, Yankee shrewdness, and New England exclusiveness."²

Entry into this caste was by birth only. Francis Cabot Lowell married a Jackson, Lowell’s son married an Appleton, and an Appleton married a Coolidge. The familial bonds reinforced a patrician sensibility of class entitlement. Their wealth, education, and cultural sensibilities all combined to demonstrate to themselves their natural ability to lead. With this went a sense of noblesse oblige, that those who are well-favored have a responsibility to those less fortunate, or as Ralph Waldo Emerson put it “…superior advantages bind you to larger generosity.”  
As the political complexion of the nation evolved from Federalist to Republican after the election of Jefferson in 1800 and Jackson in 1828, the Brahmins of Boston withdrew into their own insular world. As the rest of the nation celebrated the superiority of the common man they endeavored to create a bastion of education, culture, and refinement in Boston. Although the religious component had changed, they saw themselves as the inheritors of John Winthrop’s desire to create a city upon a hill, an example to the nation and world at large.  More on this when we take a look at Boston as the Athens of America.

After 1840, the immigrant population of Boston dramatically increased. in 1850, largely as a result of the potato famine, Boston’s Irish population increased by 26%  to approximately 35,000.  The Irish arriving in Boston were of the poorest class, often barely having the means to pay for their passage. Unlike other contemporary European immigrants, they lacked the resources to move into the territories opening up in the Midwest and remained in Boston after their arrival. ​Concentrated in the North End in shanties, the Irish immigrants overwhelmed the city's resources, exacerbating issues related to public health, homelessness, crime, and alcoholism.   The Brahmin’s sense of paternalistic concern did not extend to the Irish.  Rather, their efforts went into isolating the Irish as much as possible. The Brahmin class found a new area of concern on which to focus their philanthropy, abolitionism became the new cause célèbre of the day.  Of course, no one seemed to realize that it was slave labor that kept the cotton mills of Lowell and Lawrence in business.   

Suggested Readings

Amory, Cleveland. (1947) The Proper Bostonians, New York: E.P. Dutton & Co. 

The Charles River Museum of Industry and Innovation https://www.charlesrivermuseum.org/fcl-bmc 

Handlin, Oscar. (1959) Boston’s immigrants, 1790-1880, A Study in Acculturation, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 

O’Connor, Thomas. (1976)  Bibles, Brahmins and Bosses: a Short History of Boston, Boston: Trustees of the Public Library of the City of Boston. 

O’Connor, Thomas. (1976) The Boston Irish: a Political History,  Boston: Back Bay Books. 

Rosenberg, Chaim M. (2011) The Life and Times of Francis Cabot Lowell, 1775-1817. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. 

Tyack, David B. (1967) George Ticknor and the Boston Brahmins, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967. 

Footnotes

1. Marcia G. Synnott, The Half-Opened Door: Researching Admissions Discrimination at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton  (American Archivist, Vol. 45, No. 2/Spring 1982) 176.
2. Thomas O’Connor, The Athens of America: Boston, 1825-1845 (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2006) 17.

Return to Top

LANDMAKING IN BOSTON

"This is a city that has been created by man..." 
                                                       Frederick Salvucci

Birds Eye View of Boston, 1850, John Bachmann

Birds Eye View of Boston, 1850
Bachmann, John
 Courtesy BPL, Norman B. Leventhal Map Center Collection

The historical developments mentioned here are not the only ones that shaped landmaking in Boston. But wharfing out, the China trade, introduction forailroads, Irish immigration, mid-nineteenth-century harbor improvements, pollution from waste-water disposal, public parks, late-nineteenth-century port development, and twentieth-century transportation innovations were the most important reasons for the filling done in Boston and are themes that recur throughout this study.

 Nancy Seasholes, Gaining Ground: a History of Landmaking in Boston

Frederick Salvucci, former secretary of  Transportation for Massachusetts, was speaking literally, not metaphorically in this  interview  with PBS when he characterized Boston as “... a city that has been created by man.” Frederick was the leading proponent for the most expensive highway project in the history of the  United States, the Big Dig. In its own way, the project was the culmination of two centuries of transforming the topology of Boston, and in this case it restored a human landscape destroyed by an earlier project, the Central Artery. And this is the main takeaway, two centuries of landmaking had proceeded, as one would expect, without much forethought. Each represented an answer to a specific contemporaneous need, whether it was increasing the available wharfage, filling an odorous mudflat providing more land for housing, or  the creation of parkland.  Boston grew like topsy.

 It is not possible in the small space we have here to cover all of the instances of landmaking in Boston, given that, we will look at the process of warfing out, the filling of the Back Bay, and the creation of the Fens. For a more detailed study of landmaking in Boston, I highly recommend. Nancy Seasholes’ Gaining Ground:  a History of Landmaking in Boston.

Warfing Out

It was not until quite recently that I understood the difference between a pier and a wharf, the former being a structure built on wooding pilings extending out from the shore, the latter, a solid structure, an enclosure made of stone, and then filled with various materials such as gravel. The majority of the landmaking in 17th and early 18th century Boston was the result of building wharves to meet the demands of Boston’s growing coastal and international trade.  Over time, there was a tendency to fill the areas between wharves with more fill, creating new land.  This process is known as wharfing out. 

I hope you had the opportunity to enjoy lunch or dinner at Durgan Park before its demise 2019. If so, then you were dining in a location that represents the first major public construction project undertaken in Boston. It is also true, that if you were magically transported to that same location in 1825, you would be under water. Facing south, to your immediate left would be the Town Dock where the city’s main sewage outlet was located. Over your right shoulder, you would see Faneuil Hall, just a few short steps away. Ahead of you, to the south, you you would see John Codman’s wharf.   

In 1822, having reached the point where a town meeting form of government was no longer feasible, there being more than 7,000 voters on the rolls, Boston incorporated as a city, with a mayor, a council and aldermen. In 1823 Josiah Quincy was elected as the city’s second mayor, and unlike his predecessor, he was an activist, and he had a project in mind. The central market district around Faneuil Hall was constricted and overcrowded to the point that vendors often had no space to display and sell their wares. Additionally, the odor emanating from the area of the Town Dock was, to say the least, uninviting. Quincy’s proposed that the City build a seawall from the exit of Mill Creek to the North side of Long Wharf with the areas between the existing wharfs being filled. The seawall became Commercial Street. The City would erect three market buildings upon the site, to the east of Faneuil Hall. The overlay map below shows the proposal. The shaded in areas indicate the location of what we now call North Market, Quincy Market, and South Market. 

Plan of Proposed Faneuil Hall Project, 1824

Stephen P.  Fuller: Plan of Proposed Faneuil Hall Project
Courtesy of Library of Congress

For its time, this was a project on the scale of the Big Dig. Controversial from the start, it would require vast financial resources, the taking of land by eminent domain, and, more importantly, it would be a public project. This was when development in Boston was by private individuals or small companies. State approval was achieved, legal obstacles settled, and money was obtained by selling future store locations in the markets yet to be built. In July 1824, work began, and the central market opened for business on August 26, 1826. This was perhaps the first instance of what we now call central government planning in Boston. A problematic area needing revitalization was transformed into a viable market area with public spaces and architecturally significant buildings in the Greek revival style designed by Alexander Parris. It is a fitting bookend to the waterfront park, just to its East, created on the land reclaimed by the Big Dig.

John Andrews, East View of Faneuil Hall Market Place
Courtesy of the Boston Public Library

“Back Bay...is nothing less than a great cesspool”

Report to the City  Commission on the Drainage of Back Bay, 1850

Boston 1858, View  of the Mill Dam from the Dome of the State House
Courtesy of the Norman B. Leventhal Map & Education Center, Boston Public Library

The filling of the Back Bay is a complicated story.  It occurred in fits and starts over a period of 50 years. The City, the Commonwealth, corporations, and individuals all played a role in a series of projects, each representing the needs of the moment rather than an overall vision of what could be.  It was essentially the intersection of private entrepreneurs, who needed access to the Back Bay for capital investment, bargaining with private owners, the Commonwealth, and the City for rights to accomplish their plans.  First, we will start with a map of the Back Bay as it existed in 1814, before significant changes took place, which has been overlayed with a current street map of the area.

Fuller's Map of Boston, 1814 
Courtesy o f  Mapjunction

Beginning clockwise at one o’clock, we see the bottom of the west side of Beacon Hill, where Charles Street abuts the shoreline. Continuing south, we are on the edge of the Boston Common and the Rope Walks, built on recently filled-in land in 1795. At three o’clock, we are standing at the edge of the Theater District, where you can proceed west onto Orange, now Washington, Street, and proceed westward down Boston Neck. As we continue walking, the yet-to-be-built Cathedral of the Holy Cross appears on our left, approximately where the “N” of Neck appears on the map. Continuing west to where “The Brook” enters the Bay, we turn north and admire the future Boston Symphony Hall site. Proceeding north on Gravelly Point, we are following the future Massachusetts Avenue until it intersects with the future Newbury Street. If you look to your left, you will see the future Harvard Club of Boston on the edge of the Charles River.

The first major project that would unintentionally lead to the filling of Back Bay was the brainchild of Uriah Cotting, in many ways the archetype of the entrepreneurial class that dominated the Boston financial world of the period. Born in Waltham, the son of an innkeeper, he moved to Boston as a young man earning his keep as an errand boy.  When his name begins to appear in the historical record he is a partner in developing India Wharf in 1803 and Central Wharf in 1815.  In 1816 he developed an area which would become Cornhill Street, the location of the Sears Crescent built in the same year.  Justin Winsor, historian and librarian at Harvard College wrote in his 1881 Memorial History of Boston that “Mr. Cotting was the projector and the guiding spirit in nearly every enterprise involving the development of the town for business during the first twenty years of this century.”  

In 1818 Uriah launched his next project, the Boston and Roxbury Mill Corporation, with the object of building a dam across the tidal mud flats of Back Bay. A causeway-toll road would be constructed on top of the dam, and raceways through the dam would capture the tidal flow enabling the building, by his estimate, of eighty-one mills of various sorts, flour, grist, cotton, and lumber to name a few.  It would appear that his earlier experience in 1814 helping Francis Cabot Lowell establish his successful mill in Waltham had been inspirational.  In 1818 construction began. Two stone seawalls, fifty feet apart, filled with mud and a gravel topping, were completed in July 1823. The toll road which connected the Worcester Turn Pike to Boston was opened to traffic, howeve, Uriah did not live to see the completion of his project, dying at the age of 47 in 1818. 

1852 Plan of Back Bay and vicinity, by Henry F. Conant, Ezra Lincoln
Courtesy   of the Digital Commonwealth

The 1852 Plan of the Back Bay by Conant and Lincoln [above] illustrates the complexity of Cotting’s project. The main causeway connecting Boston to Brookline has a short extension connecting it to Gravelly Point, thus creating two basins, one, a full basin, and the other a receiving basin. At high tide, the sluice gate from the Charles River would be opened filling the full basin to power mills and factories. The outflow from the receiving basin would be released back into the Charles during low tide.  

For a variety of reasons, the mill dam project did not fulfill Cotting’s expectations.  Only three manufacturing sites ever occupied the site, not the eighty-one he projected. Revenues never reached expectations, and the tidal action was insufficient to provide the power needed, but worse, the dams created a stagnant body of water.  Most sewerage in Boston was emptied directly into the nearest body of water. Before the construction of the dam, the tidal action of the Charles River would scour the estuaries and wash effluent out to sea. To make matters worse, two railroads, the  Boston & Worcester and the Boston & Providence built causeways across the bay to gain access to Boston thus even worsening the problem. 

View of Boston & Worcester and Boston and Providence Railroads intersecting over Back Bay
J. W. Barber circa 1850

Public outrage at the stench, the plague of mosquitoes, and fears that miasma [this was the prevalent theory on how disease spread] would  endanger public health, resulted in the creation of several commissions to remedy the situation.  After much back and forth between the City, the State, and the Boston Water & Power Company, proprietors of the mill dam, a tripartite agreement was reached in 1856 to begin filling the bay.

 The State Commission awarded the contract to the firm of N.C. Munson & George Gross who would receive title to 25 percent of each building lot created. The project was underway in 1858.  Boston had exhausted its local supply of gravel, but the last ice age had created a series of eskers, long high mounds of gravel and sand, on the banks of the Charles River in Needham, Massachusetts. The area was bounded by Central Ave to the north, Hunting Road to the west, and Kendrick Rd to the south, the Charles River forming its eastern boundary. Conveniently the New York and Boston Railroad was nearby and ran to the Brookline border with Boston,  where an extension was built across the bay to the site. Munson and Gross employed two steam shovels that filled tip cars running on tracks parallel to the eskers. Taking 10 minutes to fill, each train of 35 cars brought 2,500 yards of fill to Boston on a schedule of 25 trips a day. For six days a week, a train would arrive on site every 45 minutes.  The monumental scale of this endeavor would not be surpassed until the “Big Dig” relocation of the Central Artery in the 1990s. 
 

Photo Courtesy of Wicked Local

While Boston created its high-end neighborhood, Needham was left with an eyesore for decades.  The excavation laid bare the underlying bedrock.  With the resulting lack of vegetation, dust and dirt blew as far as Needham Center on a windy day.  It wasn’t until the opening of Route 128 in the 1950s that the land became valuable to developers for industrial development. 

Needham Gravel Pits prior to 1950
Photo courtesy of Needham History Center and Museum 

There was another incentive for this project other than eliminating a health hazard. The resulting land could be developed as a haven for upper-middle-class Bostonians who wished to escape Boston’s growing Irish population. Historian Nancy Seasholes, in Breaking Ground, characterized the report of the commissioners in charge of the project as containing a

…thinly veiled reference to the hidden agenda of these projects—creating attractive residential areas so that upper-middle-class Yankees, who were valued as both voters and taxpayers, would remain in the city to counteract the Irish immigrants pouring into Boston at the time. p .178

Early plans for developing the Back Bay attest to the commissioners' hopes. It was decided that a central boulevard in the French style, 240 feet in width, with ​ 20-foot setbacks, would be the centerpiece of the Back Bay. It would have a mall down the center, complete with a fountain.    Four parallel avenues, each with a service alley between them, would intersect with a grid of streets beginning at the base of the public garden with Arlington Street. 

Plan of Commonwealth lands, 5 Dec. 1856 
 Suffolk Co. Deed Registry, Book 743 

To offset the project's cost, the state sold lots before the actual filling-in and rolled over the net profit to pay the price of the next stage of the landfill. By 1876, the State had finished its part of the project, and in 1882, announced a net profit of 400% on the sale of its lots.  In addition to the State, two other entities with rights to parts of the Back Bay were also engaged in selling and filling the mud flats. The Boston & Roxbury Mill Co. finished their section in the mid-1870s, but the Boston Water & Power Co. would not finish until 1882.

Detail from 1871 plan of the Back Bay
A Set of Plans Showing the Back Bay 1814-1881, by Fuller and Whitney

The sand and gravel fill used in the Back Bay project could not support heavy structures and required the use of wood posts, driven deep into the ground until they rested on the blue clay or the outwash sand deposits below. The figure below illustrates the manner of construction used to support the homes above. Wood pilings had been successfully used for centuries, but depended on the posts being kept submerged below groundwater level, otherwise, the tops of the pilings exposed to air would be attacked by fungus, rotting the wood. Eventually, the lack of support would result in structural failure. ​ This has been a continuing issue in the Back Bay and has often resulted in costly repairs. In 1984 twenty row houses on Brimmer Street were discovered to have rotting pilings leading to the establishment of the Groundwater Trust in 1986 to monitor groundwater levels through a series of wells throughout the city.1

Courtesy of James Lambrechts, Wentworth Institute of Technology 

From her home on Beacon Hill, Catherine Hammond Gibson had an excellent view of the progress being made in the filling in of the tidal flats. The widow of John Gardiner Gibson, Catherine was a member of the elite Brahmin class of Boston society.  The family’s ancestry and wealth were deeply rooted in Boston’s shipping and financial community.  This was a family who could live on Beacon Hill and spend the summer in Nahant. In 1859 Catherine decided to buy one of the first lots available on Beacon Street.  For the sum of $3,696, she purchased what would become 137 Beacon Street and hired architect Edward Clarke Cabot to design her Italian Renaissance-style brick and brownstone home. Three generations and seven family members would live at number 137 until the death of Catherine’s grandson, Charles Jr. in 1954. In 1957 the home became a house museum.  The Gibson House is the only surviving townhouse in the Back Bay that has preserved its original Victorian-era exterior and interior. If the picture below looks familiar to you, it is probably because you watched Jo March enter her boarding house in the 2018 production of Little Women.

The Gibson House

Frederick Law Olmsted and the Creation of the Fens

The Fens near the Museum of Fine Arts

As you leave the beautifully colonnaded north-facing entrance of the Museum of Fine Arts, you are greeted by one of the masterpieces of urban landscaping architecture, Frederick Law Olmsted’s Fens. As you cross Fenway to the Fens it is hard to imagine that in the 1870’s one engineer described the area as "the filthiest marsh and mud flats to be found anywhere in the State of Massachusetts.”  While the filling-in of the Back Bay had proceeded apace during the 1870’s the area to the west from Gravelly’s Point to Sewell’s Point in Brookline had not been touched. The confluence of Muddy River and Stony Brook created a tidal marsh that, as the city grew, had become the terminal for much of the city’s sewerage.  

Map showing the tidal flats between Gravelly and Sewells Points
1874 Boston Hopkin's Atlas

Because the land's topography was unsuitable for development, it was decided to turn the area into a park. In 1877, the City Council approved a plan to convert the tidal marsh into a reservoir with a park surrounding it. In appearance, it would be much like the Brookline Reservoir Park created in 1848 to supply water to the city of Boston. In the map below, you can see the shaded areas that would need to be filled in.

1877 Plan for Back Bay Park 
Courtesy of Nancy Seasholes,  Making Ground, p216

Not happy with the initial design competition results, the Park Department Commissioners turned to Frederick Law Olmsted, famed designer of New York's Central Park. Olmsted’s vision for the new park was quite different from the original plan, deciding instead to create what some have called an “ecological restoration” which would incorporate the tidal flats into a naturalized landscape while diverting Muddy River and Stony Brook through covered culverts into the Charles River.  This would create in Olmsted’s words a scenery of a winding, brackish creek within wooded banks...numerous points and coves softened in their outlines by thickets with much delicate variety in tone and color...picturesque elements emphasized by a few necessary structures, strong but unobtrusive. To our great fortune, the Park Commission approved the plan, and work was begun in 1880. At Olmsted’s insistence, the park was renamed the Back Bay Fens in 1888. 

Olmsted's Proposed Improvement of Back Bay 1879

Olmsted was explicit about the function and design of the Fens. This was not to be a park in the sense that the Public Gardens or the Boston Common were, complete with recreational areas, gardens, memorials, and statuary.  Its primary function was to resolve the sanitary issues of the location by the creation of an ecological landscape consisting of a salt marsh with the additional engineering necessary to control flooding.
  
In the century that followed Olmsted’s death in 1903, the Fens were significantly altered with the addition of playing fields in 1923, a circular Rose Garden in 1930, and a Victory Garden in 1942. Over the years various monuments have been added including ones to Katherine Lee Bates, John Endecott, and Roberto Clemente as well as veterans memorials honoring the dead of World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. With the damming of the Charles River in 1910, the brackish waters of the Fens became fresh resulting in the death of many of the original plantings.  It remains to be said whether or not the public would have been better served by the preservation of a significant historic architectural landscape or by its alteration over time to accommodate the diverse needs of later generations. 

Suggested Readings

MHC's Archaeological Exhibits Online. “Boston’s Mill Pond.” State.ma.us, 2024. https://www.sec.state.ma.us/mhc/mhcarchexhibitsonline/millpond.htm

Papageorgiou, Kimon . “Cities, Landscape, and Modern Culture.” https://landscapes.northeastern.edu/back-bay-fens/. Northeastern University. 

Poole, Kathy. “Marginal Landscapes as Critical Infrastructure: Boston’s Back Bay Fens.”
 http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/backbay/fenssite/html/docs/marginal.html.
 
“Report of the Landscape Architect To: Charles H. Dalton, Esq., Chairman of the Park Commission—Boston, December 24 1883.” National Association for Olmstead Parks: Reprints, http://olmsted.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Reprints_Fall_2010_vol_12_no2.pdf

Seasholes, Nancy S. Gaining Ground : A History of Landmaking in Boston. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Mit Press, 2018 

Return to Top

The Athens of America

Aristides, Louisburg Square, 1850
Courtesy Another Believer, Wikimedia Commons

We have no idea what prompted  Joseph Iasigi, Turkish Consul and resident of number 34 Louisburg Square, to install a statue of Aristides the Just in the park opposite his home. It is fitting, however, that he chose to honor one of the prominent defenders of Athenian democracy, who, together with Themistocles, defeated the Persians in 479 BCE. Boston’s Brahmins had been in the midst of a love affair of all things Grecian for some thirty years. In 1819, William Tudor, a Harvard graduate, a founder of the Boston Athenæum, and editor of the North American Review, penned this tribute to his native city in a letter to his brother. 

This town is perhaps the most perfect and certainly the best-regulated democracy that ever existed. There is something so impossible in the immortal fame of Athens, that the very name makes everything modern shrink from comparison; but since the days of that glorious city, I know of none that has approached so near in some points, distant as it may still be from that illustrious model.

Tudor was expressing admiration for the political system of Boston, but it was not long before the catchphrase, Athens of America, was being applied more broadly to its academic, cultural, and literary standing in the United States.  

Several contingencies came together to produce this cultural upwelling. As mentioned earlier, the diminishing national political influence of New England led to a commitment to serve as an intellectual inspiration for the entire nation.  At the same time, modern classical and biblical criticism were developing in post-Napoleonic Germany.  Universities, such as Göttingen in Lower Saxony, applied the tools of modern philology to the ancient texts of the Greeks and the Hebrew Bible. Additionally, the development of Romanticism created a renewed interest in ancient Greece as the source of all that was admirable in Western Civilization. The Greek Revolution in 1821 provided a focal point for this Philhellenism.  Lord Byron captured this sentiment in his poem The Isles of Greece

The mountains look on Marathon—
And Marathon looks on the sea;
And musing there an hour alone,
I dreamed that Greece might still be free;
For standing on the Persians' grave,
I could not deem myself a slave.

All of the above motivated a contingent of young, prominent Bostonians who decided to continue their education at Göttingen. Edward Everett, a newly appointed professor at Harvard, George Ticknor, son of a Boston merchant, George Bancroft, son of a prominent Unitarian minister, and Joseph Cogswell, a tutor at Harvard, formed a cadre of Bostonians who spent two years studying and traveling together to meet the leading thinkers and poets of Europe. Historian Mark Peterson describes the experience of these young men in The City-State of Boston:

...in the universities and cities of Protestant Germany, in romantic figures like Byron and Goethe, and in the idealized image of ancient Greece dangled before them, the Boston travelers found practices and beliefs both strange and new, yet still recognizable, familiar enough to embrace as an appealing path to their own future. 

…And the Germans’ promotion of the “Graechophile’s conception of art as [the] historical and national-cultural product” of an educated society that possessed “security, order, and leisure in order to develop noble perceptions and knowledge,” flattered the Bostonians’ deep-seated belief in New England’s carefully cultivated social institutions. 

…the Athens of America of nineteenth-century Boston was the product of young men who went to Germany to learn to be Greek.¹

The   Athenæum

The centerpiece of Boston’s “carefully cultivated social institutions” was the Boston Athenæum. Its origins began in May of 1804 when  William Emerson, minister of First Church in Boston and father of Ralph Waldo Emerson, became editor of a small struggling literary magazine, The Monthly Anthology. Relatively quickly, the various contributors, all young, wealthy, and well-educated, merged into an informal dining club to discuss literature, the arts, and culture. In 1805, Emerson proposed that they establish a periodical library for their use. In 1807, his proposal became reality with the establishment of the Boston Athenæum.  Modeled upon the Liverpool Athenæum and Lyceum, it was to be a repository of books, art, and sculpture.  Josiah Quincy described the motivation behind its establishment. 

To men of letters, and studious inquirers in general, this establishment will offer facilities in study, hitherto not enjoyed; but highly desirable and even necessary. In this country nothing can exceed the inconvenience, arising from the want of large libraries, to those persons who aim at superior attainments and accurate researches. This is one of the circumstances, which account for the small number of finished scholars and finished works, of which we have to boast.²

The Boston Athenæum 
10½ Beacon Street

The Athenæum was not a library open to the public.  It was public in the sense that if you had the ability to buy a share in this private institution, then you could join. In practice, its membership was the exclusive preserve of the elite of Boston society, its bankers, merchants, ministers, and academics formed the core of its membership.  There was a common saying in Boston that “a Boston Brahmin is someone who has a share in the Athenaeum, a relative in the McLean Asylum and a plot in the Mount Auburn Cemetery ³  In his research on the Athenæum, historian Ronald Story found that from 1805 through 1860, 22 of Boston’s 23 millionaires held shares as well as 42 of Boston’s wealthiest 48 families. During the same period, 29 of the 34 Trustees of Harvard College also held shares as did 27 of the 42 presidents of Boston’s leading commercial banks.⁴ 

The Museum of Fine Arts


Despite its elitist origins, the Athenæum served as a seedbed and a springboard for the development of many of Boston’s most significant cultural institutions. In the first half of the nineteenth century, Brahmin institutions such as the Athenæum, the Dante Club, and the Somerset Club served to maintain the exclusivity of this elite class. A massive wave of Irish immigration began to alter this picture. While there was a thriving popular culture in Boston, the Brahmins became convinced of the necessity of creating cultural institutions that could educate the middle-class, providing them with access to high culture, while preserving the elitism of their private institutions. ⁵

The creation of the Museum of Fine Arts is one such example. The impetus for the future museum originated with the Board of Trustees of the Athenæum, concerned that their small space could no longer accommodate donations of objects d’art, with the support of Harvard and other institutions in the same straits, they asked and received a charter from the Commonwealth for the building of a museum in the newly filled in Back Bay. While privately owned, the Board of Trustees was made up of a wider range of Boston’s public figures. The original Board had 23 members out of which 22 were Athenæum members. However, the Board later included notable figures such as the Superintendent of the Boston School Committee, the Mayor, and the Secretary of the State Board of Education, ensuring that the museum's mission remained community-oriented.⁶

For its first six years, the Museum occupied the top floor of the Athenæum. In 1876 the museum moved into its new building in Copley Square. The Gothic Revival building was designed by John Hubbard Sturgis and Charles Brigham.  In 1909 the Museum moved into its current location in the Fens. The original site is now occupied by the Fairmont Copley Plaza. 

Boston Museum of Fine Arts, 1876

Courtesy of Digital Commonwealth

The Boston Symphony Orchestra

Boston is the one place in America where wealth and knowledge of how to use it are apt to coincide. 
                                                                                Ralph Waldo Emerson  

Emerson’s quip could apply to many of Boston’s elites but in the case of Henry Lee Higginson, it is particularly apt. Higginson’s family was deeply rooted in the Brahman community.  Son of George Higginson,  a partner in the State Street brokerage firm of Lee, Higginson & Co., Henry attended Boston Latin School and spent a year at Harvard before ill health forced him to leave. A two-year sojourn in Europe followed where he studied music. Returning home he was commissioned a lieutenant in the 2nd Massachusetts Regiment, and later a Major in the 1st Massachusetts Calvary. In 1863, while recovering from wounds, he married Ida Olympe Frederick Agassiz, daughter of Louis Agassiz, professor of geology and biology at Harvard. Over the span of his career his firm’s investments in mining, railroads, and the telephone company would create the fortune necessary for him to indulge his private passion, the creation of a full-time professional orchestra on the European model. 

Henry Lee Higginson, 1917
Courtesy Library of Congress

The existing musical scene in Boston consisted of individuals of varying talents who played in voluntary associations such as the Handel and Haydn Society, the Philharmonia, and the Harvard Musical Association. None of these associations had the attributes of a professional orchestra: a permanent conductor who had control over the repertoire and hiring of musicians, musicians who contracted to play exclusively for the orchestra, and a fixed rehearsal and performance schedule.  All of this Higginson endeavored to accomplish in his establishment of the Boston Symphony Orchestra in 1881. He hired George Henschel, a German-born British conductor and close friend of Johannes Brahms, to be the BSO’s first conductor.  The first concert was on October 22, 1881, and featured pieces by Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert, and Weber.  

The Boston Symphony Orchestra, Georg Henschel, Conductor, 1881
Howe: The BSO, An Historical Sketch, pp.  66-7.

All of this was funded by Higginson personally with a yearly grant of $20,000 until the orchestra should become financially independent. The following year, in 1882, Higginson went one step further, in requiring all musicians to be exclusively available to the BSO from October through April, except playing for the Handel and Haydn Society. The Handel and Haydn Society was closely allied with the Boston Athenæum, an organization whose support Higginson did not want to alienate.  In addition to hiring a European conductor, this contractual move raised a commotion in the local musical community. It is a tribute to Higginson’s position in the Brahmin community that he accomplished both aims. 

Boston Symphony Hall, circa 1904
Courtesy of the Library of Congress

In 1900, Higginson moved the BSO from the Boston Music Hall to its present site at the Massachusetts and Huntington Avenues intersection. Higginson maintained sole control of the BSO until 1918, when he authorized the creation of an independent Board of Trustees.

The Boston Public Library

The Brahmins conceived the great business of life tobe the erection of barriers against the intrusionof the unpleasant.

Vernon Louis Parrington

Unlike the MFA and the BSO, the Boston Public Library was a creation of the Commonwealth and the City of Boston. The impetus for the creation of the first free library in the nation is both complex and illustrative of the underlying class divisions that were growing in the second quarter of 19th-century Boston.  On one hand, there was a sincere concern on the part of the city’s political establishment for the education and improvement of the working class, especially important since the content of the popular mass press was considered to be inferior.  On the other hand, there was a conscious desire and active commitment on the part of the Brahmin class to erect legal barriers to protect their exclusive private libraries from being appropriated as the nucleus of a public library. At the same time, many Brahmins individually supported the movement to create a public library for the use of those who were considered less fortunate.⁸

Chief among the early proponents of a public library was George Tiknor, former trustee of the Boston Athenæum and former professor of modern languages at Harvard. His and others’ efforts led to the formation of a committee that sent letters to fifteen of Boston’s major private libraries suggesting they combine all their resources into one free public library. The response was underwhelming.  The Boston Athenæum’s reply cited “insuperable objections,” and the Massachusetts Historical Society and The American Academy of Arts and Sciences both deigned not to reply. Support for the project among the general public continued to grow and in 1847 Boston’s Common Council successfully petitioned the legislature to authorize “a library for the free use of every citizen.”  In 1848 the city followed through and established the Boston Public Library with Josiah Quincy Jr., mayor of Boston,  as president of the Board of Trustees, who would be succeeded by Edward Everett, president of Harvard, and George Ticknor. 

The initial location of the Library was a former schoolhouse on Mason Street which quickly proved inadequate to house the sixteen thousand volumes in its collection. In 1858, new quarters were erected at 55 Boylston St which was home to seventy-five thousand volumes. By 1880 the library had outgrown its Boylston Street location.  In 1880 the legislature permitted the building of a library on land in the newly filled-in Back Bay at the corner of Dartmouth and Boylston. Charles Follen McKim of the firm  McKim, Meade, and White designed the new library in the Beaux Arts style using the Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève in Paris as his source of inspiration. The location of the Library in Copley Square opposite Trinity Church with the Museum of Fine Arts to the right created a public cultural space in the new Back Bay. 

Copley Square, 1909
Courtesy Boston Public Library

Boston Literati 

The list of famous writers who called Boston home in the first half of the nineteenth century is a long one.  It is a measure of Boston's success in creating the carefully cultivated social institutions that made it a focus for the intellectual life of New England.  Historian Thomas O’Connor, captures this sentiment in his book, The Athens of America.

With this remarkable gathering of highly regarded philosophers, poets, novelists, essayists, and historians, Bostonians could now boast of having an intelligentsia of their own, one so well-known and internationally celebrated that they now felt that their city was, without question, deserving of the title of the “Athens of America.”⁸

Below, you will find an interactive map with the locations of the residences of Boston's literati, as well as several of the buildings associated with them.  The toggle switch in the upper left-hand corner will show a list of all the landmarks on the map. 

" data-map="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">

Suggested Readings

Dain, Daniel. A History of Boston. Peter E. Randall Publisher, New Hampshire, 2023  Dain, Daniel. A History of Boston. Peter E. Randall Publisher, New Hampshire, 2023 

DiMaggio, Paul. “Cultural Entrepreneurship in Nineteenth-Century Boston: The Creation of an Organizational Base for High Culture in America.” Media, Culture and Society, 4 (1982):33-50 p.382-3.

 “Forgotten Chapters of Boston’s Literary History, An Exhibition at the Boston Public Library and Massachusetts Historical Society,” March 28–July 30, 2012. https:/www.bostonliteraryhistory.com/about.html

Markle, Terri. “Exploring Boston’sLiterary District.” https://femalesolotrek.com/2021/08/13/exploring-bostons-literary-district/ 
O’Connor, Thomas.  The Athens of America, Boston 1825-1845. University of Massachusetts Press, 2006.

 Parrington, Vernon Louis. The Romantic Revolution in America, 18000-1860, v.ii. New York: Harcourt Brace & Co., 1927. 

 Peterson, Mark. The City-State of Boston, Princeton University Press. 2019. 

 Story, Ronald.  “Class and Culture in Boston: The Athenaeum, 1807-1860” American Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 2 pp. 196-97.
 
Weston, George F.Boston Ways, High By, and Folk. Beacon Press, 1957. 

Footnotes

  1. Mark Peterson, The City-State of Boston (Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2019), pp. 513-514. Apple Ebook.
  2. Josiah Quincy, The History of the Boston Athenæum, with Biographical Notices of its Deceased Founders (Cambridge: Metcalf and Company. 1851),
  3. p. 33.
  4. Ronald Story, “Class and Culture in Boston: The Athenaeum, 1807-1860,” American Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 2 (May, 1975), p. 199.
  5. Ibid. p.182.
  6. Paul DiMaggio, “Cultural Entrepreneurship in Nineteenth-Century Boston The Creation of an Organizational Base for High Culture in America,” Media, Culture and Society, 4 (1982):33-50 p.382-3.
  7. Ibid. p. 385.
  8. Vernon Louis Parrington, The Romantic Revolution in America, 18000-1860, v. ii (New York: Harcourt Brace & Co. 1927),
  9. p. 435-36.
  10. Ronald Story, pp. 196-97..
Return to Top

The North Slope

Acorn Street,Beacon Hill
© Sunny Chanruangvanich 

Beacon Hill conjures up images of Federalist brownstones with ornamental ironwork, facing narrow cobbled streets, adorned with attractive vintage gas lighting. This description holds true for much of the South Slope of Beacon Hill, particularly Pinckney, Chestnut, and Mount Vernon Streets. This sloping area adjacent to the Common was originally pasture owned by John Singleton Copley. Copley, a loyalist, had returned to London in 1774. The Mount Vernon Proprietors, a syndicate formed by Harrison Gray Otis, and Charles Bullfinch, among others, purchased the 18.5 acres from Copley in 1795 for the sum of $18,450. Bullfinch had recently completed the construction of the new State House on property adjacent to the pasture increasing its valuation, a fact of which Copley was unaware. Once discovered, this would result in several years of litigation. 

Otis, Mayor of Boston, Bullfinch, a member of the Boston Board of Selectmen, together with other leading Bostonian merchants were central to much of the development of Boston during this period. It was often the case that, as officeholders,  these same individuals were involved in the approval of projects that would benefit them financially. In 1802, Bullfinch would finish the construction of Otis’s new Federalist-style home at 85 Mt. Vernon St, one of the first properties of many to follow. 

To Bostonians of the early 1800’s, a reference to Beacon Hill elicited a very different image.  The North Slope of Beacon Hill was a maze of narrow, twisting streets, courtyards, and back alleys lined with wooden frame housing, often in a state of disrepair. Being close to the waterfront, it attracted a mixed population of craftsmen, dock workers, seamen, and itinerant laborers.  It was also home to a considerable number of taverns and houses of ill repute, earning it the name Mount Whoredom bestowed by  the British troops occupying Boston in 1775.   As late as April 1850 a police raid resulted in the arrest of 150 prostitutes.  

Hales's Map of Boston, 1814
Courtesy of BPL Levanthal Map Center

The clipping above from John G. Hales's map of Boston 1814 delineates the North Slope and the South Slope of Beacon Hill. These two areas are separated roughly along the axis of Myrtle Street. The North Slope is well developed. The buildings are a darker shade of gray, which indicates they were wood-framed.  When you enlarge the map by clicking, you will notice the maze-like layout of the streets, with many alleyways and courtyards. In contrast, the development of the South Slope had just begun with a scattering of homes, all of brick or stone construction, indicated by the lighter shade of gray.

The North Slope also became the heart of Boston’s African American community. Originally located in the North End around the Ann Street area, by the 1830s, Boston’s Black community had consolidated on the North Slope of Beacon Hill, establishing a thriving community centered on the First Independent Baptist Church founded in 1806, the New England Anti-Slavery Society, founded in 1832, and the Abiel Smith School, founded in 1835.  Most residents were employed as laborers or domestics, while some established themselves in commerce, notably as barbers and hairdressers.

 Thus, there were two Beacon Hills, the South Slope, home to many of the wealthiest and most prominent Bostonians, and the North Slope, home to one of the largest free Black communities in the North. There was more than just a difference in wealth and social class separating these communities. The South Slope was home to the Lawrences, Lowells, and Appletons, Brahmin industrialists whose wealth and power were based on the exploitation of slave labor in the South.  The ​North Slope was the center of the fugitive slave movement, home to fugitives who had, until recently, been picking the cotton that sustained the building of Federalist mansions on the ​South Slope.  

One wonders, did Nathan Appleton, resident of 39 Beacon St, and co-founder of the Boston Manufacturing Company, happen to stroll down Charles Street to Cambridge Street and pass the window of Lewis Hayden’s tailoring shop at number 151? And if so, did he realize that Hayden was a fugitive slave and a central figure in the Underground Railroad?  Did Hayden recognize the prominent Bostonian?  

While all of this is conjectural, it does underscore the irony that Beacon Hill played a crucial role in the events leading up to the brink of the Civil War. Industrialists and financiers like Appleton and Lawrence, known politically as Cotton Whigs, were at the forefront of efforts to prevent a war and maintain the economic relationship between Northern industrialists and Southern planters. In contrast, Lewis Hayden gave shelter to a quarter of the fugitive slaves who passed through Boston during this period. Some of his actions taken to prevent the return of captured fugitives led to riots that further inflamed the debate over the Fugitive Slave Act.  Additionally, two other residents of the ​North Slope, Senator Charles Sumner from Massachusetts and William Lloyd Garrison, who published The Liberator from nearby Cornhill Street, were instrumental in raising the North's moral consciousness to a point where conflict became almost inevitable. It is remarkable that such a small place played such a significant role in shaping the destiny of the United States. 


Dramatis Personae

39 Beacon Street, home of   Nathan Appleton, [October 6, 1779-July 14, 1861], founding partner of the Boston Manufacturing Company, founder of the City of Lowell, State Representative [1816-1827], United States Representative [1831, 1842], and member of the Boston Associates, a network of Boston industrialists tied together through business interests and intermarriage. 

In 1839 Nathan Appleton married Harriet Coffin Sumner, 25 years younger than himself, and a cousin of the abolitionist and reformer Charles Sumner. Like many American families, the Appletons were divided over the issue of slavery. Nathan Appleton believed it would gradually be abandoned as outmoded and inefficient. He could not understand the appeal of abolitionism for the younger members of his own Whig party, as well as for his daughter Fanny and her husband, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. After Sumner’s 1848 speech denouncing the “unhallowed union” between “the lords of the lash and the lords of the loom,” people like Nathan Appleton were branded as “cotton” as opposed to “conscience” Whigs. Appleton considered this unfair, as his opposition to immediate emancipation was based on genuine outrage at what he considered the dangerous and fanatical opinions of the more militant abolitionists. The abolitionist movement, he wrote, “has produced nothing but evil. It has banded the South into a solid phalanx . . . [and thus] increased the severity of the slave laws. It has postponed the period of emancipation in the more northern slave states, which were fast ripening for that event.” In 1860 he still hoped war could be avoided by appeals to reason and self-interest.  Dictionary of Unitarian & Universalist Biography

66 Phillips Street, home of Lewis Hayden, his wife  Harriet, and his step-son Joseph.  Lewis was born in Kentucky in 1811, a slave of Rev. Adam Rankin, a Presbyterian minister, who sold Lewis at the age of 11 to an itinerant peddler. Lewis was separated from his first wife, Esther, when both wife and son were sold by Henry Clay to a plantation in the deep South. In 1842, Lewis married Harriet Bell and adopted her son Joseph. In 1844 the Hayden family escaped to Canada via the Underground Railroad. In 1845 they moved to Detroit, and then to Boston.  The Hayden home on Phillips Street became the center of the fugitive slave movement in Boston, harboring hundreds of former slaves on their journey northward.  As a member of the Boston Vigilance Society and the American Anti-Slavery Society, Lewis worked closely with William Lloyd Garrison and others to frustrate the implementation of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and was central to the efforts to free several captured fugitives from Federal custody, notably Shadrach Minkins, Anthony Burns, and Thomas Sims. 

Perhaps more than any other American, Hayden experienced the full range of the anti-slavery struggle. He was a fugitive slave and he was a stationmaster on the Underground Railroad. He traveled from town to town speaking against slavery and he took up arms against slavery. He recruited soldiers for black regiments and he suffered the loss of a son who had enlisted in the Navy. He was a co-worker with Wendell Phillips, William Lloyd Garrison, Theodore Parker, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and a host of lesser known campaigners. 

Despite his accomplishments and his famous allies, Hayden is not well known. Perhaps this is so because he was not a writer like Garrison, or Stowe, or William Wells Brown. Nor was he an orator like Phillips, or Parker, or Frederick Douglass. As writers and orators these individuals fought for freedom with powerful words. Their publications and their speeches brought attention to themselves and left a record for future generations. 

Hayden and many of his friends were committed to freedom through action. In the language of our times, they were "activists." We know relatively little about these activists because many of their deeds were illegal by the standards of their day. Hayden's assistance to fugitive slaves, his militant defense of William and Ellen Craft, his rescue of the escaped slave Shadrach, and his role in John Brown's conspiracy were illegal at the time, no matter how commendable they may seem to us today.  
Hayden and his friends could not reveal the specifics of their activities during the dangerous period from 1840 to the Civil War. If we are missing the exact route of a trip through the Underground Railroad, or the details of John Brown's visits to Boston, it is very likely because the participants made a conscious effort to hide that information. 

Near the end of the nineteenth century, a few of the anti-slavery activists recorded their experiences. A few others had children to record their deeds. Hayden had no surviving children and did not preserve a record of his actions. 

For these reasons, Hayden has never received the credit he is due. His story is told only in footnotes of the biographies of the leading men and women of the anti-slavery movement. Using the thread of Hayden's remaining letters and the newspaper reports of his day, I have tried to sew those footnotes together in order to tell the remarkable story of a man committed to the fight for human rights.

 Lewis Hayden and the War Against Slavery.  Joel Strangis,  Linnet Books 1999, pp.  xiii-xiv.

20 Hancock Street, Home of Charles Sumner [1811-1874]. Sumner was born on Irving Street, on the North Slope of Beacon Hill. He was the son of Charles and Relief Sumner. Charles Sr. was Harvard-educated, established a law practice, served as Clerk of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, and was later Sheriff of Suffolk County.  An abolitionist, he felt strongly about the equality of all people regardless of race.  In 1830 he purchased the house at 20 Hancock Street in which Charles Jr spent most of his adult life.   

Charles Jr. graduated from Harvard in 1830, attended Harvard Law, and was admitted to the bar in 1834.  After a three-year sojourn in Europe, he returned to Boston and entered political life becoming well known for his disapproval of the Mexican War and the extension of slavery westward after the annexation of Texas. His strong advocacy resulted in his becoming a leader of the Conscience Whigs in Massachusetts. In 1850 he was the lead attorney, together with Robert Morris, one of the first Black attorneys in the nation, in Roberts v. City of Boston, challenging the legality of segregation in the Boston Public School Schools.  His chief argument, that segregation caused psychological damage, would be used a century later in overturning Brown vs. Board of Education. In 1851 he became US Senator for Massachusetts running as a Free Soil Party candidate. For the next nine years, he was a leading advocate for the abolition of slavery.  His Crime Against Kansas speech in 1856 would lead to his caning on the floor of the Senate by Preston Brooks. He would serve in the Senate until his death in 1874.

He [Sumner] became a pariah in high society. Antislavery was welcome in Brahmin circles, but the worthies of Beacon Hill considered his fixation on the topic unseemly. Old friends avoided him on the street. Outsiders to Boston watched in disbelief as literal shudders passed through the room when his name was mentioned at fashionable soirees. He was, however, welcome at meetings of the city’s politically active free Black people, making regular appearances at a Black-owned barbershop known for hosting antislavery discussions, an abolitionist sequel to Abraham Van Buren’s tavern.

With his social standing in free fall, Sumner discovered his inner populist. In 1848 he railed against “an unhallowed union—conspiracy let it be called—between two remote sections: between the politicians of the Southwest and the politicians of the Northeast,—between the cotton-planters and flesh-mongers of Louisiana and Mississippi and the cotton-spinners and traffickers of New England,—between the lords of the lash and the lords of the loom.” Drawing on a resonant piece of Jacksonian rhetoric, he announced, “The money power has joined hands with the slave power. Selfish, grasping, subtle, tyrannical, like its ally, it will not brook opposition.”When Southern oligarchs locked arms with Northern capitalists, Sumner concluded, the wealthy posed a greater threat to liberty than the mob.

Excerpted from Realigners: Partisan Hacks, Political Visionaries, and the Struggle to Rule American Democracby Timothy Shenk. Published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, October 2022.    

31 Cornhill Street [now Government Center], publication site of William Lloyd Garrison’s. [1805-1879] The Liberator. Born in Newburyport, Massachusetts, Garrison was abandoned at an early age by his father and was largely self-supporting and self-educated. Apprenticeship to a printer led to his career as a publisher. In ​1829 his abolitionist views were given a national voice when he joined with Benjamin Lundy in Baltimore, Maryland to publish The Genius of Universal Emancipation. Originally believing in gradual emancipation and colonization, his views evolved to the point that he demanded immediate uncompensated emancipation and social and political equality for Black Americans. Moving to Boston in 1831, he established The Liberator,  which he published for thirty-five years. His outspoken views sparked anger among many Bostonians, especially the merchant class. On the evening of October 21, 1835, a meeting of the Boston Female Anti-Slavery Society at the offices of The Liberator was stormed by a mob described by one observer as “gentlemen of wealth and standing.” The mob led Garrison away threatening to tar and feather him.  He was rescued by the mayor of Boston. Over time, as political events unfolded nationally, Garrison’s importance and influence locally and nationally increased.  During this period he worked with activists such as Fredrick Douglass, Wendell Phillips, Amos Bronson Alcott, and Maria Chapman. After the Civil War, Garrison remained active in the cause of civil rights.  At the Women’s Tea Party held at Faneuil Hall in December of 1873, Garrison declared "I am still for immediate, unconditional, everlasting emancipation from oppression of everyone on the face of the earth.”He died in 1879 and was interred in Boston’s Forest Hills Cemetery

There had been antislavery agitation long before America had ever heard of William Lloyd Garrison; but for the most part the approach had been rational, the technique gentlemanly, and the demands moderate and gradual. One of the most popular of all early emancipation programs was the plan for "colonization," which proposed to solve the slavery problem by purchasing Negroes and settling them in Africa. …Even when apathy gave way to curiosity, and Boston did begin to take notice of Garrison and his little coterie, the results were anything but encouraging. Looked upon generally as agitators and cranks, Abolitionists were not socially acceptable in any respectable circle. "They did not go to work like Christian gentlemen," observed the Congregationalist minister, Reverend Horace Bushnell; while William Ellery Channing, representing Unitarian principles, agreed that they only stirred up "bitter passions and fierce fanaticism." Financial opinion reflected in the powerful Niles Register, claimed that Garrison was "doing all possible injury to the cause of emancipation," and the Washington National Intelligencer accused him of "poisoning the waters of life to the whole community."Garrison seemed to thrive on opposition, however. Imperturbable, self-assured and fanatic, Garrison struck back, blow for blow, gradually gathering a small band of followers about him. 

Thomas H. O’Connor, The Lords of the Loom: The Cotton Whigs and the Coming of the Civil War  (New York: Charles Scribner’s & Sons, 1968), pp. 43-44. 

Prelude

There are four millions of negro slaves in certain States of the Union, with about seven million of whites.  Between the two races there is an impassable gulf which makes amalgamation or absorption impossible.  So strong is this antagonism of race, that many of the free States pass the most stringent laws, in order to keep free negroes out of their borders, considering them a public nuisance.  No sane man can positively believe that these eleven millions can live together with equal rights, under our institutions.

Nathan Appleton, " Slavery and the Union", Editorial from the Boston Courier, Boston, 1860, John Clark & Co. 

During the first quarter of the nineteenth century, approximately 1,900 African  Americans lived in the West End and North Slope of Beacon Hill. For the most part, Bostonians regarded this community with indifference, or at best, a sort of benign neglect. Attitudes, when expressed, ran the gamut from the patronizing paternalism and condescension of the Brahmin class to the outright hostility of the working class. There was general agreement that slavery was, at the very least, immoral, yet there was a grudging acceptance of the
 peculiar institution as firstly, sanctioned by the Constitution and thus a settled matter, and secondly, a Southern problem best left to the South to solve.    

Although Massachusetts had outlawed slavery in 1780 and passed legislation enfranchising Blacks in 1790, Boston remained, by law and custom, a segregated city. Segregated areas in churches and public buildings were the norm and were enforced.  As noted above, Charles Sumner and Robert Morris, one of the first Black attorneys in the United States, argued in Roberts v. City of Boston [1850], against segregation in the Boston Public Schools, only to lose. It wasn't until 1855 that the Commonwealth's legislature declared segregation illegal and integrated Boston's schools.  

Despite structural racism, Boston remained attractive to fugitive slaves as a comparatively tolerant city and was a frequent destination for fugitives using the Underground Railroad. The South Slope of Beacon Hill was a particularly attractive destination because of its urban geography of alleys, side streets, and hidden back lots which provided safety and a means of networking protecting the community from slave catchers. 


   
Most of the residences in this area were of wood frame construction and were rented by the African American residents. Jeffrey Klee’s Civic Order on Beacon Hill describes the story of Mr and Mrs  Spears who were an exception to this rule. 

On Beacon Hill, those blocks with the highest concentration of alleys and small building lots were also those with the highest concentration of black households—the west side of Belknap Street and the eastern end of Southac Street. 

Throughout the first decades of the nineteenth century, these lots were also among the very few owned by African Americans in the city of Boston. The memoir of Chloe Spear makes clear the formidable challenges to and the fragility of financial attainment for black Bostonians. Mrs. Spear, in secret, saved money from taking in laundry long enough to be able to purchase half of a small house—she and her husband lived in an unfinished room and let the remainder to tenants.  But if ownership of real property was a source of pride for some, it was not undiluted by outright anger at the stark contrast with buildings only footsteps away. Maria Stewart reminded her audience at Boston’s African Masonic Hall that Mrs.Spear was exceptional and that the vast majority of black Americans were prevented from even such a modest attainment.  p. 48.

Klee includes in his monograph a speech that Maria Stewart made that evening.  It provides an intimate insight into the state of race relations from the Black community’s point of view, a stark portrait of the disparities that coexisted within such a small geographical area.

Cast your eyes about, look as far as you can see; all, all is owned by the lordly white, except here and there a lowly dwelling which the man of color, midst deprivations, fraud and opposition, has been scarce able to procure. Like KingSolomon, who put neither nail nor hammer to the temple, yet received the praise; so also have the white Americans gained themselves a name . . . while in reality we have been their principal foundation and support. We have pursued the shadow, they have obtained the substance; we have performed the labor, they have received the profits; we have planted the vines,  they have eaten the fruits of them. 

Maria Stewart’s anger, indeed rage, was representative of the Boston Black community at large. White elites of the South Slope of Beacon Hill  slumbered in their condescension,  as reflected by their neighbor and recent mayor, Harrison Grey Otis's comment in the Niles Weekly Register, that Boston’s  “Negro inhabitants [are] a quiet, inoffensive, and in many respects a useful race, [but our] repugnance to intimate social relations with them is insurmountable.”¹ 

The Black residents of the North Slope established the African Meeting House in 1806 on Smith Court.  In addition to worship, this Baptist Church was the focus of the community's political, cultural, and educational life, playing a central role in organizing the community’s political activism. The Massachusetts General Colored Association, founded in 1826, met at the Meeting House and made it their mission to challenge racial discrimination in Massachusetts and advance the cause of abolition.  In 1833 they voted to join Garrison’s newly formed New England Anti-Slavery Society which also met at the Meeting House. The New England Freedom Association, founded in 1842 met here as well to organize the activities of the Underground Railroad. Guest speakers at the Meeting House included Frederick Douglas, Sara Grimke, Wendell Phillips, Maria Stewart, and William Lloyd Garrison.  

In the next two decades the “quiet, inoffensive” Black residents of the South Slope would come to occupy a more prominent place in the consciousness of White Bostonians as national political events unfolded. In 1831 Harrison Gray Otis, then mayor of Boston, received letters from the governors of Virginia and Georgia demanding that he do something about a subversive newspaper, The Liberator, circulating in their states. Otis had never heard of the newspaper in question. Upon inquiry, he was informed that the newspaper was obscure and of no consequence.  Otis reassured the southern governors that there was no need to be concerned since it was unlikely “to make proselytes among the respectable classes of our people."  Years later, as events unfolded, Otis reflected that “in this I was mistaken.”² 

ACT I ~ 1830-1850

From its very inception slavery infected the fragile unity of the new Republic. To accommodate divergent Northern and Southern interests a series of compromises enshrined the legality of slavery in the new Constitution. Although the words slavery or slave are not mentioned in the original document, it acknowledged its existence and legality in the Three-Fifths Compromise , allocating slaves the status of three-fifths of a person in establishing the ratio between population and representatives in Congress. Other articles forbade the ending of the slave trade before 1808, as well as forbidding states from unilaterally freeing fugitive slaves who entered their jurisdiction. 

Initially, this arrangement appeared to paper over the underlying fragility of the union, but three developing contingencies over the next fifty years would bring the nation to the brink of war.

The first of these was the Industrial Revolution, specifically the invention of the cotton gin by Ely Whitney in 1793, the development of the integrated textile mill by Francis Cabot Lowell in 1815, and the development of the high-pressure steam engine by Richard Trevithick in 1803. The net effect of these technological changes was to give a new lease on life to the use of slave labor in the South. It was now possible to grow cotton profitably with a ready market both in Europe and New England and the transportation systems to inexpensively ship the raw cotton and the finished products to market. In 1800 there were approximately 700,00o slaves in the United States, by 1820 that number had increased to  1,200,000, and on the eve of the Civil War to 3,200,000.³ 

 The second set of circumstances was created by the question of extending slavery into the territories gained from the Mexican-American War of 1846. Up until this point, a delicate political balance between North and South had been maintained by a series of compromises. Henry Clay’s  Missouri Compromise of 1820 created the free state of Maine thus allowing a new slave state, Missouri, to be admitted to the Union. The Compromise of 1850 put together by Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas, admitted California to the Union as a free state, while allowing territories created out of the Mexican Cession to decide for themselves whether they would be slave or free, a concept referred to as popular sovereignty

  As these processes unfolded they fed into the final set of circumstances, the evolving sensibilities of Northerners towards the issues of slavery and its abolition, and growing fear on the part of Southerners that their peculiar institution was endangered. These changes were the result of a series of events, lynchings, demonstrations, slave revolts, and publications, each of which escalated the confrontation, creating a synergy that, in the final analysis, was unstoppable. Prophetically, Thomas Jefferson writing in 1820 in reaction to the Missouri Compromise lamented that “we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.” 

Most Bostonians of the 1830s were contemptuous of the activities of abolitionists and William Lloyd Garrison in pparticular. In 1835, the editor of the Hampshire Gazette described him “to be a hot−headed enthusiast, a notoriety hunter.” Other abolitionists were also held in ill repute resulting in riots in New York City and Philadelphia in 1834 and the stoning of John Greenleaf Whittier and British abolitionist George Thompson in Concord New Hampshire in 1835. Boston’s elites, including Mayor Theodore Lyman Jr. and Abbott Lawrence, wishing to reassure their Southern business partners that the activities of these fanatics were not representative of the people of Massachusetts, organized a meeting of over 1500 citizens at Faneuil Hall on August 21, 1835. Harrison Gray Otis delivered a full-throated denunciation of abolitionism as "war in disguise upon their [Southerners] lives, their property, their rights and institutions, an outrage upon their pride and honor, and the faith of contracts."

Exactly two months after the Faneuil Hall meeting, an invitation to George Thompson to speak to the members of Boston’s Female Anti-Slavery Society provoked a howl of protest among Boston’s elites. By the early afternoon of October  21, 1835, a mob had gathered at Garrison’s office at 46 Washington Street and proceeded to break into the assembly being held in the auditorium next door. Garrison was captured as he exited through a rear window and was severely beaten and dragged towards nearby Boston Common with a noose around his neck. The timely intervention of Boston’s mayor saved Garrison, who was spirited off to a local jail and charged with rioting. Reflecting upon the incident several weeks later, Garrison remarked "It was planned and executed, not by the rabble, or the workingmen, but by 'gentlemen of property and standing from all parts of the city’."

Courtesy of The National Museum of American History

The power and influence of Boston’s elites were not limited to the confines of Massachusetts but were also consolidated nationally by the election of Nathan Appleton to Congress in 1830.  Appleton, together with Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster, who owned shares in textile companies owned by Appleton and Lawrence, and Congressman John Quincy Adams, would see to it that conservative principles protecting commerce and business relationships, especially with the South, would be safeguarded in Washington and Boston. Historian Thomas O’Connor aptly describes the mood of Boston’s South Slope elites in the late 1830s. 

With such a team of political experts leading the way, it is small wonder that the business interests of Massachusetts could feel certain that before long the political atmosphere would reflect that same stability and order which already characterized the economics and society of the State. Many, certainly, would agree with the words of Amos Lawrence to his son, as he rhapsodized: "Our local affairs are very delightful in this state and city. We have no violent political animosities; and the prosperity of the people is very great.⁴

This state of affairs would not remain delightful for long.  A steady stream of events over the next twenty-five years would inflame public opinion, advancing the cause of abolitionism. In 1835, a Boston mob, led by Unitarian minister Thomas Wentworth Higginson, stormed the Boston Courthouse on May 24, attempting to free fugitive slave Anthony Burns. When Burns was marched to Long Wharf to start his journey back into servitude, thousands of Bostonians lined the route in protest. Only eighteen years had passed since the attempt on Garrison’s life in 1835. 

Francis McIntosh was a boat worker on the steamboat Flora and was described as a freeman and mulatto from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Shortly after arrival in St. Louis, Missouri, McIntosh was arrested and charged for obstruction of justice because he did not aid two officers when summoned. The police officers were attempting to arrest McIntosh’s fellow shipmates and wanted McIntosh to assist them in the arrest. When McIntosh refused, he was arrested on the spot and was told he would be imprisoned for five years. In retaliation, McIntosh stabbed both officers and fled the jailhouse. One of the officers, who practiced excessive, immoral, corrupt racial policing attempting to imprison McIntosh for five years, died. His death ignited blood lust in St. Louis among many white residents. McIntosh was pursued, caught, and imprisoned. Before he could be sentenced, an angry white mob broke into the jailhouse and overpowered the jailer to extract him. After McIntosh was paraded through the streets of St. Louis, the white mob chained him to a tree with firewood underneath his feet waiting to be lit. Thousands of residents came to witness the state-sanctioned murder. An alderman waved a pistol at the crowd and threatened to shoot any one who attempted to stop the murder. The white mob proceeded to slowly burn Francis McIntosh to death. Some newspaper accounts describe him to be alive, yelling for twenty minutes in the pit of fire before he eventually died.    Source

Courtesy Library of Congress

Elijah Lovejoy, editor of the Alton Observer, accepted delivery of his new printing press on November 7, 1837, at 3:00 A.M. This was Lovejoy’s third printing press since arriving in Alton in 1836, and it would cost him his life.
…Lovejoy used his paper to preach against slavery and argue for its abolition. He almost immediately faced death threats from the city’s pro-slavery residents and opted to move his family out of slaveholding Missouri to the freer and supposedly safer streets of Alton, Illinois.
…Lovejoy assured the people of Alton that he’d operate the Alton Observer with less space dedicated to the subject of slavery, since he was now in a free state. However, in the Observer’s first issue Lovejoy insisted that the institution of slavery “is an awful evil and sin.” From there his paper became only more anti-slavery.
…On August 7, 1837, a mob gathered at the Observer’s office and destroyed Lovejoy’s printing press. Lovejoy was able to purchase a new press with the help of donations from sympathizers back East. Opponents seized this press almost immediately and dumped it into the Mississippi River.
When the third press arrived on November 7, Lovejoy was ready to defend it. A pro-slavery mob formed at the warehouse where the press was being stored and one of the rioters climbed a ladder and tried to light the roof on fire. Lovejoy emerged from the warehouse and shot at the man. Gunfire rang-out from the mob as well, leaving Lovejoy dead, shot five times. Source

The Attack on Lovejoy's Warehouse
Courtesy of Abraham Lincoln 
Presidential Library and Museum

American Slavery as It Is: Testimony of a Thousand Witnesses by Theodore Dwight Weld, his wife Angelina Grimké, and her sister Sarah Grimké published in 1839. A key figure in the abolitionist movement, Weld was a white New Englander. His wife, Angelina, and sister-in-law Sarah, were from a Southern slave-owning family; both women were active in the abolitionist and women's suffrage movements. Theodore purchased in bulk from a reading room at the New York Stock Exchange issues of newspapers being discarded, hundreds if not thousands of them. He took them home to Fort Lee, New Jersey, and there the two women analyzed them, in essence running a clipping service, arranging the clippings by topic: diet, clothing, housing, working conditions, and the like. As the book says in its introduction, the Southern newspapers give themselves, especially in advertisements for runaway slaves, evidence of mistreatment of the enslaved. The book invites those interested to call at the office of the publisher, the American Anti-Slavery Society, to verify its sources. The book also analyzes arguments defending slavery. It was very influential in the formative days of the abolitionist movement.  Source

At the beginning of November 1850, two slave hunters arrived in Boston bearing a warrant for William and Ellen Craft, who had escaped from a plantation in Georgia two years earlier. …In the abolitionist community of Boston, their arrival was big news, promoted in the Liberator. To celebrate the Crafts' achievement, Black abolitionist William Wells Brown took them on a 60-stop speaking tour across Massachusetts. Back in Boston, they stayed with Lewis Hayden at his home at 66 Phillips Street on Beacon Hill and started to make a life. When the two slave hunters arrived in Boston looking for them, the Boston Vigilance Committee sprung to action, hiding the Crafts and harassing the hunters. When the slave hunters showed up at Hayden's home looking for the Crafts, they found the house barricaded and guarded by kegs of gunpowder. The slave hunters were told they would not survive the night in Boston.They quickly left the city. The Crafts' old slave master, however, would not give up. When word reached Boston that he had petitioned President Millard Fillmore to send US Marshals to Boston, the Crafts continued on to Halifax and then to London, where they lived for the next 19 years. 
Daniel Dain, A History of Boston, Chapter Five, Kindle ebook edition. 

ACT II ~ 1850-1860

The passing of the Fugitive Slave Act as part of the Compromise of 1850 was the final provocation that radicalized the growing anger of Bostonians and northerners alike. Added in an attempt to appease Southern resentment over the Compromise, the Fugitive Slave Act, at one stroke, required all federal officers to assist in the capture and return of fugitive slaves upon the presentation of an affidavit by the fugitive’s putative owner without trial.  Furthermore, anyone caught aiding or abetting the escape of a slave could be punished with a $1000 fine and six months imprisonment.  

The business elites of Boston were initially jubilant that the voices of compromise and reason, led by Henry Clay and Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster, had won the day. The extremists, both North and South had been held at bay, and the feared economic catastrophe that succession and war would bring was prevented. Webster’s speech of March 7, 1850,  in support of the Compromise prompted more than 800 of Boston’s business elites to send a public letter to the Senator in which they enthused "In a time of almost unprecedented excitement, when the minds of men have been bewildered by an apparent conflict of duties. . . you have pointed out to a whole people the path of duty, have convinced the understanding and touched the conscience of a nation."

The voices of Boston's abolitionist community rose in furious indignation. Horace Mann described Webster as a "fallen star! Lucifer descending from Heaven!” The Rev. Theodore Parker expressed his dismay, stating that "No living man has done so much to debauch the conscience of the nation." And James Russell Lowell denounced him as "the most meanly and foolishly treacherous man I ever heard of.” Charles Sumner, leader of the Conscience Whigs, condemned the Compromise as “a flagrant violation of the Constitution, and of the most cherished of human rights—shocking to Christian sentiments, insulting to humanity, and impudent in all its pretensions.”
 
The growing political tension in Massachusetts came to a head in the election of 1850. Conservative Cotton Whigs dominated state politics with its control of the Boston delegation in the Massachusetts legislature. However, in 1850, members of the Free Soil Party, Conscience Whigs, and anti-slavery Democrats buried their differences and united on a slate of candidates across the state winning control of the State House. They soon announced their intention to nominate and elect Charles Sumner to the now-vacant Senate seat of Daniel Webster. 

For the Cotton Whigs it was Armageddon—the last desperate battle against the forces of lawlessness and greed, the last hope for peace and harmony. Anything less than victory at this crucial point, they feared, would mean the disappearance of those reasonable and objective men who were working to preserve the Union and prevent secession. Firmly convinced that a party system based on the slavery issue would lead to civil war, the Cotton Whigs saw that the subsequent withholding of cotton supplies, the disruption of credit, and the stock market collapse that would inevitably follow, would bring financial ruin to every textile mill in New England.

Between January and late April, the Massachusetts General Court voted 26 times in an attempt to elect a Senator.  On the final vote, Charles Sumner was elected by a single vote. In the days that followed, Cotton Whigs could be observed parading about Boston draped in black crepe. Political power in Massachusetts was now firmly in the hands of those who opposed slavery. Sumner was well aware of the maelstrom he was about to enter. Sumner was a close friend of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and his wife Fanny, ironically, the daughter of Cotton Whig Nathan Appleton. Upon Sumner’s election, Longfellow wrote "The papers are all ringing with Sumner, Sumner! the guns are thundering their triumph. Meanwhile the hero of the strife is sitting quietly here, more saddened than exalted.”  To Longfellow’s wife,  Sumner remarked” I have no joy in my responsibilities…Most unfeignedly do I wish that another was in my place.”⁶

Over the next several years a series of cascading events in Boston would escalate tensions locally and nationally. 

On February 15, 1851, 33-year-old Shadrach Minkins, a fugitive slave from Virginia, was arrested by US Marshals while working as a waiter at Taft’s Cornhill Coffee House, becoming the first fugitive slave in Massachusetts to be arrested under the new Fugitive Slave Act. Minkins was brought immediately to the Boston Court House where attorneys Robert Morris and Richard Henry Dana argued for a writ of habeas corpus which was denied by Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw. At this point, a group of twenty Black Bostonians, led by Lewis Hayden of the Boston Vigilance Committee, forcibly removed Minkins from the courtroom.  By evening he was hidden in an attic on Southac Street on the North Slope of Beacon Hill. Over the next several days Minkins would be moved from Boston to Cambridge, to Watertown, to Concord, and thence to Leominster arriving in Montreal on the 21st.

Letter from Shadrach Minkins thanking his friends in Boston.

In February of  1851, Thomas Sims, a fugitive slave from Georgia, stowed away on a brig sailing to Boston. Discovered as the ship entered Boston Harbor, Sims escaped and found refuge in the North End of Boston.  In early April, Sims’s owner, James Potter, sent agents to Boston seeking Simm’s arrest. Given the circumstances surrounding the recent escape of Shadrach Minkins, Simms was held in the Court House which was wrapped in chains and heavily guarded. The Boston Vigilance Committee devised several plans to rescue Simms to no avail. At a hearing, Commissioner George Ticknor Curtis remanded Simms back to the custody of his owner. Taking no chances, Simms was marched down to Long Wharf on the morning of April 21st to board the brig Acorn accompanied by over 200 armed escorts while large crowds shouted “Shame, Shame.” On April 18 The Liberator reported that Simms “…sable cheeks were bathed in tears, and although he evinced the deepest grief and sorrow, he marched with a firm and manly step, like a martyr and a hero, to his fate.”  

“Boston police and night watch conveying the 
fugitive slave, Sims, to the vessel.”
Anonymous engraver from the firm of Worcester & Co.

On June 2, 1854, 140 US Marines and a brigade of state militia marched fugitive slave Anthony Burns from the Boston Court House, down State Street to Long Wharf. 50,000 Bostonians thronged the streets in protest where many windows were draped in black to mourn the passing of Burns's freedom.  Several weeks earlier, on May 26th a mob had stormed the Court House where Burns was detained.  In the melee that ensued US Marshall, James Batchelder, was killed. Federal Marshall Watson Freemen received approval from President Franklin Pierce to bring Federal troops into Boston. No other event did more to galvanize the Boston community in the cause of abolition than Burns's rendition. Angered by the use of federal power, many who had once been ardent in their opposition to abolitionism were converted to the cause. No less a Boston Brahim than Amos Adams Lawrence declared that he and others “…went to bed one night old-fashioned, conservative, compromise Union Whigs & waked up stark mad Abolitionists.”

Rendition of Anthony Burns. 
Courtesy of the American Antiquarian Society

In 1854,  Senator Steven A. Douglas of Illinois, in an attempt to secure Chicago’s position as a possible hub for a transcontinental railroad, proposed an act in Congress that essentially repealed the Missouri Compromise, which banned slavery north of the 36° 30′ parallel. The Kansas Nebraska Act would create two new territories within each of which the newly created states would determine their status as free or slave by  the doctrine of popular sovereignty. The passage of the Act in May created a firestorm across the nation.  Partisans on both sides, Free Staters and Boarder Ruffians, stormed into Kansas to determine the status of Kansas by force of arms. Bleeding Kansas became the focus of the nation’s attention. That spring the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Company was formed with support from many leading Bostonians.  By July they had financed a company of 24 Free Staters who set off for Kansas. In the fall of 1855 two separate elections had formed two separate governments in Kansas, each of which petitioned Congress for admission to the Union. On May 19th Senator Charles Sumner rose in the Senate chamber to deliver his famous The Crime Against Kansas speech, in which he compared the situation in Kansas to “the rape of a virgin Territory, compelling it to the hateful embrace of Slavery.” Two days following, Sumner was attacked at his desk by Congressman Preston Brooks of South Carolina, who beat him unmercifully with a cane leaving him senseless on the floor. In testimony to how changed the political situation was in Boston,  Amos Lawrence invited Sumner to rest at his home upon his return to Boston, the very same Amos Lawrence who had worked furiously to prevent Sumner’s election in 1850.  

Coda

The five years following the canning of Sumner witnessed the birth of the Republican Party, the division of the Whig and Democratic parties along sectional lines, the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision,  and John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry. The nation had been brought to the brink of war, not by any one single event, but by a series of cascading events, the synergy of which made war all but inevitable, awaiting that one final event to ignite the nation.  That event occurred on November 6, 1860, with the election of Abraham Lincoln as president on a Republican ticket opposed to the expansion of slavery into any new states or territories.  On April 12, 1861, Confederate forces opened fire on Fort Sumpter. 

By December, the effects of secession were already felt in Boston with trade between North and South coming to a sudden halt. Mills were closing with disastrous effects on workers and the local economy. Conservatives such as Amos Lawrence and Nathan Appleton worked furiously, supporting various political compromises, hoping to avert war. Appleton lamented that the approaching catastrophe was due to “...an impracticable idea, a nonentity, connected with the institution of slavery.” In July of 1861, tragedy struck Nathan’s family with the accidental death of his beloved daughter Fanny when her clothing caught fire.  Nathan died the day after Fanny’s funeral. They were interred side by side in Mount Auburn Cemetery. 

Early in the war Lewis Hayden encouraged his close friend Governor John Andrew to consider the creation of an all-Black regiment to represent Massachusetts in the conflict. With the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, this became a reality with the creation of the Massachusetts 54th Infantry Regiment.  Hayden was an active recruiter for the regiment throughout the war.  His son was killed while in service with the Union Navy. In 1873, Hayden was elected to the Massachusetts General Assembly serving one term. He continued his activism accomplishing the closing of the Black segregated school on Beacon Hill, and was active in the cause of women’s suffrage.  Four years following his death in April 1889, his wife Harriet upon her death bequeathed the entirety of their estate to Harvard Medical School, establishing the "Lewis and Harriet Hayden Fund Hayden Scholarship for Colored Students.”  Harriet and Lewis were buried in Woodlawn Cemetery in Everett. 

It was 1859, four years after his caning on the Senate floor, before Sumner was healthy enough to return to the Senate. Throughout the war, he was a staunch advocate for the immediate emancipation of all slaves and the enlistment of Blacks into the Union forces.  After the war he was known as a Radical Reconstructionist, believing that the secessionist states should be treated as territories which must give equal voting rights to Blacks before their readmission to the Union. Sumner was co-author in 1870 of what became the Civil Rights Act of 1875 which forbade discrimination based on race in voting, transportation, and public accommodations, a law later overturned by the Supreme Court in 1883. It would not be until 1957 that another Civil Rights Bill would address these same issues. He died in Washington on March 11, 1874, aged 63, after a heart attack.  He was buried in Mount Auburn Cemetery. Acting as pallbearers that day were Oliver Wendell Holmes, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and John Greenleaf Whittier. 

In December of  1863 Garrison’s beloved wife, Helen, suffered a stroke, leading him to move his family to a new home that could accommodate her needs. A suitable house was found in the Roxbury Highlands, then a country suburb of Boston. In 1865, with the abolition of slavery, Garrison announced that the purpose of the American Anti-Slavery Society had been achieved and resigned as President, however, his resolution to dissolve the Society did not pass, leading to a rift between Garrison and Wendell Phillips that did not heal until 1873. Garrison ended publication of The Liberator at the end of 1865. He continued as an activist in the cause of civil rights, especially the women’s suffrage movement, serving as President of the American Women’s Suffrage Association and associate editor of the Women’s Journal. In January of 1876, Helen’s death from pneumonia precipitated a grief so deep that friends feared for his health and life. A long decline in Garrison’s health ensued ending with his death on May 24, 1879, at his daughter Fanny Garrison Villard’s home in Dobb’s Ferry, New York. His burial was at Forest Hills Cemetery in Jamaica Plain. In Washington D.C. Frederick Douglass delivered a eulogy at Garrison’s memorial service saying, "It was the glory of this man that he could stand alone with the truth, and calmly await the result.” Years later, his grandson, Oswald Garrison Villard, Fanny’s son, became a founding member of the NAACP.  

Suggested Readings 

 Blue, Frederick J.,  The Poet and the Reformer: Longfellow, Sumner, and the Bonds of Male Friendship, 1837-1874 Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Summer, 1995), pp. 273-297. 

Jacobs. Donald M., Ed., Courage and Conscience: Black & White Abolitionists in Boston, Bloomington: Published for the Boston Athenaeum by Indiana University Press 1993.  

Klee, Jeffrey. “Civic Order on Beacon Hill” Buildings & Landscapes Journal of the Vernacular Architecture Forum, January 2008. 

Litwak, Leon F. North of Slavery: The Negro in the Free States, 1790–1860, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1961.

Mayer, Henry. All on Fire: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition of Slavery, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998.
 
O’Connor, Thomas H. The Lords of the Loom: The Cotton Whigs and the Coming of the Civil War, New York: Charles Scribner’s & Sons, 1968.

Strangis, Joel. Lewis Hayden and the War Against Slavery, North Haven, Connecticut: Linnet Books, 1999. 

On-Line Resources 

Buildings of New England: Beacon Hill History, Link  

The Massachusetts Historical Society: Link  

National Park Service, Upon the Hill: The Beacon Hill Community: Link  

National Park Service, Virtual Black Heritage Trail: Link The West End Museum: Link  

James Williford, “The Agitator: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolitionists.” Humanities, January/February 2013, Volume 34, Number 1. Link

Footnotes 

1 .NilesWeeklyRegister45 (September 14, 1833):43, cited in Leon F. Litwack, North of Slavery: The Negro in the Free States, 1790–1860 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1961), 104.  

2. Thomas H. O’Connor, The Lords of the Loom: The Cotton Whigs and the Coming of the Civil War (New York: Charles Scribner’s & Sons, 1968), pp. 4 

3. David  J. Hacker, “From '20. and odd' to 10 million: The growth of the slave population in the United States.” Slavery & abolition vol. 41,4 (2020): 840-855. Link  

4. O’Connor, p. 35.
 
5. Ibid., p. 87. 6. Frederick J. Blue,  “The Poet and the Reformer: Longfellow, Sumner, and the Bonds of Male Friendship, 1837-1874,” Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Summer, 1995), pp. 273-297, Page 283.

 6. Frederick J. Blue,  “The Poet and the Reformer: Longfellow, Sumner, and the Bonds of Male Friendship, 1837-1874,” Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Summer, 1995), pp. 273-297, Page 283.  

 Growing The City-Annexation

May's Pond, Roxbury, Massachusetts 1858
By Samuel Lancaster Gerry, American, 1813–1891
 Courtesy Boston Museum of Fine Arts

Samuel Lancaster Gerry’s May’s Pond’s idyllic representation of rural Roxbury is characteristic of the American Romantic Movement and its celebration of nature.  On the heels of the Industrial Revolution and all the societal ills that followed, American artists and writers extolled the virtues of nature, unsullied by civilization. Endeavoring to evoke an emotional rather than rational response, James Fenimore Cooper,  Washington Irving, and other American Romantic writers celebrated nature and man in their primitive state.  In The Pioneers, the character Natty Bumppo describes an area near the Susquehanna River 

…where the rocks fall, for the best part of a thousand feet.
His companion Edwards asks him what he would see if he went there.
“Creation,” said Natty, dropping the end of his rod into the water, and sweeping one hand around him in a circle.


Artists such as Samuel Gerry, a member of the White Mountain School, and Thomas Cole of the Hudson Valley School appealed to a sense of the sublime in nature, evoking a romanticized landscapes of hazy vistas and picturesque mountains that were, in reality, rapidly disappearing, if they had ever existed in that pure state at all.
 
Henry David Thoreau’s two years at Walden Pond, 1845-1847, and his subsequent publication of Walden in 1854, exemplified the desire to embrace nature and reject the ills produced by an industrial world. Experiments in communal living and education, such as George Ripley’s Brook Farm in West Roxbury and Bronson Alcott’s Fruitlands in Harvard, attempted to demonstrate man’s self-sufficiency in a natural environment unencumbered by the constraints of urban life.  Others, wealthy but less adventurous, voiced their disdain for urban living by removing themselves a comfortable distance from the city to the growing but still rural suburbs. For Bostonians, this meant moving to West Roxbury, Brookline, Hyde Park, or Cambridge. Michael Rawson, professor of History at the City University of  New York, describes this phenomenon in Eden on the Charles: The Making of Boston.

The small towns surrounding Boston were developing as rapidly as the city, and around 1840…their residents began creating a new kind of community in nature that fit into neither of the traditional categories of rural and urban. Known by historians as the “romantic” or “pastoral” suburb, it was a residential community situated in a rustic setting from which a family’s breadwinner was expected to commute daily into the city for work. Romantic suburbs, at least in their idealized form, contained large homes on spacious lots and catered primarily to the domestic needs of well-off populations. ¹

Arthur Williams Austin, born in the City of Charlestown in 1807, attended Harvard College, graduating in 1825, and entered law practice specializing in managing the trusts of large estates. He was active in the civic life of his native Charlestown, reorganizing its fire department, serving as postmaster (1829-183), serving as chair of the Board of Selectmen, and helping the city investigate the burning of the Ursuline Convent in 1836. He was also a prominent opponent of the unsuccessful attempt to annex Charleston to Boston.  In 1839, having amassed sufficient income, he went into semi-retirement. In 1849, he moved to West Roxbury, then a part of Roxbury, where he “…sought recreation amid well-tilled fields, orchards planted by his own hands, waving harvests and pastures dotted over with flocks and herds. He accordingly selected one of the most wild, unsubdued, and romantic spots in the town of West Roxbury.” ⁴ As politically active in West Roxbury as he was in Charlestown, Austen led the movement to secede from Roxbury. In 1851, he was elected to West Roxbury’s first Board of Selectmen. In 1873, he led the opposition against the annexation of West Roxbury to Boston. In 1874, after West Roxbury became part of Boston, Austin moved to the Town of Milton, where he resided until his death in 1884. 

Arthur Williams Austin was born in Charlestown, Massachusetts, on March 16, 1807, to William and Charlotte Austin. A name that probably does not register with you. We recognize the names of Robert E. Lee, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, and John Greenleaf Whittier, who share the same birth year as Arthur, and we can find them and their contributions to American society in any standard United States History textbook.  During his lifetime, Austen was extolled as one “Descended from ancestors whose fame was National, educated among the true prophets of the Democracy, his speeches, writings, and acts are all in harmony with a genuine love for all parts of the Union. ² Sic transit gloria mundi.

Arthur W. Austin is an example of one of the many people who have played important roles during their lifetimes yet did not rise to the level of prominence that assures them a place in our national memory. Yet, they are there in the many public records that document their lives and those of their contemporaries. Taken collectively, these individuals, through their agency and influence in the community, created history.  Marcus Rediker, a historian at the University of Pittsburg, put it this way: 

History from below is essentially an approach to the past that concentrates not on the traditional subjects of history, not the kings and the presidents and the philosophers, but on ordinary working people, not simply for what they experienced in the past but for their ability to shape the way history happens.³   

In the case of Boston’s annexation of its neighboring suburbs in the late 1870s, the trajectory of Austin's life was emblematic of many who fled city life to enjoy life in the countryside. He was actively involved in the secession of West Roxbury from Roxbury in 1851 and strongly advocated against its annexation to the City of Boston in 1874. He was among thousands of Bostonians who chose to leave Boston, its congestion, its taxes, and its poverty behind and embrace the romantic idyll of country life in what have been called the pastoral suburbs. 

The Austin Farm , West Roxbury, circa 1870
Located near the junction of present-day Morton and Canterbury Streets opposite Franklin Park

This could be accomplished without any drastic change to one’s lifestyle since the new railroads and horse-drawn trolleys made the city accessible for employment and cultural pursuits. Yet, towards the end of his life, Arthur found himself amidst a popular clamor in the suburbs for the amenities of urban life: water systems, street lighting, fire departments, police departments, and street maintenance, all of them expensive and all of them just over the border in Boston.

 After 23 years as a separate town, West Roxbury voted to approve its annexation by Boston. Arthur found a new location more suitable to his tastes, a small town with a rural flavor just across the Neponset River in the Town of Milton. The move was not difficult, a short trip of two miles down Blue Hill Avenue. Without realizing it, Arthur was embarking on a rite of passage that succeeding generations of Bostonians would replicate. Over the next century, Irish, Jewish, and Black Bostonians would move along the axis of Blue Hill Avenue, from Lower Roxbury to Mattapan, establishing communities whose location changed as succeeding waves of new ethnic groups established themselves in Boston, but that is a story for another day. 

The history of the annexation movement in Boston reflects the constraints geography imposed upon its development. Insufficient space for industry and housing combined with an increasing population led to infilling every available estuary, inlet, and cove. By 1870, Boston’s landmaking efforts had reached their natural limit. Yet its population continued to grow almost exponentially. In ten short years, Boston’s population rose to 100,000 in 1845 and 250,000 in 1855. Irish immigrants living in dire poverty represented more than half of this increase, resulting in overcrowding and tenement-like conditions in the North End and Fort Hill areas. 

Fort Hill circa 1856
Courtesy Boston Public Library

While the available workforce increased dramatically, allowing a corresponding growth in industry, the demands made on the city’s infrastructure rapidly outpaced its ability to pay for them. Compounding this dilemma was the flight of Boston’s wealthiest citizens to the nearby suburbs, where they could enjoy the amenities of rural life without any obligation to pay taxes to support the city that sustained their wealth.  Among the financial industry, this phenomenon was quite startling; by 1850, almost fifty percent of the banking community had moved to the suburbs. At this point, Boston began actively promoting annexation of its neighboring suburbs.⁵

2052 Centre St. Jamaica Plain, circa late 1800s
Courtesy Boston Public Library

The desire to escape the poor reflected the dark side of the suburban ideal. Life on the urban borderland offered not only access to natural surroundings free from the dirt, noise, and congestion of the city, but also freedom from any obligation to assist with urban problems, especially support of the poor. In the idealized pastoral suburb, most of the population was wealthy, the taxes low, and public responsibilities minimal. Although we often associate the flight of affluent urbanites with the second half of the twentieth century, the process actually began a century before. It was an inherent part of the suburban ideal and was born with the residential suburb.The irony was that the middle- and upper-class residents of such places spent their weekdays helping to create the urban conditions they were fleeing. They were the industrialists who built the factories, the real estate speculators who owned the slums, the bankers who financed new development, and sometimes the clerks who kept the whole system running. The residents of upper Roxbury included men like James W. Converse, who owned one of Boston’s largest boot and leather manufactories and was president of the Mechanics’ Bank of Boston, and Franklin Greene Jr., a Boston merchant and insurance executive. Their professions contributed to Boston’s growth, but their wealth enabled them to outrun the more undesirable consequences of their labors

Excerpt From Michael Rawson, Eden on the Charles  Chapter 3 "Inventing The Suburbs"

Roxbury

Corner of Dudley and Warren Streets (Dudley Square) in 1856
Courtesy Trustees of the Boston Public Library

The disappearance of Boston Neck with the filling in of the Back Bay and the South Cove resulted in Lower Roxbury becoming physically indistinguishable from neighboring Boston. Densely populated and industrialized, it also experienced a shrinking tax base when Upper Roxbury successfully seceded to form the Town of West Roxbury in 1851. Centered around Jamaica Pond, West Roxbury’s rural landscape of rolling hills and farmlands was a popular destination for many who wished to emulate the life of the landed gentry.  For them, the inconveniences of country life were far outweighed by its advantages; besides, it was a short commute to Boston via the new Boston and Providence Railroad. 

 West Roxbury’s secession sparked a movement in Roxbury to take advantage of the municipal services so readily available just over the city line while limiting the loss of revenue with the departure of Upper Roxbury. As well as access to municipal water, sewer, and street lighting, many hoped that annexation would help stem the growth of the shanty towns in lower Roxbury by providing access to Boston’s poor houses, prisons, and hospitals. A spirited debate ensued between City officials who celebrated the virtues of an independent City government and those who advocated annexation. In 1851  the forces supporting annexation lost.  In his January 1852 address to the City Council, Mayor Samuel Walker celebrated the victory: 

I believe that the people of this city are capable of managing their own affairs and providing for their own wants and necessities, and I do not believe they are ready to surrender their independence and place themselves and their interests under the guardianship of any other people. I trust that so far as the people of this city have a voice in the matter, they will not permit the name of Roxbury to be blotted out from the map; and that we may long enjoy the rights and privileges inherited from our fathers, and like them, worship the living God in safety and in peace, at our own altars, under our own vine and figtree, with none to molest us or make us afraid.

Over the next decade and a half, advocates for annexation within both Boston and Roxbury continued to make their case. The conditions that had led to the original petition continued to worsen to the point that most opposition melted away. Another municipal committee appointed to study the question in 1867 reported back that

It is difficult to make a statement of the sanitary or industrial condition of one city, without also making a statement of the sanitary or industrial condition of the other city. The cities appear to us, in all respects, except in government, to be substantially one. The population of both are engaged in. kindred pursuits, and have kindred interests. Large numbers of them live on' one side of the line, and labor and do their business on the other.

In June 1867, the Massachusetts General Court passed a bill annexing Roxbury. Governor Bullock vetoed the bill on the grounds that such a momentous decision should not be made without the consent of the people involved in the matter. The vote was overwhelming. By a two-to-one margin, nearly 2000 citizens voted to join Boston. In a single day, Boston had doubled its size.

Plan of the town of Dorchester, 1870,   Thomas W. Davis
Courtesy of Norman B. Leventhal Map Center 

With Roxbury's annexation, momentum increased for further annexations. Dorchester was the first to petition the General Court following a referendum on June 22, 1869. Dorchester had lost much of its original territory with the succession of Milton, Stoughton, and Hyde Park, and like Roxbury, its increasing population and urbanization created a demand for the municipal services that Boston could better provide. In January of 1870, Dorchester joined Boston, adding an additional 4,532 acres, once again doubling Boston’s size. Two years later, in 1873, a bill was introduced into the legislature proposing the annexation of West Roxbury, Brighton, Charlestown,  and  Brookline. 

Map of Boston 1875 : from A. Williams & Cos
Courtesy Norman B. Leventhal Map Center

While the referendums in Brighton and Charlestown passed easily, the proposal faced steep opposition in both West Roxbury and Brookline, ultimately passing in West Roxbury but not in Brookline. The different results in these two communities reflected the decisive role played by the Irish population in each.
  
West Roxbury’s Irish population had continued to grow since its incorporation as a town in 1851. By 1874, their numbers were sufficient to affect the vote to unite with Boston. Wealthier gentry, such as Arthur Austin, living in the rural areas of the town, continued in their opposition, arguing for the superiority of a town-meeting form of government with its local control, disputing the need for the services Boston could provide, and raising fears of all the urban ills that would flow from joining Boston. The working-class Irish of the town were primarily concerned with how the decision would affect employment.  From their point of view, union with Boston made sense. With all of its municipal projects, the growing city of Boston would provide more employment opportunities than a smaller, self-contained rural West Roxbury.  When it came to a vote on October 7, 1873, fifty-four percent of voters chose annexation. 

Matters took quite a different turn in Brookline when, in January of 1880, voters chose two to one to reject annexation. Although Brookline had experienced growth similar to that of West Roxbury, there was a significant difference between the two.  Brookline's leaders were supportive of the urban amenities that residents desired, creating transportation, water, sewer, police, and school systems of the highest quality. The town officials closely monitored development, requiring large lots amenable to large estates and maintaining Brookline's rural nature. Access to municipal services was dependent on meeting these stringent requirements, and developers followed suit. Brookline's Irish population living near the northern border with Boston saw the advantages of living in a town that promoted growth and job opportunities, and they voted accordingly.
 
Michael Rawson's Eden on the Charles describes the effects of Boston’s growth and the creation of pastoral suburbs surrounding it.

The independent pastoral suburb was more than just a new kind of place. It represented a new set of relationships between people and nature. By gathering the most desirable characteristics of a rural past and an urbanizing present, the residents of edge communities like Brookline invented a suburban future. Their social and environmental middle ground combined the spacious natural settings and rural governmental institutions of the countryside with the comfort and convenience of urban technologies. This suburban blend is such a central part of American life today that it might be tempting to see the rise of the suburb as inevitable or even “natural.” But that was not the case. Pastoral suburbs remained largely unknown outside of England and America until well into the twentieth century. Seemingly overnight, however, they became fundamental components of the American metropolis, together with the deeply appealing relationship to the natural world that they embodied.

The ideas about nature and society that inspired the pastoral suburb had also helped to create other new lines that partitioned the metropolitan area into discreet political, environmental, and social enclaves. The lines ran between town meetings and representative governments, between rural and urban, between rich and poor, and between native-born Protestants and foreign-born Catholics. Although porous and moveable, such lines have continued to define Boston into the present day.⁸ 

Suggested Readings 

Binford, Henry C., The First Suburbs: Residential Communities on the Boston Periphery, 1815–1860, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.
 
Jackson, Kenneth T., Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1985.

 Knights, Peter R., The Plain People of Boston, 1830–1860, New York: Oxford University Press, 1971.

 Rawson, Michael. Eden on the Charles: The Making of Boston, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010.
 
Warner, Sam Bass, Jr., Streetcar Suburbs: The Process of Growth in Boston, 1870–1900, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978. 

Footnotes 

1. Michael Rawson, Eden on the Charles: The Making of Boston, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010), Chapter 3: “Inventing the Suburbs,” Apple iBook edition.

2. Arthur Williams Austin (1807-1884) Massachusetts. "A lawyer of Boston.” [Oscar Fay Adams, A Dictionary of American Authors 13 (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1899)], pp-307-10. From: https://lawlit.net/lp-2001/austin.html

3. Carl Grey Martin and Modhumita Roy, “Narrative Resistance: A Conversation with Historian Marcus Rediker Cultural Logic: Marxist Theory & Practice, 2015-2017 (Whole Number 22), pp. 54-70, p.56 

 4. Arthur Williams, op. cit. pp. 307-310.
 
5. Michael Rawson, Chapter 3, Inventing the Suburbs, Apple iBook edition.

 6. “Address of the Hon. Samuel Walker, mayor, to the City Council of Roxbury: delivered before the two branches in Convention, January 5, 1852,”(Roxbury: Thomas Pringe, city printer. 1852), p.16.
 
7 . “City of Roxbury, Report of the Commissioners Appointed by the City Councils of the Cities of Boston and Roxbury, Respectively, on the Union of the Two Cities Under One Municipal Government, Roxbury City Document No. 3 (Boston: Wright and Potter, 1867), p. 11.”

8. Michael Rawson, Chapter 3 Inventing the Suburbs, Apple iBook edition.

A Streetcar Metropolis

First Electric Trolley Boston 1889

Boston's First Electric Trolley, 1889
Courtesy Historic New England

Pictured above is the first electric trolley in Boston, about to start its run heading down Beacon Street towards its final destination at Chestnut Hill Reservoir on January 1, 1889. Prior to 1889, horse-drawn trolleys had provided service in the greater Boston area. By 1880, over 7000 horses and 1400 trolleys were servicing Boston and its suburbs. Electrification represented a quantum leap in speed and reliability, transforming Boston Proper from a centralized pedestrian city, in which one lived as well as worked, into a center of business and manufacturing surrounded by a metropolitan suburban area from which the working and middle classes would commute to work in Boston.

Urban Historian Sam Bass Warner Jr., who pioneered the study of these transformative effects in  Streetcar Suburbs , describes the motivation behind this migration from the city to suburb. 

For the middle class of the late nineteenth century the rural ideal was one positive element in a complex of conditions which shifted people's attitude from being favorable to being hostile to city life. The physical deterioration of old neighborhoods, the crowding of factory, shop, and tenement in the old central city, the unceasing flow of foreigners with ever new languages and habits-these negative pressures tended to drive the middle class from the city. The new technology of the street railway and the contemporary sanitary engineering enabled these families to move out from the old city boundaries into an expanded area of vacant and lightly settled land. In this new land the rural ideal, by its emphasis on the pleasures of private family life, on the security of a small community setting, and on the enjoyment of natural surroundings, encouraged the middle class to build a wholly new residential environment: the modern suburb.¹

Henry Whitney, president of the Metropolitan Steamship Company and president of the West End Land Company, was largely responsible for the creation of Boston's trolley car suburbs. Whitney bought vacant lots along Beacon Street, Brookline, which at that point was not much more than a rural lane connecting Boston to the western suburbs. An astute businessman, he correctly understood the relationship between property values and transportation.  He convinced the Town of Brookline to permit the creation of a 160-foot-wide boulevard with a tree-lined median strip containing tracks for the trolleys of his newly formed railway company.  When other railway companies objected to the project, Whitney formed a syndicate in 1886 and bought them out, forming the West End Street Railway Co. which controlled over 200 miles of track in Greater Boston. To execute his Beacon Streeet plan, Whitney hired landscape architect William Law Olmstead to design the boulevard, which remains largely intact today.​ The surge in land values along this route led to the sale of lots and the construction of homes for wealthy and upper-middle-class individuals who wanted to enjoy the pleasures of a pastoral suburb within commuting distance of Boston's financial and banking districts.

Henry Whitney Brookline Land Speculator

Henry Whitney 1839-1923

Beacon Street Brooklline 1887

Beacon St. in 1887, before Whitney's conversion of Beacon Street into a boulevard. This view, just above Coolidge Corner where Marion Street enters on the left just below Corey Hill, shows the pastoral nature of Brookline before the trolley opened it up to development.  Photo Courtesy of the Public Library of Brookline

Beacon Street Brookline 1887 Construction

Beacon Street at Coolidge Corner looking east after construction began in April 1887. The Coolidge Brothers Store to the left is now the location of the S.S. Pierce Building built in 1898. The trolley line and the ensuing development attracted high-end businesses such as S. S. Pierce that catered to the wealthy residents flocking to the area. P hoto courtesy of the Public Library of Brookline.

Beacon Street Brookline 1897 Coolidge Corner

Beacon Street at Coolidge Corner looking West in 1897. Corey Hill is in the background.  The Coolidge Brothers Store is still in place but was demolished to make way for the new S.S. Pierce Building the following year.​ In ten short years, a pastoral lane had been transformed into a major boulevard with a direct link to Boston, allowing the rapid development of Brookline. During this period Brookline's population grew by almost 250 percent, from 8,057 in 1880 to 19,995 in 1900. Photo courtesy of the Public Library of Brookline.

The later part of the nineteenth century was a golden age for Boston.  Despite the economic setbacks of the Civil War Years, the  Great Fire of 1872,  and the Long Depression of 1873-79, the city’s population grew.  From a population of 250,000 in 1870, the city reached a population of over 560,000 by 1900. A significant percentage of this increase resulted from a new wave of immigration in the 1880s from Eastern Europe, Canada, and Italy. While some dispersed rapidly into the outlying metropolitan area or beyond, most settled in the traditional immigrant neighborhoods of the North, South, and West Ends. ​ Previous tenants of these areas, principally the Irish working class, aspiring to join the middle class, moved outward into the newly annexed towns of Roxbury, Dorchester, and West Roxbury. These areas have been termed zones of emergence. The electric trolley's effect on the population's movement out of the city is illustrated in the map below, adapted from Warner's  Streetcar Suburbs.

Metropolitan Boston Area Map

Boston was a pedestrian city in 1850. Except for the very wealthy, who could afford to purchase and maintain a horse and carriage, walking was the principal means of transportation. By necessity the working and middle classes lived within a two-mile radius of downtown Boston. With the advent of the horsecar trolley in 1852, moving as far as three miles from the city center and commuting to work became practical.  Development of trolley lines proceeded rapidly producing a flurry of land speculation along their routes.  By 1890, horsecar routes had reached a distance of four miles from downtown Boston. Henry Whitney’s introduction of electrified trolleys in 1889 extended this limit to ten miles, opening a vast area of the pastoral suburbs to development. Railway companies extended lines far out into the suburbs in an attempt to stimulate land development and increase their revenues. In several instances, amusement and recreational facilities were erected at the end of the line to encourage city dwellers to spend leisure time in the country. The Commonwealth Street Railway Company built  Norumbega Park in 1897 with a zoo, dining pavilions, and amusement rides. 

Norumbega Trolley Car 1900

Norumbega Trolley circa 1900
Courtesy Newton Free Libary

With a few exceptions, the development of new neighborhoods in Boston reflected the city's social hierarchy. The wealthiest five percent generally moved furthest from the city center, establishing large homes and estates in rural areas. The middle class, representing fifteen percent of the population, settled in areas three to six miles outside the city and built single and two-family homes. The lower middle class comprised twenty to thirty percent of the population and occupied the area just outside the walking city. The high demand for housing in this zone led to skyrocketing land values, resulting in the construction of multiple and single homes on very small lots to maintain affordability. Recent immigrants and the poor continued to live in the core pedestrian city or the former neighborhoods of the lower middle class. This often resulted in the subdivision of homes into apartments, which increased population density and degraded the quality of the properties over time. This pattern typically repeated itself as each new wave of people moved outward.²

The process of converting rural estates and farmland into housing lots involved multiple parties, whose composition varied from one area to another. In most cases, land speculators purchased large areas, which they then sold to a local developer. The developer would divide the parcel into blocks of streets. Minimum zoning requirements were non-existent during this period. Once the streets were laid out, the City of Boston would provide water and sewer services. As lots were occupied, private utility companies quickly followed suit, extending gas, electric, and telephone service to the street. After the city had accepted the street, the developer would sell lots to individuals who built their own homes, or to various builders who would build homes on speculation, or in some cases, he might subcontract out to local carpenters who would build to individual buyers specifications.

 The financial arrangements for these transactions were incredibly complex, involving multiple mortgages and liens with various developers, banks, and insurance companies. Unlike today, these mortgages were not amortizing but rather simple one to five-year mortgages with fixed interest rates which were often refinanced.
  
The size of the lots and the quality of the building varied according to the income class of the area. Builders in low and middle-income areas tended to adopt the architectural styles of popular buildings in wealthier areas, adjusting scale and architectural detail to accommodate the lower purchase prices of their units. According to Werner, the net effect was the creation of “class-segregated suburbs,” each with its “own special architectural and social patterns.”³ 

 ​ As you would expect, development followed the railroad routes clustering near fixed stations or, in the case of trolley lines, more linearly since trolleys stopped at any point along their route to pick up passengers. In the latter case, this sometimes resulted in a patchwork effect where a new block of homes would be surrounded by undeveloped farmland. This type of development often resulted in a neighborhood with no well-defined center, such as found in older communities where village centers coalesced around a crossroads, such as Coolidge Corner or Brookline Village.
 
When merchants built in these areas, their stores lined the central thoroughfare in a linear fashion without any particular relationship to the homes in the surrounding area. The net result was the creation of neighborhoods of similarly sized single detached homes on fairly well-sized lots that mimicked the pastoral suburb of wealthier neighborhoods. If not actually rural, the new homeowner at at least the illusion of being in or near the country, of course, it did not take long for further development to destroy this illusion.⁴

 To demonstrate the points mentioned above, we will examine a specific neighborhood that emerged in West Roxbury from 1870 to 1900. Today, this area is the location of the intersection of South Street, Centre Street, and the West Roxbury Parkway. For a more comprehensive analysis, I recommend referring to Warner’s book Streetcar Suburbs, which offers a detailed exploration of Roxbury, Dorchester, and West Roxbury. 

Our story begins in 1711, when the newly established Second Parish of Roxbury built its first meeting house near Walter Street, near what is now the Arboretum. Over time, the meeting house deteriorated and needed severe repairs. In 1773, the congregation voted to move further west and rebuild at the junction of Centre and South Streets in a rural area of West Roxbury. Today, Holy Name Church occupies the approximate location of the Meeting House.

First Parish Unitarian West Roxbury 1885

First Parish West Roxbury, Unitarian, Circa 1885
Courtesy of the Boston Public Library

John Bradford was called by the congregation and ordained minister on May 30, 1785. He served thirty-eight years until his retirement in 1823. In that same year, the Norfolk County Registry of Deeds shows that John Bradford purchased several tracts of land from Samuel Dexter for eight hundred dollars. Hale's 1833 Map of Boston shows this parcel adjacent to the Meeting House. Upon Bradford’s death in 1825, the land passed  to his wife Mary and then to their son, Samuel Dexter Bradford, upon Mary’s death in 1828. That John choose to name his son Samuel Dexter Bradford implies a close relationship between the two families. 

Hales Map of Boston 1833

Hales Map of Boston, 1833, showing
 the Meeting House and Bradford Estate

Samuel Dexter Bradford, a Harvard graduate and lawyer, was prominent in local and national affairs. In local politics he, together with Arthur Austin, were petitioners for the incorporation of West Roxbury as a separate town in 1851.  Politically conservative , he was dismayed by Charles Sumner's election to represent Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate. As a delegate to the Democratic Convention in Baltimore of 1852, he enthusiastically endorsed the selection of Franklin Pierce, a moderate centrist, to lead their ticket as well as the party’s platform which  supported the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

The 1850 US Census listed his occupation as “farmer.” In addition to himself, his wife Julia, and two sons, there are listed six other residents on his estate: one farmer, William Taylor of England, five laborers, two from Maine, one from England, and two from Ireland, all thirty years of age or younger.  This is the portrait of a wealthy gentleman farmer who has the means to employ and support a large household while he is otherwise occupied. Upon his death in 1865 his estate was valued at $1,500,000.  His wife inherited the estate's property as well as yearly interest from a $300,000 trust.

Samuel Dexter Bradford 1795-1865

Samuel Dexter Bradford
1795- 1865

There are no extant photos of the Bradford estate, but maps indicate that its entrance was on South Street, quite close to the location of Bradford Circle today. Reverend Theodore Parker, transcendentalist, abolitionist, and pastor of Second Parish Roxbury, had his residence further south on Spring Street. Parker’s home represents the type of home built during the first half of the nineteenth century in West Roxbury. The rural nature of the area was described by Samuel D. Bradford in a nostalgic remembrance of his childhood at his father’s “mansion.” 

The appearance of things, around the mansion of my kind and most excellent father, in Roxbury, was very different then from that presented now. The house was almost surrounded by woods. Very little of the land was cleared or cultivated. Rabbits and wild squirrels were very abundant, not to mention other animals of a less pleasing description, which made sad havoc in the poultry yard. The woods were filled with wild pigeons, partridges, woodcocks, and quails, holding out such inducements for boys addicted to hunting, (as all such sports were then called,) as cannot be readily conceived of at the present time, when the forests are gone, the ground shot over by so many people, and almost without game of any kind. Like other boys of my age, I passed most of my time in the woods, with my dog and my gun.

Theodore Parker House West Roxbury 1895

Parker House near Spring & Centre Streets. Circa 1895 
Courtesy Boston Public Library

In the twenty-five years after Samuel Bradford's death in 1865, the land left to his wife Julia passed through several stages of development.  We know that in 1868, Julia consolidated her late husband’s estate with the purchase of land from her two sons, Samuel Jr. and John, each for the sum of $10,000. In the following year, 1869, Julia Bradford sold land from her estate to Arthur Austin of West Roxbury and Paschal Turney of New York City, the first for $35,000 and the second for $10,000. Whether this constituted the entirety of her estate is not known.  Both men were executors of her husband’s estate, and in the case of Austin, we know that he was a prominent lawyer and land speculator in Norfolk County. All we know of Turney is that he was a prominent New York attorney and married Anne Whitney of West Roxbury in 1859, it is likely that he, as well as Austin, was also a close associate of Samuel Bradford both having been chosen as executors of his estate. 
 
The map below shows the plan for her estate in the year 1874, which does not reflect the recent sales of 1869. 

By 1890, Bromley's Atlas of Boston shows that parts of the Bradford Estate north and south of Centre Street had been subdivided. Each lot is numbered, and the block street pattern has been laid out. Lots that have been built on are indicated by a shaded footprint and the owner's name.  At this stage of development, most of the lots are in the possession of the heirs of Julia Bradford. Several individuals have purchased adjacent groups of lots for development but have not sold them as yet.  Principally among these are William Muscular, Robert Farquhar, and H. Hutchins.  All of this reflects the pattern of development that we have described earlier, sales to single owners and speculators.

Bromley Atlas of West Roxbury - 1890
Courtesy of the Boston Public Library

In six years, Bromley's Atlas of 1896 shows considerable change. Whereas there were ten homes in 1890, there are now forty.  A new developer, Albert W. Cooke, purchased all available lots north of Centre Street from the Bradford estate.  It is interesting to note that there is one larger lot of land on the south side of Centre Street belonging to Ellen George, which was not part of the original Bradford estate and has remained intact throughout the development process, a remnant of the older, more rural West Roxbury surrounded by a growing development.   

Bromley Atlas of West Roxbury - 1896
Courtesy of the Boston Public Library

The advertisement above appeared in Boston newspapers in April of 1896. Placed by the Bradford Land Company, it announced a public auction of lots in The Bradford Estate.  The advertisement as a whole captures the flavor of the times, complete with a photograph of an auctioneer asking Shall I Strike A Lot Off To You. Notice that one of the advantages of this estate is its proximity to railroad stations and a trolley line. Buyers are also encouraged to consider this as an investment that will be “worth double very soon” in “the ideal home-spot of Boston.” This, and scores of advertisements like it, reflected the surge in development that occurred in the late eighteen hundreds in the outer perimeter between three and ten miles of Boston proper

Bromley's Atlas of West Roxbury - 1914
Courtesy of the Boston Public Library

The auction was successful. Nine years later, very few lots are available in ​The Bradford Estates.  ​In the eight years since the auction,  an additional 180 homes have been constructed. Most vacant lots were owned by individuals who have yet to build. Only on Knoll Street are there sections of adjacent lots still in the hands of developers.  Ellen George remained in her large home.  We can only guess her thoughts as she surveyed the neighborhood she lived in until her death in 1912 at ninety-four years of age.   And that is the question which Sam Werner raises in  Streetcar Suburbs:

Aside from class segregation there was nothing in the process of late nineteenth century suburban construction that built communities or neighborhoods: it built streets. The grid plan of the suburbs did not concern itself with public life. It was an economically efficient geometry which divided large parcels of land as they came on the market. The arrangement of the blocks of the grid depended largely upon what farm or estate came on the market at what time. The result was not integrated communities arranged about common centers, but a historical and accidental traffic pattern.⁶

He continues:

 The inattention of late nineteenth century Bostonians to the fragmentation of their community life was not an accidental oversight, it was a matter of principle, the principle of individualistic capitalism. Above all else the streetcar suburbs stand as a monument to a society which wished to keep the rewards of capitalist competition open to all its citizens. Despite ignorance and prejudice, during this period of mass immigration, the suburbs remained open to all who could meet the price. ⁷ 

Slide Show: Homes were built in the Early 1900s on the former Bradford estate.

Suggested Readings

Fishman, Robert. Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia. New York: Basic Books, 1987.

Harmon, Lawrence and Levine, Hillel. The Death of an American Jewish Community:  A Tragedy of Good Intentions. New York: The Free Press, 1993.
 
Jackson, Kenneth T. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. New York: Oxford, 1985.

O’Connell,  James C. The Hub's Metropolis: Greater Boston's Development from Railroad Suburbs to Smart Growth. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2013 Warner, Sam Bass Jr. Streetcar Suburbs: Process of Growth in Boston, 1870-1900. 2nd ed., Harvard University Press, 1978. 

Footnotes

1. Sam Bass Warner, Jr. Streetcar Suburbs: Process of Growth in Boston, 1870-1900, (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2nd. Ed. 1978), pp. 51-2.

 2. Ibid. pp.,102-118.

3.  Ibid, p. 117.

4. Ibid. p.92
 
5. Samuel Dexter Bradford,  LL.D. Works of Samuel Dexter Bradford, LL.D, (Boston, Phillips, Sampson & Co. 1958), p. iv.

6.  Warner, p. 239.
 
7. Warner, p. 241 




Return To Top

The Last Stop
C'est fini!

Fama Clamosa (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Avalonia-480Ma.jpg), „Avalonia-480Ma“, added arrow and place name by David Moore,