Tag Archives: Shakers

Warning out; welfare in the early United States

Posted on by

This sounds like a dry topic, doesn’t it? Well, when one reads contemporary accounts of the women and children affected by this cruel system, it rapidly becomes, instead of dry, horrifyingly real and really awful.

What was warning out? The poor, it is said, are always with us. And the poor tend to be disproportionately women and children. Mortality was high and although there were plenty of widowers, there were a significant number of widows also, many with dependent children. Women didn’t have ‘careers’; they were taught to rely on a man and everything in the culture excluded them from paid employment except for domestic chores. They worked as help or wove out of the home.  (Hence the rise of wet nursing as a profession.) So what happened if a woman fell ill? Or a young woman became pregnant out of wedlock? Or it was a bad year?

The first step the town fathers took was to confirm that this family deserved help. Had the adult been born in the town? If not, she and her children were ‘warned out’ to her town of birth. It did not matter that she had left the town for a very good reason; back she went. If she was pregnant, and late in the term, the town fathers would pay for the birth and care until she could travel. (And the accounts are full of bitching about the expense!) Back she went, even if the baby’s father was still in town.

Some towns were relatively progressive for the times and tried to pay for the trip. Others not so much. A woman’s children could be snatched away and sent out to work and she might never see them again. (And the care of the kids under these circumstances was dire: ten year-olds were expected to work like adult men.)

What this charity came down to was this: The affluent men who ran the town did not want to pay for the care of anyone out of town coffers. Grudgingly, they would do so for people who they knew and whose families were long time residents, if these people were deserving. Everyone else was sent away or allowed to starve.

This is where the Shakers came in. They took in many of these desperate people – and some of the orphans became Shakers in their turn.

Does any of this resistance to helping another sound familiar? This country has evolved in baby steps but there are some who would send us back to this.

Maine

Posted on by

Will Rees, and many of the mysteries, are based in Maine. It is still the home of the last remaining Shaker community with living Shakers. At the time of Will Rees, Maine was part of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In 1820, Maine voted to secede from Massachusetts and in the Missouri Compromise of that year, Maine entered the Union as a free state while Missouri joined as a slave state.

It is theorized that the Vikings interacted with the Penobscot tribe in 1000. If confirmed, it would make Maine the earliest site in the entire U.S. with European contact. The first confirmed contact was in 1604 with French explorers, many of whom gave their names to locations especially on Mount Desert Island; e.g Samuel Champlain. Despite its large geographical area, it is the least populous state east of the Mississippi.

Sabbathday Lake was the smallest and poorest of all the Shaker communities. However, it is still in operation in Alfred, Maine, although with only a few Shakers remaining.

The rocky coast of Maine
The rocky coast of Maine

PTSD and Will Rees

Posted on by

In the newest Will Rees mystery, I look at several serious themes. One is PTSD. Although not called that in 1802, or for almost three centuries afterward, I am sure that it existed. We know that ‘battle fatigue’ was PTSD. (In WWI, women went around handing white feathers for cowardice to able-bodied men home from war, no doubt making already traumatized men feel worse.)

I remember working with a patron at a library in the nineties. A car backfiring outside caused the man to drop to the floor in reaction. He was the right age to be a Vietnam vet. It was scary for all of us, especially him. His wife had to come and collect him.

In The Long Shadow of Murder, we discover that Rees joined the Continental Army when he was sixteen and served at Jockey Hollow and Valley Forge, both of which have come down to us as beyond terrible. Ephraim Sewell, a young man who is considering joining the Shakers, was even younger, following his brother into war at eleven.

Both are haunted by their wartime experiences. Although Rees has managed to put the memories aside and move forward with a wife and family, Ephraim still has nightmares. The stew of grief and guilt has kept him fixed at that point in time and cost him his family and his farm.

Other characters are also suffering. One from events that occur in A Murder on Principle; the other from the behavior of the British soldiers during the Revolutionary War. As I describe, they took everything they could, stealing chicken and livestock, commandeered people’s houses, and raped women. The resentment felt by the colonists increased accordingly.

TSDAlthough the Revolutionary War happened twenty five years before the action in Long Shadow, and the murder in this novel, the trauma experienced by the different characters continue to affect, not only the characters themselves, but also all the people around them.

Inventions by Shakers

Posted on by

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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!