Category Archives: Shakers

Inventions by Shakers

Posted on by
Reply

Besides their skill at building furniture and buildings, the Shakers were also talented inventors. (This does make one wonder if celibacy creates strengths in other areas!)

Besides improving on various types of machinery, they invented the flat broom, seed packets, metal pen nibs and metal chimney caps, an improved plow, the circular saw, and a prototype of a washing machine called a washing mill. (Some of these are discussed at the Hancock Village museum).

The washing line was another, and this really interested me – they also invented a substance that helped clothing being washed and ironed from wrinkling. This was almost 150 years before modern technology caught up.

As you can see from the list, the inventions covered the gamut and were not restricted to primarily male tasks. Some, like the future washing machine and the non-wrinkle powder, were later marketed by the outside world as ‘labor saving’ devices. This community valued work of all kinds.

I find them endlessly fascinating.

Book Release and Barnes and Nobel

Posted on by

I am excited to announce that The Long Shadow of Murder was released today. It is the latest in the Will Rees saga.

After a long winter, Rees is driving into town for supplies when he is distracted by Constable Rouge. A body has been discovered in the woods near the Shaker community of Zion. Of course, Rouge is immediately suspicious of the Shakers but Rees isn’t so sure. He wonders if the victim’s traveling companions might not have reason to kill the man.

But as Rees and Lydia investigate, they find that everyone in town has secrets, some going all the way back to the Revolutionary War.

As usual, besides the murder, Rees and Lydia are trying to manage their busy farm and their large family with a new baby on the way.

On Saturday, I and three others of my writing friends will be on a panel at the Poughkeepsie Barnes and Noble. We will be available to answer questions and sign books. Hope to see you there.

The Shakers and the Simple Life

Posted on by

The three pillars of the Shaker belief were Church, Community and Celibacy.

Besides the Sunday services, the Shakers believed that work itself was sacred and a job well done was as much a prayer to God as a Church service. One of their mottos was “Put your handsto Work,  and your hearts to God.”

Essentially an agricultural community, the Shakers ran large and productive farms. (And where did they get the money for this property? Although they would accept converts who had nothing, wealthier converts were expected to donate their property (dowries, land, and money) to the community. This meant they quickly grew wealthy in their turn.

Most of the work was split along traditional gender lines. Their standards of
cleanliness (not at all common in that time) meant their livestock was fat and
healthy, their milk pure and disease free. Although most people have heard of
the Shaker furniture, they also ran many businesses to support themselves. Many
villages had their own mills, tanneries, basket making and broom making shops.
They were famous for their medicinal herbs and seeds, which they sold via traveling
wagons. They also engaged in a thriving international trade, especially with China. In today’s money, they made millions.

They were creative inventors as well and many of the villages had machinery far in advance of the neighboring farms. The Shakers invited the first clothes pin. And well before advances in modern chemistry, they invented a product to add to clothes to so they required less ironing.

 Their attempt to create perfection resulted in the high quality of their products that we admire today.

The Sisters, besides cooking, caring for the children, doing laundry and housework, spun and
wove cloth that was famous for its high quality. They had equal power to the men.
Every Family had two Elders and two Eldresses, two Deacons and two Deaconesses
to share the authority for the community. The Shakers believed that God was
both male and female and of equal importance.

Celibacy was strictly practiced. Marriages were not allowed and married couples that joined a Family were expected to live as brother and sister.  Men and Women were segregated although Unions, where the Brethren and the Sisters could meet and talk on a regular basis, became a feature of the village life.

Last week I wrote about their practice of taking in orphans. It became so well known, they found foundlings on their doorsteps. They also took in children whose parents signed them over to the Shakers as quasi-apprentices. The New York State Museum has examples of some of the contracts signed between the parents and the Shakers. When the children reached the age of twenty one, they were free to choose between remaining or leaving. Many of the children raised by the Shakers married out; the Shakers did not require the Children to ‘make a Shaker’.

Eventually, with the shift ofAmerica from a rural to an urban society the flood of new converts began to
diminish and by the 1930’s the number of members had declined so severely that several
villages were closed and much of the land sold off. Many of the once-thriving Shaker villages, for example, Hancock Village, became living museums. The only village still in existence today is Sabbathday Lake in Maine.

round barn in Hancock Village

The Shakers

Posted on by

In two weeks, the newest of the Will Rees/Shaker series will be released. In The Long Shadow of Murder, a body is discovered in the woods near the Shaker community of Zion. Suspicion immediately falls on the Shakers, although Rees is skeptical. He feels there are plenty of other suspects, including the victim’s wife and other traveling companions. Indeed, the murder has its roots in the Revolutionary War.

The Shakers were, if not the most successful commune, was certainly one of them. An offshoot of the Quakers, the name Shakers comes from ‘the Shaking Quakers.” The group’s proper name was the United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing; with a name like that it is understandable they had a shorter and more easily remembered nickname.

The wellspring of the Shakers was a woman, Mother Ann Lee. She sailed to the colonies in the middle 1700s and set up a damsel community just outside of Albany, New York. (The runways for the airport are now located over the old fields.) Like the Quakers, they believed in simplicity and were abolitionists. Mother Ann Lee a former Quaker, was revered. Her position as the prophet/leader resulted in two important doctrines: men and women were equal – highly unusual in this day and age, and they were celibate. Despite that, for many years, they thrived.

How did they succeed for so long then? And they were. They took in converts. Here the unmarried woman could find a home, The disabled could find a home. The landless men, who frequently stopped at the Shaker villages for the winter, thus earning the title of Winter Shaker, had three meals a day and a roof over the heads. Although many left again come spring, some probably remained.

And they adopted orphans. Since this was a world with no safety net, and lots of death, there were a lot of orphans. Besides training these children in the skills they would need in an agrarian world – the girls learned cooking, sewing and other homemaking skills, and the boys farming – they were taught how to read and write. Since males and females were rigidly separated, the boys went in winter, the girls in summer. The Shakers thrived until the world changed. After 1900, the United States went from agrarian to industrial. Girls now could work in factories.

In 1966, the United States passed a law stating that the Shakers could no longer adopt orphans. That really impacted this group.

Yes, they still accept converts. The numbers have shrunk to 2, but one is a younger man who converted. These two live at Sabbathday Lake in Maine. This was the smallest and poorest of all the Shaker communities. My village of Zion is based on Sabbathday Lake.

Why did I choose to set murders within or near this group? Well, although most were peaceful good people, there are always some bad apples. Certainly the acceptance of anyone, and the toleration of the Winter Shakers, opened up the communities to some of these bad’uns.

Let’s Eat or Food in different eras

Posted on by

Since I like to cook, I find researching the food eaten in the different times I write about in my books fascinating. I own several Shaker cookbooks as well as one of the first written (from the late 1700s). (I also own multiple ethnic cookbooks, several Amish, a Middle Ages and Elizabethan cookbooks, and a handwritten cookbook with old recipes handed down by family from the Depression.

I do not, of course, own anything from the Bronze Age Crete mysteries. Not only have we not decoded Linear A, but archaeologists are still excavating and interpreting what they find. Although we know that the Ancient Minoans had grapes and made wine, as well as olives, and olive oil, the rest of their diet is a little mysterious. We are not even sure they ate cheese, although right now theories tend toward yes. Researching what they ate has been a challenge. I assumed they drank an herbal tea and we know they drank beer as well as wine. Since barley was grown throughout the region, it is generally thought that was part of their diet. And since almond trees grow on Crete, we can be pretty sure they ate almonds.

The diet in early America tended to be meat heavy. Farmers had poke, although the pigs were almost feral and allowed to run wild. Cattle, sheep, poultry – all of it could end up on the dinner table. They also consumed game of various types. One of the recipes I saw began ‘tie the front legs of the turtle together.’ Venison is heavily featured. I have several recipes for squirrel (without any direction for cleaning or skinning). One begins with ‘cut two squirrels into pieces’, and ends with ;young squirrels can be fried.’ All I can is say is EWW.

The old time New England cookbook has fewer meat recipes but a lot involving lobsters, oysters, clams and so on. As one would expect.

What surprised me about the Medieval and Elizabethan cookbooks was the amount of spice and sugar used. These must have been food for the wealthy while the poorer folk ate cabbage.

Probably my favorites among these old cookbooks, though, are the Shaker ones. The Shaker Sisters cooked for a crowd so everything is in large amounts. They were famous for their foods, their cider, their seeds. They probably ate the best of anyone.

But what I like is those cookbooks contain extensive baking chapters. All kinds of bread, cakes, cookies and pies. Their potato bread is great, although it makes many more loaves than I need. The one failure that I’ve tried is the recipe for lemon pie. The lemons are sliced thin, covered with sugar, and baked in a crust. It was unbearably sour.

The Depression recipes include such items as navy bean hash, fried bean patties, and desserts such as tomato soup cake and grape pudding. Eggs and sugar were expensive so they were kept to a minimum or left out altogether (usually with some odd substitution.)

Lydia Rees and the Role of Women

Posted on by

Lydia Rees is one of the primary, some would say the primary, protagonist in my Will Rees/Shaker mysteries. I thought I would return to this work and talk about the women in the later eighteenth century.

Lydia Rees, wife of my detective Will Rees, is an opinionated and outspoken woman and an equal partner with her husband as they investigate murders and other crimes. This is not so surprising for modern times but during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries a woman had no legal status. She owned nothing and in fact she herself was chattel, belonging first to her father and then to her husband. The portion she brought to her marriage belonged to her husband and literally everything she had, including her children and the clothes on her back, belonged to him. In one of the primary sources I read a woman divorced one man for another and had to marry in her shift. The clothing she wore belonged to husband number one. Fortunately, husband number two had clothing waiting for her and as soon as they were married, she dressed.

A woman could not inherit the family home unless her husband specifically named her in the will. If he did not, she became the burden of her eldest son. If they had a bad relationship he could, and did, at least according to some of the histories I’ve seen, put her out to make her own way on the road. 

This did not mean that women did nothing. Oh no. This was an agrarian world and a man could not run his farm without his wife’s labor. Farm wives kept a garden, made butter and cheese, cooked, sewed clothing, cleaned – and all of this at the same time they dealt with pregnancy and minded their children. Wives of printers and other professional men frequently helped in the shop. It is no wonder that many men from this time are buried with two, three or sometimes more wives.

Lydia is a former Shaker (or The United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Coming to give them their proper name. Shakers was at first a derogatory nickname based on their physical services – it is a combination of ‘Shaking Quakers’.) The Shakers were a faith begun by a woman, Mother Ann Lee, and the Shaker Sisters have equal authority with their male counterparts. There are two Elders and two Eldresses, two Deacons and two Deaconesses for every Family. Although the work was assigned along traditional gender roles, women and their labor were considered of equal importance. And in a time when illiteracy among woman was high (even among men it was almost 50%), the Shakers educated the girls equally with the boys. (Girls went to school during the summer, boys during the winter.) So Lydia expects to have a say.

The reasons a woman joined the Shakers were many and varied. In A Simple Murder and Cradle to Grave, Sister Hannah (Mouse) joins the Shakers be cause she has a cleft palate and knows she will never marry. In Simply Dead, one of my women characters flees to the Shakers to escape a life of servitude to her family. Another woman, who is an ongoing character throughout, is a fugitive who has escaped servitude in the south.

The Shakers were abolitionists and accepted escaped slaves as members in their community.

Obedience to the rules and celibacy, however, both come with membership in this faith. When Lydia secretly marries her first husband, Charles Ellis, and bears a baby she is immediately expelled from the Shakers. Ellis’s unexpected death causes further legal complications. 

When a person joined the Shakers, he or she signed a document called the Covenant. In it, they agreed to surrender all their worldly goods to the community. Charles Ellis is almost a member of Zion; he has not yet signed the Covenant but everyone is expecting him to. Then he dies. Because Ellis leaves his farm to Lydia in his will, the farm the Shakers were expecting to own, she inherits.  When she marries Will Rees, the farm immediately becomes his because of the laws governing a woman’s lack of rights to own property.

Although Lydia wishes to abide by Ellis’s wishes and surrender the farm to the Shakers, Rees hesitates. Fortunately for the family. When they are forced to flee their home in Dugard, they take refuge in the farm near Zion. (The Devil’s Cold Dish).

Lydia is a very determined individual. When Rees would leave her behind in Death in the Great Dismal, when he goes south to rescue a woman from the Great Dismal Swamp, Lydia insists on accompanying him. Fortunately. Ruth will not agree to go north without Lydia’s persuasion.

Lydia is instrumental (always!) in assisting her husband solve the mystery and, in many cases, connecting with the other women characters.

Communes – and Shakers

Posted on by

The communal style of living which is now so much a part of our picture of the Shakers was actually not a part of their beliefs. When they moved to the Colonies, however, relocating around Albany, financial stresses compelled them to live in a communal setting

If you have begun thinking of tie-dye, put it out of your mind.

The equality between the sexes was a direct outgrowth of the Shakers’ belief in the dual nature of God; a masculine half and a feminine half. It did not hurt that the spiritual leader of the order was a woman, Mother Ann Lee. Her experiences during childbirth, and the death of her young children, persuaded her that all sin came from sex and that only by overcoming fleshly desires could true salvation be attained. Unlike many of the new faiths that sprang up at that time, the Shakers were celibate.

The sexes lived together in the Dwelling Houses, but were separated and lived on separate sides of the Dwelling House. Personal property was abolished as well, all the property being held communally. New converts brought with them and gave to the order all of their worldly possessions, including land. Even though the order accepted anybody, including those who were penniless, the order became quite wealthy from the property deeded to them.

By living communally, the Shakers also had a work force, necessary on the large farms they owned.

Their agrarian methods ceased to be competitive with the United States economy when it shifted from farming and handcrafts to factories. The Shakers couldn’t compete and their numbers began to dwindle. Celibacy was part of the problem. Since they had no children of their own, they relied on converts, both adults and children. Once there were governmental agencies that cared for the poor and for the abandoned children, formerly a conduit of people to ‘make’ a Shaker, and the number of converts declined, the number of Shakers diminished rapidly.,

Tthey remain once of the most successful ‘communes’ ever established. Currently, there are still two surviving members.

Women’s Rights in Early America

Posted on by

The short comment on the title is that women had none. Although I would expect that wives had some input in their married lives and the lives of their children, legally they had none.

Women could not vote. The only people who could were white men, and white men with property at that. Women could not inherit from their husbands unless specifically mentioned in a husband’s will. If he did not mention her, she became the responsibility of her son. If the relationship was poor, he could, and frequently did, turn her own to starve on the road.

Women owned nothing. Although a woman might bring a dowry to a marriage, property of such, as soon as the marriage took place, the property became her husband’s. He could spend it as he wished, including on other women. If he chose to gamble it away, she had no legal recourse. (This, by the way, is a common trope in Regency and romance fiction.) One of the sources I read described a case of divorce. When the woman wished to remarry, she had to do so in her petticoat. Even the clothing on her back belonged to her husband and he refused to give her any of it. (This is why the farm Lydia owns becomes Rees’s after their marriage.)

Even her children belonged to her husband. In a dispute, he might remove them and forbid her to see them again. He usually chose his children’s spouses and determined where and when they were apprenticed.

Domestic abuse was not a crime. Although it was expected a husband would not beat his wife to death, English common law gave him the right to beat her with a stick no bigger than his thumb.

This is not a world I would ever wish to return to and it is certainly unfortunate that some people seem to think this is still the way the world should work.

One of the wonderfully progressive facts about the Shakers is that they believed in equality between the sexes. Although their work was divided by gender, and followed along traditional gender roles, women bore a equal share in the governance of the community. Education as well was offered to both boys and girls, a rarity at that time.

Goodreads Giveaway

Posted on by

The pub date for Murder on Principle is August 3rd, although I have heard that many people have already received the book.

I set up a giveaway on Goodreads so join in and win a free copy.

The reviews so far have all been very good to great!

Murder on Principle – Cover

Posted on by

So excited to reveal the cover for my new Will Rees mystery: Murder on Principle. I am not sure when it will be released. Death in the Great Dismal will be available Jan 5, 2021.

I am guessing sometime this summer. Stay tuned for more information!