Category Archives: will Rees mysteries

Shakers and Orphans

Posted on by

Throughout my books, I reference the number of orphans, runaways, semi-orphans and other children who were raised by the Shakers. This group took in children from their very beginning right to 1966, when the United States government passed a law forbidding it.

Since the Shakers were celibate and did not reproduce themselves, they relied upon converts to increase membership. They also took in orphans or semi-orphans. Although the Shakers might have wished for the orphans to ‘make a Shaker’, they did not insist and many of the children married out of the community.

In a time when there was no safety net, no foster care, no food stamps, the injury or death of the man of the family was a catastrophe. No unemployment or workman’s comp either. Women had few options for work outside the home (wet nurse was one!) and when they did work they made far less than a man. Add in the prevalence of disease, some of which carried off both parents, and there was a frightening number of orphans.

Semi-orphans, what was that? Well, if a single father or more often a single mother couldn’t support her children she had a few options. Depositing them on the Shakers’ doorstep was one. Indenturing them out if they were old enough (and children as young as six were indentured) was another. Babies couldn’t be indentured unless a premium was paid to the employer for the extra care. Orphanages? The first and for many years the only was set up in Charleston, SC in 1793. Black orphans were not welcomed. However, they did not apprentice children out before they were twelve which, for those days, was enlightened. Although these were children they were still worked hard and as susceptible to accidents and death as an adult. One account describes a thirteen year old boy apprenticed to a ship maker. A load of lumber fell upon him, killing him. They found a series of strange bruises on his leg, bruises it turned out from a bag of marbles in his pocket. He was still a child who wanted to play. Sometimes the employers were called up before the town fathers for excessive cruelty to their indentured servants but not often. Many of the children perished.

And where did you go if you couldn’t suppor yourself? The workhouse. The descriptions in Dickens’s novels, although they take place at a later time, are unfortunately all too accurate.  Sometimes, if a woman remarried, she would be able to recover her children.

So the lot of poor children was dire, for orphans and semi-orphans it was almost a death sentence. Babies were especially at risk. They are so vulnerable and if they were nursing especially so. In those days there really was no good alternative to mother’s milk. Many women survived by wet nursing infants. Some managed to nurse both their own and the others. Some wealthy woman put out an infant to nurse if they were ill or if their husband wanted a male heir. Since nursing confers some contraceptive effect they handed off an infant girl to a wet nurse so they could conceive again. What happened to the infants of the wet nurse? Many or the wealthy women did not want to have the child in their household or to share. Some of the wet nurses sneaked off to feed their child. Another option is to hire a cheaper wet nurse. There are many accounts of women who did so and while they were nursing another child their own died.

So the Shakers were by far the best and safest alternative for orphans. The fact that they educated these children, not only in all the skills they would need to live in the agrarian world, but also to read and write is amazing. They truly lived by their altruistic beliefs.

Mistakes and more

Posted on by

One of the pitfalls of writing historical fiction is the danger of making mistakes. It could be simple mistakes. In A Devil’s cold dish, I refer to a stack of hay as a bale. Balers were not invented until the early 1800s, a fact I knew. But I was trying to expand my synonyms from stack and pile and all the other words. A reader called on it immediately.

Then there was the mystery where I had Rees rewarding Hannibal with oats a few times. I immediately got pushback from a reader who accused me of giving the poor (fictional) horse colic.

These are somewhat trivial errors. More serious mistakes involve easily confirmed facts that somehow the writer (me) got wrong. In Murder on Principle, I refer to Jefferson’s opponent as John Quincy Adams. He is actually the son of the correct candidate, John Adams. This is a case of temporary forgetfulness. I knew it was John Adams but made the mistake once and it was repeated. No one else caught it, not the agent nor the editor. That was left to a reader who wrote a really harsh review.

This is what makes writing historical fiction so challenging; everything must be triple checked and even then it is all too easy to make a mistake.

Believe me, someone will know.

I must add, however, that sometimes the reader who is so sure of their facts, is wrong. I used the term ‘cracker’ in one of my books and a reader wrote a gotcha review. I, however, had done my research and had a copy of a letter written in 1763 by a British official using that exact term.

The passage of time always creates an undiscovered country.

Albany Book Fair

Posted on by

I had a great experience on Saturday at the Albany Book Fair. This is one of my favorite venues. It is not far away from my home. And the Fair allows you a full day, not an hour or so. I always enjoy talking to the other authors as well as the people passing through.

Besides that, this was my very first in-person activity, which made it even more special. Usually I sell my books to the parents that are wandering through. This time, I sold several to the students wandering through. (Am I aging myself when I say some of them look like grade schoolers?)

This time, I sold two of my first book: A Simple Murder. That makes sense since a lot of us mystery readers want to read a series from the very beginning.

I also sold four of Death in the Great Dismal. Not too surprising since the swamp is such an amazing place. I took the opportunity to recommend the Great Dismal as a destination.

The pitfalls of language (for a Historical fiction writer)

Posted on by

Usually, when I write about language, I write about idioms. There is nothing like a dated idiom to drop into your story and stop the action. And idioms are tricky. Some, even some we use all the time, are ancient. I think of ‘strike while the iron is hot’ which, although phrased different according to the century, has been around for hundreds of years.

But some idioms enjoy a brief spurt of popularity and are never heard from again. When was the last time you heard ‘Like the bees knees’? And of course, new idioms are always being created.

In this post, though, I am going to discuss a few words. They can be even trickier than the idioms. We use our familiar language frequently without thought, as I was reminded recently. And believe me, if you add an anachronism to your novel, someone is sure to know.

So the first word is clue. That has to be new, right? Probably created during the thirties, with Agatha Christie. No, my friends. Clue is very old, from Middle English, where it was spelled clew and meant ball of thread. The modern spelling is from the mid-1620s. Gradually, the meaning changed to it points the way.

Well, what about okay? Now, there is a word that has spread across the globe. If you watch foreign language movies, the word okay comes up regularly. I was told many years ago that it originated in an American Indian language – Choctaw to be exact – because missionaries signed letters Okeh. Okay, it turns out, was an editorial joke, created in 1839. It was popularized by Martin Van Buren.

Finally, hello. Who could question hello? Well, this word is a newbie. It may be an alteration of hallo from the High German, It was used for the first documented time in 1834. Thomas Alva Edison is credited with its use as a telephone greeting.

Even our common language lays traps for the unwary writer!

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, Sweet Murder – Will Rees number 11

Posted on by

I spent most of my vacation working on edits for the next Will Rees: Murder, Sweet Murder.

It is a little amusing to be working so hard on the next in the series when Murder on Principle will not be published until August 3rd.

In this book, Rees and Lydia journey to Boston to investigate an accusation leveled against Lydia’s father. I wrote this one at the request of readers who wanted to know more about Lydia’s past.

I am so excited to present the cover of Murder, Sweet Murder. No publication date yet.

Goodreads Giveaway

Posted on by

I have posted a giveaway on Goodreads for Death in the Great Dismal.

Rees and Lydia travel to the Great Dismal Swamp in Virginia to rescue their friend Ruth, a fugitive who has fled to the swamp and the protection of a village of maroons. As soon as Rees and Lydia arrive, one of the members of the village is found murdered. Rees and Lydia, as well as Ruth’s husband Tobias, are immediately suspect. To clear their names, and to leave the swamp for home, Rees investigates.

The new Will Rees, Murder on Principle

The owner of the people Rees and Lydia have escorted to safety in Maine arrives to recover the fugitives. When he is murdered, his sister and a number of slave takers arrive. Rees faces an ethical dilemma. Does he investigate and identify the murderer – who might have had very good reasons to kill the slave owner? Or does he let the murderer go free?

Murder on Principle will be released on August 3. A giveaway will be posted for the new book in July.

Read Death in the Great Dismal to prepare for Murder on Principle.

The Fugitive Slave Law – 1793

Posted on by

I associated the Fugitive Slave Law with the Civil War. The truth is, however, the first iteration of the law was signed into effect in 1793, long before I would have guessed. It is important to remember that many of the founding fathers, including George Washington, were slave owners.

In Death in the Great Dismal,

when Rees and Lydia rescue their friends Tobias and Ruth, they were breaking the law. Although both Tobias and Ruth had both been born free in Maine, they were abducted and sold into slavery. (The slave takers frequently took any person of color, born free or not, for sale in the South. Occasionally, white children were stolen as well.)

Not only were escaped people subject to recapture, anyone who obstructed the slave takers were considered in violation of the law. Moreover, any child born to an enslaved mother was also considered to be enslaved. The prevailing custom was one drop of black blood meant that person was considered black, no matter how light-skinned. Rees and Lydia, therefore, could have been in serious trouble if they had been caught.

The full text of the Act is available from the Library of Congress (and online) in the Annals of Congress of the 2ndCongress, 2nd Session, during which the proceedings and debates took place from November 5, 1792 to March 2, 1793. 

The appropriate sections are 3 and 4.

By the end of the American Revolution all of the Northern states had abolished slavery or made provision to do so. (The United States abolished the slave trade in 1808.) However, fugitives could and were returned to the Southern states per the Fugitive Slave Act by men whose profession, if you will, was capturing escapees.

 This law was further strengthened in 1850 at the request of the slave states. One of the elements most annoying to Northerners was the three-fifths rule that counted every five slaves as three people and therefore gave the slave states much more representation in Congress. Although there were abolitionists prior to 1850, the revised law caused a tremendous increase in people who identified as anti-slavery.

The term Underground Railroad did not come into common use until the construction of actual railroads became widespread. An abolitionist newspaper published a cartoon in 1844 that pictured a rail car packed with fugitives heading for Canada. Use of ‘conductor’ and other railroad terms came into broader use after the 1850 law. 

Banjos in the Great Dismal Swamp

Posted on by

In Death in the Great Dismal, one of my primary characters (Cinte) makes and plays and early form of the banjo. (The modern name; it had many others.)

The banjo came to America with the enslaved peoples, some scholars think by way of the Caribbean and the slaves imported by the Portuguese. In any event, there are over 60 similar plucked instruments, including the akonting, the ngoni, and the xalam, played in West Africa that bear some resemblance to the banjo. Early, African- influenced banjos, had a calabash or gourd body covered with hide and a long wooden stick neck, Usually the banjos had three strings with a shorter, drone string.

The earliest mention in the American Colonies occurred in the 17th century. The first known picture of a man playing a banjo-like instrument (The Old Plantation, circa 1785-1795) shows a four stringed instrument as described above. Banjo-playing was perpetuated in the plantations and the slave-labor camps as I describe in my mystery.

The banjo in its modern form is a melding of the old form with European influences, a flat fingerboard and tuning pegs. The pictures show both fretted and unfretted varieties. During the 1830 and 1840s, playing the banjo spread beyond the enslaved to the enslavers, Minstrels shows featuring the banjos became popular. After the Civil War, the banjos spread to drawing rooms and other venues.

The banjo was re-popularized once again during the folk revival by such performers as Pete Seeger.

American Music owes a huge debt to the men and women brought here so unwillingly and would be a lot less rich without these influences.

The Maroons of the Great Dismal Swamp

Posted on by

In Death in the Great Dismal, I take a temporary break from Rees’s world; the District of Maine and the community of Shakers who live nearby, to send him and Lydia south to Virginia.

Rees is asked by his friend Tobias to rescue his wife Ruth from the Great Dismal Swamp in Virginia. Rees and Lydia agree, somewhat reluctantly, and travel to the swamp. (The swamp still exists, bridging 100,000 acres in Southern Virginia into northern North Carolina, and has been declared a Wildlife Refuge.)

There, Tobias guides them to a small village of fugitives, who were living hand to mouth, in the depths of the swamp. Who were these people?

Well, first of all, the existence of the Maroons is true and historically accurate. The hunger for freedom was so acute that many people fled slavery, preferring to take their chances in the hostile environment of the swamp. Daniel Sayers, an archeologist, has done excavations to identify some of the sites of the villages. The village structures were built of wood and, because of the climate in the swamp, they have all rotted. There are no stones of any kind in the swamp but Sayers found remnants of post holes and pottery shards. Why were they called Maroons. No one really knows. One theory is that the name is from the French, marronage, to flee.

Although not well known until recently, the existence of these small villages is present in the historical record. Slave takers were sent regularly into the swamp to recapture escapees – with mixed success. Some of these Maroons lived so deep within the swamp, surviving and raising families, that they could not be found. The children born here grew up in their turn, and the descendent of the original fugitives did not leave the swamp until after the Civil War. They had never seen a white person.

As I describe, male slaves were regularly hired by the Dismal Canal Company to dig the canal. The overseers turned a blind eye to the maroons who worked as shingle makers, despite knowing they were fugitives, because these shingle makers helped make the quotas.

I also based my character Quaco, on an historical account of a man who, brought to Virginia on a slave ship, escaped to the swamp as soon as he arrived. He survived by hunting, and dressed himself in the skins of the animals in killed. He never learned English.