USA > Maryland > Cecil County > Portrait and biographical record of Harford and Cecil counties, Maryland. Containing portraits and biographical sketches of prominent and representative citizens of the counties. Together with biographies and portraits of all the presidents of the United States > Part 73
USA > Maryland > Harford County > Portrait and biographical record of Harford and Cecil counties, Maryland. Containing portraits and biographical sketches of prominent and representative citizens of the counties. Together with biographies and portraits of all the presidents of the United States > Part 73
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74
The history of Maryland is best told in the lives of the people. Their prosperity has meant her advancement, and their suffering her adver- sity. The character and progress of a state is largely dependent upon its first settlers. The people of New England may in some measure owe the characteristics for which they are noted to the influence of climate and environment, but to a large extent they are due to the all-permeating influences of ancestry, by which is moulded, for weal or woe, the destiny of generations yet to come. The people of Pennsylvania, also, still
bear in their characters the impress of their Quaker forefathers, while the enterprise of the citizens of New York to-day is largely inherited from their ancestors, the thrifty and energetic pioneers of New Amsterdam. Very appropri- ately, then, we may review the history of the early settlement of Maryland; and from the rec- ords of its pioneers gain an insight into the traits that characterize their descendants of to-day.
LORD BALTIMORE.
George Calvert, Baron of Baltimore, was born in Yorkshire, England, in 1582. When a young man he became secretary to Sir Robert Cecil, later was made clerk to the privy council, and ultimately served as secretary of state to James I. This position, however, he resigned in 1624, be- cause of his conversion to the Roman Catholic religion. In 1625 he was given the title of Baron of Baltimore, in the kingdom of Ireland. During his secretaryship he obtained a grant of the province of Avalon, Newfoundland, and made an effort to secure a settlement there, but failed. Be- lieving that he could succeed in a more favorable climate, he visited Virginia, and was immediately impressed by the facilities presented for settlement upon the Chesapeake Bay. Returning to Eng- land, he obtained a grant of the province of Mary- land from King Charles, but early in 1632, when his charter was ready for passage under the great seal, he died, and the grant was inherited by his son, Cecilius Calvert, to whom the charter of Maryland was granted, June 20, 1632.
The granting of Maryland to Lord Baltimore aroused the indignation of Virginian colonists,
..
584
EARLY DAYS OF MARYLAND.
owing to the fact that the land lay within the limits of Virginia according to its charter govern- ment, and they still considered it a part of their possessions, although the original charter had been annulled and the colony was under royal government after 1625. Some of the residents of the Old Dominion presented a petition to the house of commons, asking for the restoration of the ancient patents, but the governor and council of the colony remonstrated against a change of charter, and the king's reply, in July, 1642, allayed whatever fears they may have had on the subject. In 165S the province of Maryland was surrendered to Fendall, the proprietary's gover- nor, after which nothing more is heard concern- ing Virginia's claim of Maryland.
BOUNDARY DISPUTES.
While, however, there was no further trouble regarding the claim, its territorial limits continued for many years to be the source of constant con- tention. Not only were there frequent disputes with Virginia as to the location of Watkin's Point, upon which depended the boundary line between the eastern shores of Virginia and Maryland, but there was also considerable controversy with William Penn about the northern and eastern boundaries. When James, Duke of York, and a friend of Penn, came to the throne, the latter pre- sented an application for a new grant, and met with success, for in November, 1685, the com- missioners of trades and plantations, to whom the matter had been referred, decided that Lord Bal- timore's grant included only " lands uncultivated and inhabited by savages, and that the territory along the Delaware had been settled by Christians antecedent to his grant, and was therefore not in- cluded within it," and they directed that the peninsula between the two bays should be divided into two equal parts by a line drawn from the latitude of Cape Henlopen to the fortieth degree of north latitude; and that the western portion belonged to Baltimore and the castern to Penn.
When the government of England was taken . from the hands of James and given to William of Orange, the anti-Catholic feeling that had been · fostered by attending circumstances, extended to
the province of Maryland, and a Protestant asso- ciation was formed by John Coode and otliers, to supersede the proprietary government, which ob- ject they attained in 1689; but the next year it was taken from them and afterward remained a royal government until 1716. A compact was entered into, May 10, 1732, between Lord Balti- more and John, Richard and Thomas Penn, the sons of William Penn by his last marriage. This agreement provided that the boundaries should consist of a line beginning at the easternmost part of Cape Henlopen, and running due west to the exact middle of the peninsula at that point, and of a line running from that middle point to the north, forming a tangent to a circle drawn around Newcastle, with a radius of twelve miles. In adjusting the boundary between Maryland and Pennsylvania, the agreement provided that it should begin, not at the fortieth degrce of lati- tude as previously provided, but at a latitude fif- teen * English statute miles south of the most southerly part of Philadelphia. However, the commissioners appointed to carry out this agree- ment were of such different opinions that further negotiations became impossible. Finally, in May, 1738, it was decided to run a temporary line, to be used until the final adjustment was made, and the following year this provisional line was actually run.
The final decision regarding the boundary was still a matter of doubt when Charles, Lord Balti- more, died, in April, 1751, and it was left to his heir, Frederick, to bring to a culmination the plans for the adjustment of the permanent bound- ary, which was finally decided upon by com- missioners, appointed for the purpose, and who were engaged in the performance of their duty from November 19, 1760, to November 9, 1768.
EARLY SETTLEMENTS.
The first settlements within Maryland, made under the proprietary, were at and near St. Mary's City, and were made in 1633-34. Prior to this a small settlement had been made on Kent Island, which, after Clayborne's rebellion, was brought into submission and formed the nucleus of the eastern shore settlements. For some years
-
585
EARLY DAYS OF MARYLAND.
afterward these two points were the only settle- ments in the province, and they formed the nucleus from which sprang other settlements. Talbot County was erected in 1661, Somerset in 1666, Cecil in 1674, Dorchester in 1669, Queen Anne in 1706, Worcester in 1742 and Caroline in 1773. About 1659 Baltimore County was formed out of the territory north of Anne Arundel, and a proclamation June 6, 1674, declared that its southern boundaries should be "the south side of Patapsco River, and from the highest planta- tions on that side of the river, due south two miles into the woods." Cecil County was erected in 1674, by the proclamation of the governor, Charles Calvert, its boundaries being described as extending "from the mouth of the Susquehanna River down the eastern side of the bay to Swan point; thence to Hell point, and so up Chester River to the head thereof." These bounds,
slightly varied a few days afterward, remained until the act of 1706, which enacts that "Cecil County shall contain all the lands on the north side of the Sassafras River and Kent County, and shall be bounded on the east and north by the bounds of the province, on the west by the Sus- quehanna and the bay, and on the south by the Sassafras River and Kent County. Harford County was created in 1773, by an act which de- clares that "its bounds shall begin at the mouth of the Little Falls of Gunpowder River, and run thence with said falls to the fountain head; thence north to the line of the province; thence with that line to the Susquehanna River; thence with that river to the Chesapeake Bay; thence with the bay, including Spesutia and Pool's Islands, to the mouth of Gunpowder River; and thence up said river to the beginning."
THREE HISTORICAL EPOCHS.
The history of Maryland up to the Revolution naturally divides itself into three periods. The first of these extends from the first settlement to 1688, when events were shaping themselves to- ward the formation of the Protestant association. 'The second epoch extends from 1688 to the res- , toration of proprietary power in 1715, and the third period from that time to the treaty con-
cluded in Paris, in 1763. During the one hin- dred and thirty years comprised within these three epochs, the colony had developed from its incipiency to a prosperous commonwealth. In- dians had disappeared before the advance of civil- ization. Cities had been built, and forests trans- formed into beautiful plantations, where men and women labored happily and successfully. Settle- ments had been enlarged and extended, and com- mercial resources had been developed. Upon the fair name of the state is no stain of religious per- secution, no stigma of the exercise of tyrannical power over the red men of the forest. It was the policy of the men who shaped the government to protect all who were under it, and hence persecu- tion was almost unknown in the province. "The annals of Maryland," in the words of Dr. Ram- say, "are barren of those striking events which illustrate the page of history. This is probably the reason that so little of its history has been published. Its internal peace in the period of infancy was but little disturbed, either by Indians or insurgents, though not wholly exempt from either. Its early settlers loved their king and their proprietary. They were not given to change, but attached to ancient forms, their na- tive country and its constitution."
By those who are familiar with the early his- tory of America it will be remembered that the majority of people who sought homes here did so in the hope of securing religious freedom. For a somewhat similar reason were the men influenced who became the pioneers of Maryland. George Calvert was an adherent to the doetrines of the Roman Catholic Church, and while he stood in favor with the king, his religion was proscribed and embarrassment to himself ensued. Without doubt, his thoughts must have often turned to a country where he might have freedom to wor- ship as the dictates of his conscience directed. He visited Virginia, but found there the same intol- erance to Catholicism exhibited in his native land. Then it was that he was attracted to the land lying on both sides of Chesapeake Bay, a land that seemed unexcelled for fertility of soil and beauty of climate, and a land that was as yet unclaimed. His ambitious spirit prompted him
.
586
EARLY DAYS OF MARYLAND.
to attempt to found a settlement here, and had it not been for his untimely death he would have witnessed the triumph of his undertaking, the success of his enterprise. The spirit which prompted him, and the energy characteristic of his every action, were inherited by his son, Cecilius, who, unable to accompany the expedi- tion in person, consigned it to the care of his brother, Leonard.
THE PILGRIMS OF MARYLAND.
November 22, 1633, about two hundred per- sons took passage from tlie Isle of Wight, en route to the new world, taking with them all their worldly possessions, and a large stock of courage and hope, without which such an expedition would have soon failed. The most of the voy- ageurs were Roman Catholics, and some were gen- . tlemen of wealth. It was on the 24th of Febru- ary, 1634, when, weary with the long voyage upon the ocean, they landed at Point Comfort, Va., and from there they sailed up the Potomac in search of a site for the colony. They journeyed up St. Mary's River about seven miles, until they came to an Indian town, Yaocomoco. The first act of the governor, Leonard Calvert, was to purchase the town front the Indians and secure their consent to his residence within it. March 27, 1634, the pilgrims of Maryland landed at Yao- comoco and laid the foundations of the old town of St. Mary's and of the present commonwealth. At the expense of the proprietary, the colony was provided with implements for farming, pro- visions and clothing, and material for the erection of houses. During the first few years of its es- tablishment, the proprietary expended upon it about forty thousand pounds sterling. His kind- ness, however, was not limited to the gift of money and materials. What was far better, his policy of government was exceptionally good, and . aroused the confidence of the settlers as well as secured their happiness. The freemen were con- vened in assembly, and were made to realize tliat the government was their own. Religious lib- erty was allowed. Courts of justice were intro- duced and the administration of law was strict
and firin. For seven years the colony prospered, and when trouble arose, it was from without, not from within. The succeeding years were years of strife, occasioned largely by the hostile acts of William Clayborne, whose name is identified with almost every act of hostility to Maryland during the first twenty-five years of its settlement. In July, 1656, Josias Fendall was commissioned governor by the proprietary, and the province formally surrendered to him, March 20, 1658. However, his rule was of short duration, and proprietary government was again established.
In 1662 Charles Calvert was sent to the prov- ince as its governor, and he continued to reside there until the death of his father, Cecilius, Lord Baltimore, which occurred November 30, 1675. His son, Charles, then succeeded to the title and estates, and, naming his son, Cecil, as nominal governor, he departed for England, but found himself and his government the subject of com- plaint there. Some of the resident clergy of the province had made representations to the heads of the established church in England, declaring that there existed immoralities that required redress, and as a remedy they proposed thie estab- lishment and endowment of lands. The answer of the proprietary was easily made. He referred to the permanent law of the province, tolerating all Christians; and to the impracticability of pro- curing the exclusive establishment of any church, and he was released from the subject by the in- junction to enforce the laws against immorality and to endeavor to procure a maintenance for the support of some of the clergy of the church of England. In February, 16So (new style), the proprietary returned to Maryland, where he re- mained until 1684, and then went back to Eng- land, where the peculiar circumstances rendered it advisable for him to be. Complaints had been poured into the ear of King Charles, in relation to the Catholic partialities of the proprietary. It is said the latter transmitted to the home goveril- ment a list of the officers of the province, which showed that the majority of the positions were in the hands of the Protestants, and in reply to this communication he received an order from Charles to "put all the offices into the hands of
587
EARLY DAYS OF MARYLAND.
the Protestants." This order, too, came from a king whom no one suspected of being partial to Protestants.
These and other matters of importance ren- dered the presence of the proprietary in England advisable. He therefore named his son, Bene- dict Leonard Calvert, nominal governor, and de- parted for England, bidding what was destined to be a last farewell to his people and adopted country. Arriving in England in time to witness the accession of King James II. to the throne, he found himself called upon to defend his rights, for that monarch opposed the charter liberties of the colonial government. Maryland came in for her full share of trouble. In April, 1687, the que warranto against it was issued; but before the judgment was obtained the king was himself brought to judgment by the people. Thus, for a season1, Maryland was free from trouble, but unfortunately it was soon the victim of the Protestant Association, already referred to.
As we read the history of Cecilius and Charles Calvert, and, far removed from the age in which they lived and labored, reflect upon their lives and characters, we find much to admire. They were especially noted for the tolerant spirit they displayed toward all. Persecutions they never tolerated, and the freedom of opinion which they demanded for themselves they as freely conceded to others. Their characters were quiet and gentle, rather than fiery and impetuous; less resembling the meteor that flashes across the sky than the star that shines from year to year, with un- dimmed lustre. They were less ambitious for themselves than for their people and their beloved Maryland, and could they now see the progress made by the state, the wealth of its industries . and the achievements of its citizens, they would feel more than repaid for all the toil, all the per- sonal sacrifice and all the hardships endured by them in behalf of the province. Chalmers, in speaking of Cecilius, well says that "While fan- aticism deluged the empire, he refused his assent to the repeal of a law which, in the true spirit of Christianity, gave liberty of conscience to all." 、
The growth of Maryland was rapid. From 1634, when the colony was planted by two hun-
dred persons, to 1660, tlie increase was constant. reaching twelve thousand in the latter year. In 1665 it had grown to sixteen thousand, and in 1771 was nearly twenty thousand. This popula- tion was scattered through the country districts, there being 110 place except St. Mary's that was worthy of being called a town. The principal occupation was tobacco culture, and with few exceptions the people were planters. Merchants and manufacturers were almost unknown. To- bacco was the currency of the province until the act of 1661 was passed, providing for the estab- lishment of a mint for the coinage of shillings. During this era there was a printing press and a public printer in the province, which is another proof of the liberty enjoyed by the people, for the public press is the synonym of liberty.
THE PROTESTANT ASSOCIATION.
In April, 1689, a company was formed whichi called itself "An association in arms for the de- fense of the Protestant religion and for asserting the right of King William and Queen Mary to the province of Maryland and all the Englishi dominions." In August of the same year, the association came into possession of the province. Their leader was John Coode, au avowed revolu- tionist in the cause of religion, and one who, not long afterward, was convicted, under the Protes- tant dominion he labored to establish, of blas- pliemies against the Christian religion, he being at the time a minister in holy orders. Scarcely had the Protestant government been established before lie was engaged in sedition against it. Word was dispatched to King William, by a con- vention that inet at St. Mary's, August 23, 1689, that the deputies and officers of the prov- ince, civil and military, were under the control of the Jesuits, and the churches all appropriated to the uses of what they termed popish idolatry; and that, with the permission of the government, murders of every kind were committed by Cath- . olics upon Protestants. Furthermore, they as- serted that no allegiance was known in the prov- ince, except that to the proprietary, and that to acknowledge English sovereignty was a crime. When such a plea as this was made, William
588
EARLY DAYS OF MARYLAND.
sanctioned the revolution, and with his consent the province remained under the dominion of the convention until April, 1692. A royal govern- inent having been established, Sir Lionel Copley was made its governor, and soon after lie arrived in Maryland he dissolved the convention, April 9, 1692.
.
The Church of England was, by the act of 1692, inade the state religion, and from that year until the American Revolution, it remained the established church of the province. In 17044 an act was passed, by which all bishops and priests of the Catholic Church were prohibited from say- ing mass; Catholics generally were not allowed to engage in the instruction of youth. However, at the same session, an act was passed, allowing priests to exercise their spiritual functions in private families of Catholics. In 1702 the pro- . visions of the English toleration act were ex- tended to the Protestants of the province, so that the Quakers, heretofore persecuted, were given special favors. Catholics, however, still coll-
. tinued under the ban of persecution. This was remarkable, when we take into consideration tlie fact that tlie colony had been planted by Cath- olics, fostered and nurtured by them, and through their efforts brought to a position of influence among other colonies. Yet, in the province, they were finally the only victims of religious in- tolerance.
REMOVAL OF THE CAPITAL.
In the winter of 1694-95 the courts and assem- bly were removed from St. Mary's to Anne Arundel town, which, at the next session, ac- quired the name of the Port of Annapolis, and was made a city, August 16, 1708, by the charter of Governor John Seymour. While, so far as population was concerned, it never became note- worthy, it was remarkable for the hospitality of its people and for their display of wealth. These two facts drew to it men of liberal attain- ments, men whose qualifications fitted them for society, and who, in turn, honored the city by their presence. A French- writer alludes to the elegance of tlie homes, and others of that time mention the beautiful residences, but the follow-
ing lines, written by E. Cooke in his "Voyage to Maryland," gives another view of the place:
"To try the cause, then fully bent, Up to Annapolis I went;
A city situate on a plain, Where scarce a house will keep out rain; The buildings framed with cypress rare, Resemble much our Southwark Fair;
But strangers there will scarcely meet
With market place, exchange or street; And, if the truth I may report,
It's not so large as Tottenham Court."
EARLY GOVERNORS.
During the royal government, Sir Lionel Cop- ley, Sir Edmond Andros, Francis Nicholson, Nathaniel Blackiston, John Seymour and John Hart, acted as governors of the province. Cop- ley, as the first Protestant governor, was joyfully received by the people of his faith, and he retained the confidence of his people, but his administra- tion was of brief duration. Andros, who was also governor for a short time only, is the same man whose name is well known in connection with the history of New England, while Francis Nicholson is distinguished in the history of New York as the deputy governor of that colony under Andros, at the time of its annexation to the New England colonies. At his suggestion a public post was established in the province. The post- man was bound to travel the route, from the Potomac to Philadelphia, eight times a year, and it was his duty to carry all public messages, and bring and leave letters for the people, for which he was given a salary of fifty pounds sterling. When the first postman died, in 1698, the system was dropped permanently.
THE RESTORATION OF THE BALTIMORES.
The question of religion was the sole reason for preventing the proprietary to stand at the head of the province. Realizing this, and feeling anxious in behalf of his children, Charles Calvert, the deposed proprietary, induced his heir, Bene- dict Leonard Calvert, to unite with the established church. The father passed away February 20, 1714, and the son, April 16, 1715, not having survived his father long enough to derive any benefits from his title to the province. The next
:
589
EARLY DAYS OF MARYLAND.
heir was Charles, who, as well as the other chiil- dren of the late proprietary, was educated in the doctrines of Protestantism. The claims of the Baltimore family were sustained by George I., the new king, who restored the proprietary gov- erment in May, 1715, after twenty-six years of royal government. From the re-establishment of the original government until the treaty of Paris, there were few events of importance in the history of Maryland. Charles, Lord Baltimore, the fifth of that title, died April 23, 1751, and the government passed to his infant son, Frederick.
MARYLAND IN THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR.
The French war began in 1754 and closed with the treaty of Paris in 1763. This was a conflict in which Maryland, as a province, was not in- terested, as its own possessions were not threat- ened. To Virginia it was important, for her right to valuable territory was involved. The colony of Maryland, regarding it as a war of ambition merely, refused to participate in it, although England commanded it and Virginia entreated its assistance. However, such con- tributions as were expected of them were cheer- fully given. Five hundred pounds were appro- priated by the assembly for the purpose of presents to the Indians, whose assistance was desired. Tlie plan of proposed union of colonists, however, did not meet the approval of the colonists, who were very loyal to their charter government.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.