In our previous blog post about the postmaster controversy in 1880s South Acton, we mentioned that one of the underlying factors was probably resentment and distrust related to an ongoing dispute over the payment of bounties to some of Acton’s Civil War veterans.  Despite repeated attempts by Acton’s townspeople to pay them, the veterans had never received the money.  In 1882, Massachusetts enacted a law (Act of 1882, Chapter 93) that would have authorized the town to make the payment, but a lawsuit by a few influential (and high-income) taxpayers had sought to block it.  The course of the controversy was somewhat complicated, but in the long run, to many Actonians, the issue became about more than money.  Resentment festered and found outlets in a number of other disputes in the 1880s.

The Background

Acton sent several companies to the Civil War.  The first, Company E, 6th Regiment, went out immediately upon Lincoln’s call for three-month volunteers in April 1861.  After the men returned from their service around Baltimore, a company with a three-year enlistment was formed.  Company E of the 26th Massachusetts Regiment was organized at Acton in August 1861 and was mustered into service in Lowell on Oct. 18.  They were sent first to Ship Island in the Gulf of Mexico and then to Louisiana.  Another company went out in August 1862 -May 1863, serving in Virginia, and a 100-day company served July-Oct. 1864 around Washington and on prison-guard duty on an island in Delaware Bay.  Both of the latter companies were known as Company E, 6th Regiment. 

As in previous wars, it was important to the town that it supply soldiers to the cause.  Towns were expected to fill a quota based upon population.  If they could not fill their quota, they were threatened with a draft.  Early in the war, patriotism and idealism were enough to get men to enlist.  As the years wore on and the toll of war became more obvious, towns, states, and the federal government started offering financial incentives to induce men to join up.  Known as bounties, the payments differed from place to place and over time.  Not surprisingly, these disparities caused trouble. 

A federal bounty of $100 had been offered since early in the war, but it was deferred until the soldier was discharged (honorably).  The Militia Act of 1862 required the states to institute a draft if they could not meet their enlistment quotas.  In March 1863, Congress passed the Enrollment Act, authorizing a draft system, specifying that all able-bodied male citizens and immigrants who were applying to be citizens from 20 to 45 years of age would, if called, have to serve.  Married men 35-45 would be drafted later than the others, and there were a number of exemption categories, mostly on the basis of the needs of family members.  Most controversially, people could pay for a substitute to go or, if a substitute was not available, pay $300 to the Secretary of War for one to be found.  The Enrollment Act and the ensuing Draft Riots in New York City that summer had pointed to the urgency of getting and keeping men in the ranks.  On October 17, 1863, Lincoln issued a proclamation calling for 300,000 additional troops, to be raised by the states according to their quotas.  Enlistments would be “deducted from the quotas established for the next draft” which, if a state did not make its quota, would begin on the 5th day of January, 1864.  The Secretary of War upped the federal bounty, with a premium paid to reenlisting veterans.

Meanwhile, Massachusetts was doing its best to fill its overall quota, and its towns were doing the same, offering bounties for enlistment or re-enlistment.  Though originally the intention of the bounties was to support a town’s own soldiers, there was certainly an incentive to fill the town’s quota with any soldiers, wherever they could be found.  There were some unintended consequences of the system, however.  Unscrupulous recruits would sign up, claim a bounty, and never report to camp.  These “bounty jumpers” might then sign up elsewhere, possibly under an assumed name, to get another bounty.  Other frauds were to sign up and collect a bounty even though the recruit knew that he would eventually be rejected from serving (because of a disability or signing up underage, for example).  A more basic problem with the system was that towns that could afford to pay large bounties were more likely to fill up their quotas than towns in greater financial difficulty. 

Disparities of bounties and the substitute exception yielded the impression that the rich were able to avoid the worst consequences of the war while the poor fought.  Some of those who hired the substitutes, considering it a financial transaction, felt that they had the right to be reimbursed for their substitute payment.  Some were of the opinion that those who went as substitutes, because they were paid to go in place of a drafted man, did not deserve the bounty for going to war.  The divide between the poor, whom some judged for enlisting for the money offered, and the rich, who could afford to pay for a substitute, grew.  There is no doubt that some bitterness that festered in Acton after the war was due to this economic divide.

To try to introduce more equity into the system and to deal with some of the bounty-jumping problems, Massachusetts’ legislature passed a number of laws.  In fairness to all parties in Acton’s bounty dispute, even with the benefit today of being able to read the digitized laws of the Commonwealth, the bounty laws make confusing reading.  It must have been quite hard to keep up with them in the early 1860s, during a war, and especially in places with poor communication.  Practice did not necessarily follow the intentions of the lawmakers.  One of those intentions seems to have been that local bounties would stop, although towns seem to have interpreted the laws as limiting local bounties, not eliminating them (See Chapter 91, approved March 1863).  A law passed in a special session in November 1863 (Chapter 254), set a uniform Massachusetts bounty at $325 for those who enlisted for three years.  Though well-intentioned, the new law did not solve the problems.  Rightly or wrongly, a number of towns’ representatives continued promising what they believed to be the maximum local bounty allowed at the time for the reenlistment of serving soldiers, $125.  

Acton’s Veterans Reenlist

Acton’s bounty controversy centered on the soldiers of the 26th Regiment who had been sent to Louisiana in 1861 and served there through the beginning of 1864.  During the company’s early service, the most harm came to the soldiers through disease.  In June, 1863, the Regiment saw action at LaFourche Crossing and later made an attempt to take Sabine Pass.  In the fall of 1863, it went to Opelousas and New Iberia, Louisiana.  A November 27, 1863 letter from Delette Hall to his cousin Henry Hapgood (who had returned from the nine-month company sick) said:

New Iberia is quite a villiage. About 50 miles from Breashear City on Bayou Teche River. This is quite a muddy place in wet weather We have to ditch the ground to keep from being drowned out Yesterday was Thanksgiving Day. but was not observed here except by issuing a ration of whiskey to the men. I thought of you all & if I was not there my mind was. I was on Picket & had a piece of salt pork & some hard tack for dinner. Well that was a little better than I had two years ago in Boston harbor. & next year I hope I shall be at home. We shall soon be nine months men our term expires the 18th Oct 186[4] which day we were mustered into the U. S. Service.
It seems a long time to look ahead. I hope the rebs will get enough before the year is out.

Clearly at that point, Delette Hall and his compatriots were not thinking of reenlisting.

At the end of 1863, the Union army needed to keep seasoned men in its ranks.  Experience showed that raw recruits were more likely to desert.  The hope was that reenlisting soldiers would be inured to camp conditions, be willing to follow orders, and stay.  Men who were acclimated to conditions in the South would have been considered an asset to the 26th Regiment. 

To understand what happened to spark the bounty dispute, we have to rely on testimony given much later.  A two-sided supplement printed by the Acton Patriot laid out all that was said at a hearing before the Legislative Committee on Military Affairs, January 26, 1882 (in the Society’s collection and also transcribed by Brewster Conant).  By the time one has read through the claims and counterclaims, one is hard-pressed to know what really happened.  There were contradictions, inconsistencies over time, fading memories, and the influence of “circulars” and petitions on people’s interpretation of events (operating like the social media of the time).  Also, by 1882, the needs of the war were long past, whereas the pinch of tax bills was a present problem.   

Though it is impossible to be completely sure of who knew what and when they knew it, most people in the post-war period seem to have agreed upon a few points.  Acton’s Captain William H. Chapman, veteran of the 3-month original Acton Co. E, 6th Regiment and by late 1863 the Captain of Co. E, 26th Regiment, was also serving as the recruiting officer of the 26th Regiment.  He was aware of the need for trained soldiers and of competition from other Massachusetts communities that he believed were offering local bounties to soldiers to re-enlist, with the quota credit going to those towns.  Concerned that Acton would lose its soldiers to other towns offering financial incentives, Capt. Chapman told the men of the Acton company that Acton would “do as well by them as any other town” if they would reenlist to the credit of Acton.  The going bounty rate at that point seems to have been $125.  In later years, few disputed that the soldiers reenlisted in early 1864 in the 26th Regiment, for 3 years or the duration of the war, believing the promise that Acton would pay them a bounty of $125.  Few disputed that Captain Chapman made the promise.  The original dispute centered on whether or not he had been justified in making the promise and whether the town had the legal (or moral) obligation to keep it.

Part of the problem with the later bounty dispute is that people were looking back many years and judging based upon subsequent events.  At the time that Capt. Chapman was recruiting, the Regiment was in New Iberia, Louisiana.  According to his later testimony, the mails were sporadic and it was not feasible to send messages to Acton by telegram.  One can see how the captain might have felt that he needed to make decisions on the spot.  Back home in Acton, however, there was a recruiting committee who felt that they should be the ones making decisions, particularly with respect to how the town’s money was spent.  They also were more likely to have had a chance to read the laws passed by the legislature.  The recruiting committee denied having authorized the bounties in advance and claims were made that no one knew about the bounty promise, but Luther Conant, longtime moderator, remembered that the issue was discussed at the 1864 town meeting.

The war went on.  After much of Company E reenlisted, the 26th Regiment was sent to Virginia where the company moved into action at Winchester (Opequon Creek) on Sept. 19, 1864, Fisher’s Hill on Sept. 22, and Cedar Creek on October 19.   The company had lost a number of men to disease and also lost five men as a result of the fighting at Winchester, including Delette Hall's brother Eugene.  Some were injured, including Captain Chapman, who managed to survive a gunshot wound to the head.  The Company stayed around Winchester through May 1865.  They spent a month in Washington, D. C., then were sent to Savannah.  They were discharged in September 1865.  Undoubtedly the men expected that when all was said and done, they would be paid their promised bounties.

During the war, the town had paid some recruits bounties.  The 38 members of the nine-month company recruited in the fall of 1862 received $100, with an additional $25 for the 23 recruits “called for from this town on the first quota” who signed up for three years.  The town voted in December of that year that if it were required to supply more men, the recruiting committee was authorized to offer the same bounty to any who enlisted or were drafted.  The 1862-1863 town report listed every man in service and whether or not he had received a bounty payment from the town.  (The state seems to have retroactively reimbursed the $100 bounties paid to the 1862 recruits.)  In November 1863, the town voted that the Selectmen plus three additional Recruiting Committee members would have discretionary powers regarding bounties.  In November 1864, the town voted that their recruiting committee should investigate the claims of the town’s serving soldiers and those who had returned home and that the town should raise $5,500 to recruit men for the war.  Given all of that, it does not sound unreasonable for Capt. Chapman to have thought that the town would back his claim that the town would do as well by its men as other towns were doing.

However, the war ended, (most of) the veterans came home, and the claim had never been paid. 

The War’s Aftermath

At the March 1866 town meeting, Acton debated paying those soldiers who enlisted in 1861 and reenlisted in 1864 the same bounty that had been paid to soldiers who enlisted later and served in the US service for less time.  The town decided to postpone any action until the state and federal governments had taken action on bounties.  According to Phalen’s history of Acton, “As things later developed this proved to be an unwise decision but at that time nobody could have foreseen that by this action the town planted the seeds for its most vicious and prolonged local battle.” (p. 197)

Though this fact was not usually mentioned in the Acton fight, bounty claims took up a great deal of energy on the part of both state and national committees in the post-war years.  The Massachusetts Legislature’s Committee on Military Affairs dealt with petitions of many towns, including petitions from Acton in three different sessions.  Acton voted to pay soldiers’ back bounties in 1872 and petitioned to be able to pay it.  In early 1881, the Committee heard petitions, not only from Acton, but also from Wilmington, Stoneham, East Bridgewater, Andover, and Natick, all rejected.  Acton’s petition went nowhere until the third time it was presented in early 1882. 

In March 1882, the House passed a bill that would allow Acton to raise up to $4,000 to pay $125 to each of the veterans who had reenlisted in the 26th Regiment under the call of the president dated Oct. 17, 1863, were credited to Acton, and were never paid.  The bounty could be paid to the soldier’s heirs if he had died.  In response, at town meeting on April 3 1882, the town of Acton voted to pay the bounties, but the measure passed by only four votes (219 to 215).  By this point, the controversy had split the town down the middle, apparently even at town meeting where Phalen wrote that “The glowering partisans congregated on either side of the center aisle.” (p. 231)  Town meeting records mention that “it was voted to have the area in front and on each side of the Desk kept clear so that voters need not be obstructed in approaching the Polls.”  Whether this was because of hostility or because it was Acton’s largest town meeting ever is not clear.  After the vote, a cannon was shot off in South Acton in celebration (Acton Patriot, Apr. 6, 1882, p. 1)  However, as often happened in Acton politics, a vote taken was not seen as final, but only as an opportunity to reconsider.  Two town meetings followed.  Both sides undoubtedly tried to sway opinions and get out the vote.  The Acton Patriot’s Concord Junction reporter mentioned on Sept. 7, 1882 that “Thomas Clifford was earnestly sought for early Saturday morning by one of Acton’s heavy taxpayers.  His object was to secure his vote against paying the soldiers’ bounty.”  Probably the same heavy taxpayer “offered to bet $100 with any live men that the soldiers get beat.” (page 1)  These efforts did not change the outcome, however. On August 21, an attempt to overturn the vote failed by 204 to 194, and on Sept. 2, the anti-bounty side lost again by 206 to 198. 

Phalen’s history of the town of Acton seems to indicate that the resolution of the bounty issue happened in 1882 with the Senate and House overriding the governor’s veto.  “Thus ended the great bounty fight beside which all other Acton rows seem rather tame.  The payments were made with reasonable promptness with one exception...”   (p. 233).  Searching Acton’s town reports did not yield a record of those payments; in fact, the bounty tax seems to have been assessed, held onto, and then without explanation refunded by the town.  The reason was legal wrangling that went on much longer than is mentioned by Phalen.  Not able to swing the vote in their favor, the opponents served an injunction on the town to prevent payment and hired Judge E. Rockwood Hoar as their counsel. 

According to newspapers of the time and legal synopses, the opposition’s case made its way through the legal system and was heard by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in early 1885.  The case hinged on the constitutionality of the 1882 act of the Legislature (chapter 93) that authorized the town to raise taxes to pay the bounties.  According to the Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling, the town of Acton never promised to pay a bounty, did not (directly) receive the men’s services as soldiers, and was not responsible for paying them compensation.  Therefore, it had no debt to them.  Any payment made so long after the fact would be akin to a gift of gratitude to private individuals rather than payment of a debt for a public purpose (as inducing enlistments would have been).  Taxes must serve a public, not private, purpose, and therefore, the 1882 law allowing Acton to raise taxes to pay the veterans of the 26th Regiment was unconstitutional.

The bounty opponents must have thought that the matter would end there, but the dispute had gone too far by that time.  By March, 1887, the town of Acton was petitioning the state to pay the bounties, because Acton was barred from raising the money itself.  (Boston Journal, March 11, 1887, p. 1)  Both sides testified again.  The Society owns a copy of the opposition’s testimony that started with the statement that they were aware that they were “opposing the claim of the men, who, in a critical time in our history, rendered with such distinguished services to the country that it seems almost like robbery, - unpatriotic at least, to withhold from them anything in the way of pensions or gratuities that they may demand.”  The opponents followed up, however, by saying that the Commonwealth owed the men nothing because this was a town matter.  (Of course, the town previously had been kept from paying the claim by this group’s lawsuit.)  The testimony ended with “We would respectfully ask, therefore, that you, as guardians of the public treasury against unfounded claims” would find against the town of Acton.  The Society also owns a copy of the proponents’ testimony.  The testimony mostly reiterated points made before, although it does contain a paragraph of personal attack on the opponents; the sides were portrayed as humble veterans versus the rich.  At any rate, the Senate Committee on Claims reported favorably on the town’s petition.  (Boston Journal, April 15, 1887, p. 3)  In May, the Committee on the Judiciary ruled that the Legislature has the right to appropriate and pay money to individuals, even if it could be portrayed as a gratuity, if there were “some equitable ground upon which such payment ought to be paid.”  (Boston Journal, May 5, 1887, p. 2) 

The legislative debate on the measure was reported in June, 1887.  Some cited fear of opening the floodgates to other, similar claims.  However, the majority, including Mr. Conant of Acton, felt that the resolve was an “act of justice.” (Boston Journal, June 8, 1887)  Finally, the joint Resolve of 1887, Chapter 106 ordered that $125 was to be paid by the Commonwealth to the 31 soldiers (or their legal heirs) of the 26th Regiment who had reenlisted and never received the bounty they were expecting.  The governor had objected to the Resolve, but the Senate and House of Representatives passed it over the Governor’s objections on June 16, 1887.  The fight was finally over.  The veterans got their bounties and apparently it was the people of Massachusetts as a whole who made good on the promise, rather than the people of Acton who had voted repeatedly to pay it. 

It is clear that a dispute allowed to fester for over 20 years was extremely harmful for the town.  Putting off dealing with the problem in the hope that it would conveniently disappear led to infinitely more trouble later.  As the bounty dispute dragged on, campaigns for support, including assumptions, exaggerations, and character slurs, led to increasing polarization.  Both sides’ attitudes seem to have hardened into a belief that they were fighting for the “right.”  Newspapers elsewhere noted Acton’s contentiousness with comments such as “Acton folks are still squabbling...” (Springfield Republican, Aug. 19, 1882, p. 6)

What becomes most apparent is that the bounty dispute reflected divisions in society.  On the one hand were those trying to prevent payment.  They portrayed the veterans asking for bounties as greedy opportunists who had not received a legitimate (or perhaps any) promise of payment before they reenlisted and who were trying to take hard-earned tax money from Acton’s struggling farmers and from families of veterans who had not received a bounty.  Those supporting the bounties believed that the town should make good on the promise.  They portrayed the men against the bounties not as struggling farmers, but as rich taxpayers who were too stingy to pay the money that had been promised to men who risked their lives in the war.  Underneath the accusations were basic issues, especially about who has the right to run the town.  Should it be the influential, well-to-do men who had served (and controlled) the town for many years, or less-wealthy men who perhaps moved about looking for opportunity?  The committee at home during the war had been either elected or appointed and felt they had the right and the duty to act for the town and decide how to spend its money.  Those who were far away in the field at the time felt justified in recruiting for the town.   The fact that there was some justification for both sides’ viewpoints made the divisions much more entrenched.

As is often the case, after all of the conflict that was reported in the newspapers of the day, the actual resolution and payment of the bounties was apparently done without much fanfare.  Though it is likely that the participants remembered the vitriol involved in the dispute, life moved on.  Three years later, Acton had a Memorial Library honoring its veterans’ service.  Acton’s veterans of the 26th Regiment (and of the bounty fight) were proudly listed at the entrance of the new Library.

References:

• Acton Historical Society Documents:
  • Official Record of Acton in Relation to the Enlistment of Men by the Payment of Bounties in the War of the Rebellion (Compiled by William D. Tuttle, Town Clerk)
  • Acton Patriot Supplement, "Soldiers’ Bounties!," testimony of January 26, 1882 (multiple copies)
  • Testimony at Acton Bounty Claim hearing, 1887
  • Military Register of Company E, 26th Regiment
  • Copy of the Tabulated Record of Men Who Re-Enlisted in the 26th Mass. Vols credited to Acton
  • Dedication of the Memorial Library Acton, Mass
  • Acton Patriot
    • “Acton Soldiers,” Feb. 17, 1881, unpaginated, probably page 8.
      
    • “The Other Side of the Acton Soldier Question,” and “Personal Explanation” from Henry Brown, Feb. 24, 1881, unpaginated.
    • “Paying the Acton Veterans,” Dec. 1, 1881, p. 1
    • “To the Voters of Acton,” Dec. 8, 1881, p.1
    • “A Statement from Acton’s Recruiting Committee,” Mar. 9, 1882, p. 1 (includes men who received a bounty from Acton in late 1864.)
    • “The April Town Meeting” and “A Plea for Good Nature,” Apr. 6, 1882, p. 1
    • “The Town Meeting,” “The Vexed Question,” “Injunction to be Served,” and “Who Brought Suit”, Sept. 7, 1882, p. 3
    • “A Rejoinder to the Anti-Bounty Side of the Acton Soldier Question”, April 13, 1883, p. 4
  • The Letters of Henry Hapgood's Family 1862-1865
• Phalen's History of the Town of Acton, especially page 227-233 (Note - timeline seems off, no mention of relevant dates after 1882)
• Acton Town Meeting Proceedings 1863-1889
• Acton Town Reports
  • 1862-1879
  • 1879-1894
• Acton Memorial Library's  Online Civil War Archive (extensive information)
• Acton Memorial Library plaque: The Men of Acton Who Fought for the Union
• Massachusetts' Acts and Resolves of 1863
• Massachusetts Acts and Resolves of 1863, including November Session
• Lincoln's Proclamation of October 17, 1863
• Summary of Mead v. Acton Inhabitants
• Acts and Resolves of 1882, Chapter 93 (Acton bounties)
• Resolves of 1887, Chapter 106 (Acton bounty payment authorization)
• Ford, Oren. (1933). A history of the bounty system used during the Civil War. University of the Pacific, Thesis.
• Newspaper articles cited in the text (there were others as well with brief mentions of the dispute)

In the nineteenth century, people from larger places seem to have regarded Acton as a “quiet farming town,” or even “semi-lethargic.”  (Boston Globe, July 21, 1885, p. 2 and Sept. 16, 1885, p. 8)  It therefore came as a newsworthy surprise that 1880s Acton kept erupting into conflict and then apparently retreating into festering resentment.  Our foray into 1880s Acton started with an article entitled “OUSTING AT ACTON” that reported that two Republican postmasters had been replaced by two Democrats. (Globe, Sept. 5, 1885, p. 5).  That might have been an interesting story, except that South Acton’s incumbent postmaster J. K. W. Wetherbee was in fact a Democrat, as was his replacement.  Trying again, the Globe added to the excitement on Sept. 11 with an article entitled “SCHEMING POSTMASTERS – Charged with Fraud by the Government.” (p. 2.)  This was a story of both politics and potential fraud; to understand what was going on, we had to learn about the role of a small village (fourth class) postmaster in the nineteenth century.

Acton’s Early Postal Service

Today, we are accustomed to having mail delivered to us.  People living in Acton before the twentieth century did not have that luxury and had to pick up their own mail.  Sometimes people had no idea that letters were waiting in a post office; a postmaster would advertise a list of letter recipients in the local paper.  Digitized newspapers show that practice existed even after 1900. (Concord Enterprise, Feb. 26, 1902, p. 8).  Before Acton had a post office of its own, the Concord postmaster periodically advertised that Acton residents had letters awaiting them there.  (See Middlesex Gazette, Oct. 11, 1817, p. 4, for example.)  According to Shattuck’s 1835 History of the Town of Concord, at some early date, a post office was briefly established in Acton in the care of “Mr. Perham” and then reestablished in 1828 in the Acton Center law office of Silas Jones.  Acton has had its own postal service since that time.

In the very early years, mail was not common, and people picking up letters were expected to pay the delivery cost.  The advent of pre-paid postage stamps made picking up letters less expensive to the recipient, but it still entailed a trip; obviously, it was advantageous to have a post office closer to one’s home or place of business.  A village needed a certain size to attain its own post office.  The 1844 arrival of the Fitchburg Railroad led to growth in both West and South Acton.  In 1848, West Acton’s first post office was established in the office of Dr. Reuben Green.   In December 1851, South Acton got its first post office with postmaster Ezra C. Radiman (name spelled variously, exact location as yet unknown).  East Acton, known then by the name of Ellsworth, got its own post office in March, 1873.  The postmaster, l. W. Flagg, had a store there.  North Acton did not have a post office until March, 1886 when Charles Miller was appointed postmaster.

The postmaster would have been responsible for people’s mail and also for money.  One would hope that people were appointed on the basis of their competence, honesty, and incorruptibility, and that may well have been the case in Acton.  In general, being able to appoint the postmaster was considered a privilege of elected officials who apparently often used that power to distribute patronage jobs.  Postmasters were expected not to use their position to promote their political party’s candidates, but the postmaster’s role at the center of village life was certainly a useful connection for politicians.

Until late in the nineteenth century, the location of the post office would depend upon the postmaster.  As the 1800s progressed, Acton’s village post offices were often located in a postmaster’s store.  Having people’s mail would have increased foot traffic to one’s business.  The postmaster’s tenure was not guaranteed; after an election, the position might go to a competitor from the winning party.  Though changes in postmasters are traceable through records, the actual politics behind some of the appointments are not always clear.  For example, in 1855, newspapers including the Boston Atlas (July 19, 1855 p. 2) alleged that the Acton “Centre” post office was being kept in the barroom of the Know Nothing House (a reference to a political party of xenophobic tendencies), but the July 25 Boston Herald clarified that the hotel, apparently run in the past by a Know Nothing supporter, was now run by a Democrat.  The post office had been moved from the shoe shop of John Fletcher to the “public room” of a small county hotel that served no liquor.  (p. 2)

Phalen’s History of the Town of Acton describes old-timers’ memories of the Center post office in the hotel.  It had a “unique contrivance for mail delivery” that operated like a Lazy Susan.  “There were pigeonholes marked with the letters of the alphabet. A person seeking mail would turn the wheel until his initial appeared at the opening whereupon he separated his mail from the rest and departed, unless of course the office happened to be vacant and he were of a curious turn of mind. In later years the device was abandoned and standard boxes installed with a pull bell that would summon the postmaster.” (p. 192)  Changing the post office location would obviously necessitate moving or installing people’s mail boxes.

As mentioned, the postmaster job was considered a patronage position, often jealously guarded by the Representative in power at any given time.  Surprisingly, in Acton, a more evenhanded approach had been taken under the Republican administration leading up to the 1885 brouhaha.  The practice had been to select two Republicans and two Democrats for the four village post offices in town.  (Globe, Sept. 16, 1885, p. 8)  Part of this magnanimity may have been due to the confidence of Acton Republicans that the town was “sure to go Republican.” (Boston Journal, Aug. 18, 1884, p. 2)

The pay of the postmasters was dependent on the volume of business.  According to the Globe (Sept. 11, 1885, p. 2), postmasters of the smallest, “fourth class” post offices did not receive a salary per se but earned percentages of the stamps cancelled at the office each quarter: 100% of the first $50 with declining percentages (60, 50, 40) on amounts above that.  There was an incentive to increase the amount of mail sent through one’s office, but there would be a natural ceiling on the number of letters leaving a small village.  Another source of business would be companies’ “circulars,” essentially advertising flyers that would be sent out in bulk.  The Globe claimed that certain postmasters had concocted “an ingenious little scheme” for the mailing of large quantities of circulars at their offices that, arguably, should have been deposited at the large offices.  Someone in Washington decided that small post offices sending out circulars was a sign of irregularities and sent the postmasters a bill for past commissions earned on the circulars.  The ingenious, accused plotters were the postmasters of Littleton Depot, Littleton Common, South Acton, Townsend, West Townsend, and a few other places.

Caught in this situation was Jonathan K. W. Wetherbee, a pillar of the South Acton community, partner in the highly successful firm of Tuttles, Jones & Wetherbee, long-time town treasurer, selectman, and, on occasion, lender of money to the town.  He had served as South Acton postmaster since the fall of 1870.  When J. K. W. Wetherbee was replaced by another Democrat amidst accusations of fraud, the degree of excitement in Acton was, according to the Globe, more than one might expect from the occurrence of a cyclone or a raging epidemic. (Sept. 16, 1885, p. 8)

Fraud or Politics?

The author of the Sept. 16 Globe article actually talked to J. K. W. Wetherbee to get the postmaster’s story.  Apparently, C. M. Lawrence, Littleton resident and representative of a Boston business, had approached outlying postmasters saying that he wanted to send circulars from their offices.  The Forge Village postmaster had checked with his Washington boss whether he could refuse to accept them, as the sorting was going to add to his work load.  The official response was that the postmaster was required to accept all mail presented to him and that most postmasters would welcome the extra business.  When J. K. W. Wetherbee was offered the same business opportunity, he contacted Washington and was told to send a copy of the circular.  He did and received no reply.  Having fulfilled his obligation, and in light of the response to the Forge Village query, Wetherbee felt confident that the circular business was acceptable.  Several years later, however, he received a bill from the government for over $1,000 in past commissions.  In his interview with the Globe Reporter, J. K. W. Wetherbee stated:

“My office cost me $100 the first year I had it on account of help I had to hire, as my business would not allow of my giving it much of my personal attention, and the office has been broken into and robbed three times.  Thus I think I have been robbed enough already.  It seems rather singular to me that after communicating with the department relative to this circular business, and having my quarterly accounts audited and allowed, that this demand should now be made upon me.” 

After this point, the story seems to have disappeared from the newspaper.  In typical fashion, the exoneration of the postmasters seems not to have been reported.  J. K. W. Wetherbee served as the town’s treasurer and in other positions of trust into the 1900s and continued to lend the town money; clearly the townspeople did not question Mr. Wetherbee’s character.  No one seems to have given credence to the charge of fraud.  Nonetheless, Wetherbee was replaced as postmaster.  There must have been more to the story.

According to the Sept. 16, 1885 Globe, Ruel Williams, a member of the town Democratic Committee selected to go to the state convention, went to see James Tuttle, another Democratic pillar of the South Acton community who was a business partner and brother-in-law of J. K. W. Wetherbee.  Tuttle was told that Wetherbee probably would have to go.  The implication seemed to be that it was due to the fraud charge.  The national Democratic party had just elected its first president since 1856 with a platform that included civil service reform.  Perhaps the local committee was trying to impress the State Committee by “cleaning house.”  James Tuttle was upset that other Democrats in town had not been informed of the potential change, and no one had talked to J. K. W. Wetherbee.  Tuttle had planned to start a petition, but the postmaster change was made before he even had a chance.  He said, “We are all mad, all classes, sects and political complexions.  Yes, indeed, the village of South Acton is stirred up.”  Accusations and counter-accusations from supporters followed, but the change was made.

Though the committee prevailed, they had omitted to consider one detail in their planning.  Tuttles, Jones & Wetherbee owned much of center of South Acton.  The post office had been located in a James Tuttle-owned building, apparently in the news stand of Dana Hayward who worked as postal clerk.  The replacement postmaster Lorenzo Reed found that no location was available in the village for him to establish his post office.  As James Tuttle said, “I don’t propose to turn out good tenants to please him.”  Eventually, the new postmaster, “accompanied by a justice of the peace, visited every property owner in the centre of the village who had land or a building which could be utilized and offered to buy, hire, or lease such, but no opportunity to do so was offered him.”  His only recourse was to move the post boxes to his own residence. (Globe Oct. 20, 1885, p. 2)  People were quite unhappy that they were going to have to trek to his house to get their mail, but eventually the furor died down as people realized that Reed was in a difficult position.  Later, the post office was moved to a small building on the south side of the railroad tracks.

Small town, Big Disagreements

So why did this conflict erupt in the first place?  We have not found anything to indicate that J. K. W. Wetherbee deserved to be replaced as postmaster, or even any reason that anger would specifically have been aimed toward him.  What we did find was that Acton residents in the 1880s were quite disputatious.  For example, as described in a previous blog post, in the spring of 1884, a disputed school committee vote for Superintendent led to two men claiming to be have been appointed, with angry supporters on both sides.  Within three years, a bitter conflict over a teacher led to the resignation of a different Superintendent and most of the school committee.   Rancor and factionalism seem to have been habitual in Acton at the time.

The biggest conflict, and perhaps the root of much of the distrust and anger in town, was a dispute over paying back bounties to Civil War soldiers that consumed a great deal of energy in the early 1880s.  Like the postmaster “muddle,” the bounty fight requires some background to understand and is the subject of another blog post.
 
What Goes Around Comes Around

Lorenzo Reed only served as postmaster until 1889.  Democrat Grover Cleveland lost the 1888 election, politics shifted, and many postmasters were replaced in the following year.  Time moved on, but complaints from South Acton didn’t completely die down.  A petition campaign was initiated to influence the choice of postmaster in 1889, though that did not go far. (Concord Enterprise, Apr. 5, 1889, p. 2)  On July 12, 1894, an item appeared in the Enterprise that fireworks were being sold in the post office, with pointed advice to the postmaster to “read what Uncle Sam says about it.”  (p. 8)  In 1897, there was a petition to appoint Frank W. Hoit as postmaster and to locate the office on the north side of the Fitchburg railroad.  Rumors were flying that the signers of the petition were only schoolchildren; in fact, the petition was signed by the businessmen of the community, including many Tuttles, Jones, and J.K.W. Wetherbee. (January 14, 1897 p. 8)  One of the signers was James Tuttle’s son H. Waldo, who was at the time serving as postmaster himself.  On July 1, 1897, the Concord Enterprise reported that “The old post office is being fitted up for the new postmaster, who is expected to take possession July 1.”  (p. 8) After all the controversy, the post office was back in James Tuttle’s building.

Recently, two very large and brittle architectural drawings arrived at Jenks Library.  They had been given to our donor decades ago by a West Acton home owner who had found the drawings in the eaves of an outbuilding.  Her property had formerly belonged to West Acton builder John S. Hoar, so it was reasonable to assume that the drawings were remnants of one of his projects, hidden away and forgotten for years.  When the owner unrolled the paper, it cracked, but what emerged did not look like any Acton property.  She taped the torn plans and gave them to a person well-known for his interest in Acton history.  He has now shared them with the Society.

The plans were undated, unsigned, and gave no indication of whom they were created for.  One, a drawing of the exterior of the house, matched none in Acton, and the other’s first-floor details indicated that the owner’s wealth far exceeded that of any of Acton’s early residents.  The plan included a hall measuring 54’x 30’, a drawing room (34’ x 19’), morning room (almost 28’ x 12’), library (27’ x ~19’), dining room (31’ x 19’), billiard room (24’ x 19’), kitchen (~25’ x 18’), servants’ hall (20’ x 16’), butler’s pantry, cook’s pantry, housekeeper’s parlor, scullery, “Man’s Room,” and a gun & fishing rod room.  Perhaps John S. Hoar had a very wealthy client somewhere, but there was no clue where the house was.

Sometime later, our donor was visiting the Breakers in Newport, RI and was inside the Children’s Playhouse on the property.  Framed on the wall, he saw a reproduction of a first-floor plan that looked astoundingly like the plan found in West Acton.  It came from the first Breakers, built for Pierre Lorillard in 1878 and purchased by Cornelius Vanderbilt in 1885.  The building had been designed by prominent Boston architects Peabody & Stearns.  The first Breakers burned in November 1892 and the enormous villa designed by Richard Morris Hunt replaced it.  All that is left of Peabody & Stearns’ work on the property is the 1886 “Toy house” built by Cornelius Vanderbilt “for the pleasure of his children” soon after they moved in. (Newport Mercury, July 3, 1886, p. 1)

Looking at the drawings at Jenks Library, we had a mystery on our hands.  Was it truly the first Breakers?  If so, what were the plans doing in West Acton?  Were these perhaps an architect’s rejects or extra copies for the builder?  Was there a connection between the Hoar family and the builder/architects of the original mansion?  Had someone given the plans to John S. Hoar simply because he was a builder who would be interested in them?  Did he use them as inspiration for his own work? 

Not confident that we would be able to answer all of those questions, we started with identifying the house.  Photos of the first Breakers are available online; despite slight differences, the house pictured looks to be the same as in the drawing.  We wanted to compare our first-floor plan to the one used to build the Lorillard Breakers.  The book Peabody and Stearns: Country Houses and Seaside Cottages by Annie Robinson has photographs of the house and a reproduction of the first-floor plan which was also featured in The American Architect and Building News, Volume 4, No. 132, July 6, 1878, in an illustrative spread between pages 4 and 5. 

Our first-floor plan has more details about doors, windows, fireplaces, built-ins, materials, and patterns than the first-floor plan shown on the left, but there is little doubt that the architectural drawings brought into Jenks Library were for the same house.  The plans must have been for the original building, because immediately after Cornelius Vanderbilt bought the property, he started renovations.  McNeil Brothers, builders from Boston, pulled out mantels and paneling, moved the kitchen away from the main house, and created a new 40’ x 70’ dining room in between, quite different from the original plan.  (Newport Mercury, Dec. 4, 1886, p. 1)

In recent months, much behind-the-scenes work has been going on at the Society’s museum buildings to improve exhibits for the day when we are able to be open again.  Work is also progressing on improving our storage to make items more accessible in addition to being preserved and protected.  In the process of digging into storage and less-accessed areas of our buildings, we occasionally come across a surprise. 

This summer, one of our volunteers uncovered this item, never accessioned into our collection, but a rare find nonetheless.

The purchaser of this toilet tissue would never have expected it to elicit fascination from our volunteers, but disposable daily necessities seldom survive to become antiques.  We do not know where the roll came from, but we did find that a trademark application was filed on November 19, 1925 for “Avona” printed on the diagonal in the font that is on our label.  Jordan Marsh Company held the trademark for many years and periodically advertised Avona toilet tissue in the Boston Globe.  Ads around 1950 featured pictures of the rolls that had quite a different look from ours, so we suspect that our roll was from earlier days.  A May 2, 1927 ad mentioned a 1000-sheet package, not a roll. (page 4)  In the November 10, 1932 issue (p.9), Jordan Marsh advertised a special sale of 24 1000-sheet rolls for $1, so that could be approximately the era of our find.  The tissue came with options; one could buy white, orchid, rose, yellow, green, or blue.  Jordan Marsh would fulfill orders by mail or telephone.  

We never know what we are going to learn by volunteering at the Society.

The Society has a large collection of pictures that apparently came from an East Acton family.  A few identified portraits were of people with surnames Flagg, Wetherbee, Robbins, and Rouillard or of classmates of Ernest Wetherbee (high school class of 1887); we expect that the pictures are of relations, friends and East Acton neighbors.  (See the collection here; we need identification help.)

Some of the pictures in the collection seem to have been taken in Boston.  One picture appears to be the public garden with a swan boat on the left.

One picture was of a float in a parade.  Zooming in on the details shows a street sign on a building indicating that it was taken on Lexington Street in East Boston.  Though East Boston had a number of parades, big ones were held on the 4th of July.  The subject of the picture is a float with men in patriotic uniforms holding oars.  It is likely that it was the tableau of Washington Crossing the Delaware that was mentioned in a July 2, 1895 Boston Post article (p. 2) as a feature of the upcoming parade.  The participants were listed; we had hoped that the participants on the float were Acton men or relatives, but the names were not familiar.  The sponsor of the float was Jewett Lumber. 

If our hypothesis is correct, the historical significance of this picture is that the 1895 parade became infamous for rioting between nativists/Orangemen and Irish Catholics.  Nativists (members of the American Protective Association) had entered the parade with a “little red schoolhouse” float that today seems innocuous but at the time was a symbol of anti-Catholic, anti-parochial school sentiment.  The purpose seemed to be to provoke trouble with the Irish Catholic population of East Boston.  Many stories, some conflicting, appeared in newspapers in the days that followed, but what is clear is that when the rioting was done, one man had been killed, others injured.  We did not see any mention of Acton participants in either the parade or the melee.

Turning to other pictures in the East Acton collection, two of them were taken on a ship.  Judging from the ladies’ sleeves, the pictures were probably taken in the 1890s, perhaps the middle years.  In both pictures, a woman is holding a bouquet; one hypothesis is that it was an excursion on her special day.  

In the top picture, writing on the ship’s bell appears to say “Yarmouth,” indicating that the people were on board the ship of that name, run by the Yarmouth Steamship Company to take passengers from Boston to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia and back.  In the second picture, a sign on a building says “Beach & Clarridge Co.”  In the 1890s, Beach & Clarridge was located at 52-58 Eastern Avenue, meaning that the boat was in Boston Harbor, probably taking on passengers at Lewis Wharf.  Ads from the mid-1890s confirm that the Yarmouth Steamship Company sailed from Lewis Wharf.  (A photo of the deck of the SS Yarmouth in 1894 leaves little doubt that this is the same ship.

After identifying the ship, we were hopeful that we could find a local newspaper announcement of an East Acton family’s trip that might give us clues as to the identity of the people in our pictures.  There were a surprising number of trips to Nova Scotia mentioned during the 1890s.  Unfortunately, despite learning more about our pictures, we have not yet figured out who the people are; if you can help us, please contact us.

A local newspaper article about South Acton a hundred years ago made us start thinking about what life was like for Acton residents that summer.  The article mentioned that a new staircase and walk were being added to the west side of the old Post Office building, giving access to the newly-formed Young Men’s Athletic club rooms.  “The walk in the rear will be six feet in width thereby [a]ffording the comforts of a piazza, where the members can sit, enjoy the beauties of nature in Theron park, watch the passing aeroplanes which of late has been of frequent occurrence, and wonder when the road sign is to be placed on the fountain.” (Concord Enterprise, August 31, 1921, p. 1)  Curious about long how young athletes would be content to sit contemplating a road sign, we started investigating what people did for recreation in the summer of 1921. 

Reading the local newspaper, it would be easy to assume that summer vacations in 1921 were not so different from our own.  The Enterprise reported on residents’ comings and goings as they had guests and visited friends and relatives.  People vacationed at destinations similar to many visited by Acton residents today.  They often headed to the beaches and mountains of New England, but some set out for places farther afield.  Though not noted in the newspaper, much travel would have been done by train.

Automobiles were by now a more common part of life than they had been at the turn of the century, but residents’ car purchases were still reported in the paper.  On August 31, for example, it was reported on the front page that Dr. Mayell was driving a Buick touring car, selectman Kingsley had a Ford, and Wesley Flagg and John Mekkelson had sport cars.  Residents’ road trips by auto were highlighted in the paper all summer.  It is easy to forget how different those trips would have been from our own experiences of the road, but occasionally an item in the newspaper reminds us of how driving has changed.

The June 29 Enterprise reported on John Pederson’s trip to St. Albans in northern Vermont. (p.2, “Some Trip”)  He drove continuously except to stop for meals, water, gas and oil.  That sounds unexceptional, but it took him 23.5 hours to get there.  The article did mention that Vermont’s roads were rough and mountainous in places.  (The return trip in his truck loaded with furniture took even longer; hopefully he stopped somewhere for sleep.)  John Pederson’s experience puts light on the ambition of Joseph Oliver who was reported in the August 10 paper to be leaving for California in his auto with his camping gear. (p. 1)  It was probably helpful that he had previously been working in West Acton as an auto mechanic.

By the early 1920s, autos were evolving.   In 1915, Massachusetts had become the first state to mandate lights on automobiles, and federal standards for headlights were introduced in 1921.  That summer, the local paper reported on the need for car owners to get their headlamps adjusted by authorized mechanics. (July 27, p. 7)  Garages had sprung up in Acton and elsewhere to meet growing demand for service.  John McNiff had closed up his blacksmith shop after 30 years of labor; he was reported to be contemplating opening a garage.  (May 26, 1920, p. 7)  There would have been competition.  In the summer of 1921, ads ran in the Enterprise for the South Acton Garage, Fitzgerald’s Garage in West Acton, and the recently opened East Acton repair garage of Benjamin A. Kimball and Orville J. Fuller, the latter having already worked in automobile construction and repair for fifteen years.   (June 29, p. 8)  John Coughlin advertised that he would provide service “at your own garage”. (July 13, p. 4)

Having a number of repair shops in town was quite useful.  Despite improvements in automobiles, the downside of increased driving was dangerous interactions.  The August 17 Enterprise reported on two serious accidents at Kelley’s corner the previous Saturday. (p. 1)  In the late afternoon, a seven passenger touring car from Missouri struck broadside a Ford coming from Acton “with such force as to hurl it up against the building which stands at the northeast corner.”  Fortunately, the occupants survived.  Later Saturday evening as Mary McCarthy, Clara Binks, Bertha Gould and Frank Hayward were driving home from Lowell, they were struck by a “big car from Maryland.”  Luckily, the damage was more serious to the cars than to the people.  The paper called for improvement to the approaches to the busy intersection and for caution on the part of drivers.  As one sits in traffic at that intersection of Main Street and Massachusetts Avenue, it is worth remembering to be grateful for stoplights.

Finding Things to Do

Despite the fact that roads had not yet caught up with the needs of automobiles, people in the summer of 1921 were on the go.  Lawn parties were very popular, particularly as fundraisers.  On the evening of July 21, the Acton Grange held its annual lawn party and dance.  As announced on July 13, “The Maynard brass band will furnish a concert in the evening and the Highland Ladies’ orchestra of Somerville will play for the dance.  There will be the usual attractions which make these lawn parties popular events of the summer.” (p. 5)  The party was indeed a success.  With convenient means of traveling, visitors came from Acton’s villages and elsewhere, including quite a few from Maynard.  “It is said, that over two hundred automobiles were parked on the sides of Monument square.”  (July 27, p. 4)

Another popular diversion was “moving pictures,” regularly advertised in the Enterprise.  There were often movies in the Concord State Armory to benefit the Red Cross and at a theater in Maynard, admission 25 cents for adults.  Occasionally, a moving picture was shown in West Acton at Odd Fellows Hall.

Acton residents also attended special out-of-town events.  In June, several townspeople ventured to Lowell to see the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus that offered “the greatest congress of attractions in history” with hundreds of performers and a huge “wild beast” display.  “Not only will you see the artists who occupy the three rings, five stages, the great hippodrome track and the aerial rigging in the tent top, but four spacious steel arenas filled with wild beasts as well.” (June 8, p. 7 and June 29, p. 2)  In mid-August, various people from Acton attended the Pilgrim Pageant at Plymouth.  The paper proclaimed that “Although pageants have been greatly in vogue for the last 10 years or more, this one entitled 'The Pilgrim Spirit’ and written by Prof. George P. Baker of Harvard university in commemoration of the 300th anniversary of the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth has been pronounced by an eminent professor of pageantry as the greatest performance since the pageants of the ancients.”  (Aug. 24, p. 1)

Despite the reporting of some residents’ comings and goings in the newspaper, there were undoubtedly many Acton residents who found their amusement in town.  The first challenge for them would have been to beat the heat.  Shade was appreciated; Acton benefited from earlier residents’ foresight in lining streets with trees.  Ads for electric fans at MacRae’s in Concord appeared in the Enterprise for those whose homes and businesses had been wired for electricity.  (Getting electricity was also newsworthy in 1921.)  Piazzas seem to have been quite popular.  Presumably they offered the chance of catching whatever breeze there may have been and, for those on the more traveled thoroughfares, a chance to see the world go by.  With summer came insects, of course, and the newspaper reported that Edward Conant, Harry Tuttle, George Dusseault and the West Acton Baptist parsonage were all adding screening to their piazzas.  (July 13, 1921, p. 5; July 20, p. 4)

Some of those out on their piazzas would have been able to watch the President’s cavalry escort from the Plymouth Pageant as they traveled to an overnight campsite in Maynard.  Fifty-seven men came through with sixty-seven horses and eighteen mules.  (Aug. 10, 1921 p. 1 and 5)  While references to the military in the Enterprise were fewer than they had been in previous years, war’s aftermath occasionally was mentioned.   In August, Charlotte Conant and Gertrude Daniels organized a clambake and corn roast at the Conant place for twenty ex-servicemen from the Groton hospital.  It was followed by an informal dance in the afternoon at the town hall.  (Aug. 24, p. 4)
 
For those actively inclined, summer meant sports.  The Acton villages had baseball teams, as in the past.  The West Acton team was briefly dubbed the Pirates, but the name does not seem to have stuck. (Aug. 24, p. 8)  The newly organized (or perhaps re-organized) Campfire Girls and the Young Men’s Club had a track meet reported June 15.  Reverend R. J. May coached the young men, and Mrs. May led the Camp-Fire girls.  The paper noted, “It will be unique in having both boys and girls as participants although not competing against each other.”  (p. 5)  In July, the groups were putting on plays at the Congregational Church.  The young men were trying to pay for baseball equipment.   The “Nashoba” Camp Fire Girls, meanwhile, “were completing their beaded head-bands and hope to earn their costumes by their entertainment.” (July 13, p. 6)
 
Golf was taking off as an activity.  During the summer of 1921, the Calvin Whitney farm in Maynard was being turned into the Maynard Country Club.  By August, its charter members included a number of Acton residents, although applications from some who already had been on the waiting lists of the Framingham and Concord clubs were being held back to give Maynard residents priority.  (Aug. 24, p. 1 and Aug. 31, 1921, p. 1)  

When it was time to cool off, a popular spot was a swimming hole on Martin Street (near present-day Jones Field) where there were often twenty people swimming at a time.  (July 27, p. 4)  Apparently, however, there were a few problems with the place as a recreation spot.  On August 3, the paper reported:

 “CITIZENS IMPROVING BEACH – In response to the call for workers issued last week, a number of citizens met at the swimming pool at the Martin street bridge and proceeded to do what they could to improve the general appearance of the place, both in and out of the water.  This spot has long been utilized as a dumping place for all kinds of rubbish, such as tin cans, bottles, lamp shades, bicycle frames in quantity and variety sufficient to stock an old curiosity shop and a generous amount was dragged out of the water and put where it can no longer be a menace to the bathers.  ...  This bathing place has been a source of much pleasure to many people this season, even though those who lived at some distance from the pool were obliged to return home wearing their wet bathing suits, under raincoats.  With the place once put in good condition and a suitable bath house built there, it would be a great public benefit.” (p. 8)

Summertime Wasn’t Always Drowsy

There are always those who push the boundaries to create a little excitement.  On July 6, the Acton Center reporter mentioned that “The Fourth was very quietly celebrated except for the ringing of the town hall and church bells from midnight to daybreak, which act of over-celebration should never be permitted in the future.  Someone who stopped at the drinking fountain on the common as an act of rowdyism, broke the two water pipes.” (p. 7)
 
Another item of interest for many would have been hearing amplification for the first time.  The August 17 paper reported that the meeting of the Acton Agricultural association (attended by 150 members) was followed by a social hour, “one feature of which was the exhibition of a ‘magno box’ attachment to a victrola, by Robert W. Carter, a member of the association, the effect of which caused the music to be heard with wonderful distinctness in homes over a quarter of a mile away.” (p. 1)  The paper did not mention what music Mr. Carter shared with Acton Center, but records advertised for 85 cents in the Enterprise that August were variations of the Fox Trot and songs with  catchy titles such as “Anna in Indiana” and “Molly on a Trolley By Golly With You.”  (Aug. 24, p. 8)

A different kind of noisy excitement was reported from South Acton on Aug. 17.  The milk train was coming toward Martin Street on the Boston and Maine tracks at about 8:40 on a Sunday morning.  The engineer, as usual, blew the whistle in warning.  However, the valve that controlled the whistle could not turn off the steam, so the train stopped at South Acton with the whistle “shrieking at a terrific rate.”  The engine with the disabled valve was backed into a rear yard, still shrieking, and another engine took the milk train to Boston.  “During the time of making the shift and for fifty minutes after the fire had been dumped from the engine, the whistle kept up a continuous shriek causing consternation throughout the town. Many persons rushed to the station supposing it to be an alarm of fire or that some serious accident had taken place.”  (p. 7)
 
The most exciting event of the summer, however, seems to have happened in Maynard.  On the first page of the August 10 issue of the Enterprise was an article entitled “Knickers Invade Maynard – What Will the Women Spring on Us Next?”  Apparently, a woman had the audacity to walk down Main Street dressed in “knickers, just plain pants they looked like, golf stockings, high brown tennis shoes, shirt waist, topped with a bit of rouge on the cheek and hair bobbed.”  The result was commotion, men “pop eyed with astonishment,” and all of Main Street agog at the woman who was (supposedly) “as indifferent to the stare of the world as the sunburned one pieced bathing suit extremist.  Business was suspended as clerks and staid proprietors made for a glimpse ...  At first stunned, curiosity soon let loose a chatter and exchange of opinion as to the new styles.”
 
In 1921, it was apparently a sight worth sitting on one’s piazza waiting for.

One of our ongoing projects has been to research the stories of early residents of Acton who were Black or of mixed-race ancestry.  The Massachusetts Tax Inventory of 1771 revealed that there were two “servants for life” in Acton at the time, including one person assessed to Simon Tuttle.  (For relevant entries click here.)  There was no detail about who the person was.  It was easy to assume that records from the March 4, 1783 town meeting referred to the same person when Acton voted to pay Mr. Simon Tuttle for “the Bounty for his negro man which was Twenty four Pounds in March 1777 to be Paid by the Scale of Depreciation.”  However, as is so often the case when we try to understand events more than two centuries ago, we have to be careful with our assumptions.
 
In early 1777, the Continental Army was in a recruiting crisis after enlistments ran out at the end of 1776.  There was pressure on towns to fill their quota of soldiers.  At the March 10, 1777 town meeting, Acton approved a bounty of twenty pounds to every man who would enlist in the Continental Army for three years or as long as the war lasted.  An additional four pounds was offered to men who had or would volunteer between March 3 and March 17, 1777.  Bounties obviously cost money that had to be raised through taxes.  To understand each taxable person’s contribution to the war effort, the town chose a committee to determine “what Service has been Don[e] Personally or by Hireing men to go into the Service ever Since this Present war Begun.”  One of the members of that committee was Simon Tuttle. 
 
In trying to fulfill quotas for towns, it was apparently common practice for recruiters to pay bounties for enlistment out of their own pockets on the understanding that they would be reimbursed.  At a July 30, 1778 town meeting, it had been proposed that the War Rates (taxes) of four men including Lt. Simon Tuttle be abated, presumably for their recruiting efforts.  That proposal was voted down; instead, the town voted that “Every man in the Town that had Paid money to hire men for the Town into the Continental army for three years Shall Receive Said money from the Town.”  During the war years, assessments were frequently revised, and the town did not always have the cash to pay soldiers or recruiters what they were owed.  Inflation was so great that delays in payment made previously-promised amounts seem worthless, so by the time Acton actually paid, amounts had to be adjusted ”by the Scale of Depreciation.” 
 
Most of the men who were hired and received bounties from the town of Acton were not mentioned in town meeting records.  At the March 4, 1783 meeting, however, two individuals were identified.  The third agenda item at the meeting resulted in the formation of a committee “to Settle with Capt Joseph Robbins Respecting his Bounty that he Paid to Oliver Emerson.”  The fourth agenda item resulted in a vote to pay Simon Tuttle the bounty for “his” man.  The use of the word “his” may look to modern readers as if the soldier either had been enslaved or was an employee.  However, we discovered another town meeting record that called that assumption into question.  At the March 5, 1781 town meeting, a committee (including Simon Tuttle) was formed to help the assessors to “class” the residents for the purpose of hiring soldiers to fulfill the town’s quota.  The record went on:
 
“...also voted that if any Class in this Town Shall be So unfortunate as not to Procure their man (after ofering their Best Endeavors to hire one) that they Shall not be Subject to Pay any more than their Proportion of the fine and the Charges that the Several Classes are Put to in hireing and Pay their men in this Town” (emphasis added)
 
Given the above phrasing, it is possible that the 1783 town meeting record’s use of “his” man meant only that the soldier had been hired by Samuel Tuttle to fill a quota.  Town meeting records do not tell us for certain.  What we can say, after our research, is that whatever the soldier’s route to military service for the town of Acton, his story did not have a happy ending.
 
Finding out more about Simon Tuttle’s “man” was complicated by uncertainty about his name and pre-war experiences.  We did discover that Rev. James T. Woodbury’s mid-1800s listing of known Acton Revolutionary War soldiers (transcribed in town histories by Fletcher and Phalen) included “Titus Hayward, colored man, hired by Simon Tuttle.”  The compendium Massachusetts Soldiers and Sailors of the Revolutionary War (MSSRW) did not have an entry for a soldier of that name.  Thinking that perhaps he might have been a (possibly former) slave who enlisted under the name of Tuttle, we found a Titus Tuttle from Acton in MSSRW as having enlisted April 29, 1775 for 3 months and 10 days.  Other service was shown for a Titus Tuttle (no town and no description) in 1776 (2 months) and 1781 (21 months).  (There were other entries of individuals named “Titus” with no surnames in MSSRW, one from Harvard and one from Pittsfield.)  None of the service terms for Titus Tuttle or Titus __ matched the March 1777 enlistment for which Simon Tuttle was later paid a bounty.
 
Matching up the service dates and investigating surname variations for Titus “Hayward” led us to the record of Titus Haywood.  His service record (available online and summarized in MSSRW) shows that he enlisted on March 14, 1777 and served in Edmund Munroe’s Company, Mass. 15th Regiment under Col. Timothy Bigelow.  Captain Munroe was from Lexington as were many members of his company.  The remainder came from other Middlesex County towns, including Acton men John and Theodore Barker and Titus Haywood.  (MSSRW cited a return dated Feb. 2, 1778 that gave Titus Haywood’s residence as Acton and his enlistment credited to fill Acton’s quota.)  Included in the company were at least five other soldiers who have been identified as people of color.  The company served in the Northern Department and fought at Saratoga.  Titus Haywood apparently was not able to participate in the actual Saratoga campaign.  By September 1, 1777, he was reported as being sick in the hospital, later was reported as sick at Albany where there was a large military hospital, and finally in April 1778 was reported as having died on Nov. 5, 1777.    
 
Astoundingly, though later town records and histories listed Titus “Hayward” as a soldier, mentioned his race, and specified who was paid for his enlistment bounty, nowhere in town records did we find a mention of the fact that he died while in service.  It is a reminder of how “history” comes to us.   In later years, there was much more interest in soldiers who died in battle and in the Actonians who were “first at the Concord bridge.”  Other stories disappeared over time.
 
Many questions remain unanswered.  Who was Titus Haywood/Hayward?  While some have guessed that the man Simon Tuttle hired might have been his slave originally, that hypothesis may be incorrect.  We had thought that perhaps the Titus Tuttle who served from Acton in the Revolution might be the same person as Titus “Hayward” in the Woodbury list, but we have not yet found any evidence confirming that theory.  We found some Titus Tuttles alive after the war.  Clearly those individuals were not the Titus Haywood who died in 1777. 
 
We did find one record for a Titus Haywood that may be the same person.  An entry in MSSRW for a Titus Haywood (no town given) shows him as a private in Captain John Hartwell’s co., Col Dike’s regiment.  He enlisted Dec. 14, 1776 and was credited to the town of Concord.  The regiment served until March 1, 1777.  He would have been available to reenlist on March 14, 1777 and be credited to Acton, which would have made him eligible for the 24-pound bounty from the town.  We hope that he actually received it.  Town records do not indicate why it took a special town vote for Simon Tuttle to be paid for hiring him.
 
So far, we have not discovered the story of Titus Haywood’s earlier life.  Our search for information will continue, but on this Memorial Day, we honor the memory of Titus Haywood who served for the town of Acton and never made it back.

Samuel’s family connections made it highly likely that Samuel also served in the Revolution.  Samuel’s brothers Asa and Nathan and many of their relatives served.  Samuel also had many soldiers in his family on his wife’s side; she was Lucy Davis, first cousin to Captain Isaac Davis who led the Acton minutemen and fell at Concord’s North Bridge. 

We checked our standard town histories by Fletcher and Phalen, both of which reprinted Rev. James T.  Woodbury’s listing of Actonians who were known (at the time the list was created, sometime in the mid-1800s) to have served in the Revolution.  The list is not perfect, and Rev. Woodbury acknowledged at the time that it was incomplete.  However, Samuel Parlin did appear in that listing.  Some of his children and other relatives living in Acton were the likely sources. 

Our next challenge was to try to determine when Samuel actually served.  Fortunately, our quest was made much easier when we were able to turn to the Robbins papers in our own archives.  Not every man who served is listed there either, but for lucky people researching certain individuals, the papers can be a goldmine.  It happens that Samuel Parlin was listed as one of the Actonians who signed up on September 29, 1774, “thinking our Selves Ignorant in the Military Art and Willing to be Instructed” by Captain Joseph Robbins in a militia company.  Later, Captain Robbins documented the fact that Samuel Parlin had served under him in 1776 (as did his brothers Nathan and Asa).  We also discovered that much later, Concord’s Gazette and Yeoman listed those who were living in Acton in April 1824 who had fought at Concord on April 19, 1775.  Samuel Parlin was included. (April 24, 1824, p. 2)

Having confirmed that Samuel Parlin did indeed serve in the Revolutionary War, we set out to learn about the rest of his life.  Samuel was born in Acton on May 18, 1747 to Jonathan Parlin and Sarah Warner.  His family were among of the original residents of Acton when it became a town in 1735.  They lived in the northern part of Acton (previously Concord) that eventually became Carlisle.  A map of historic home sites done by Donald Lapham in 1969 shows that the Jonathan Parlin house was located at 322 West Street (at the corner of Acton Street) in present-day Carlisle. 

According to The Descendants of Nicholas Parlin, Samuel had numerous siblings, the oldest of whom (Jonathan) died as a soldier in the French and Indian War in 1758.  The book lists two brothers (Nathan and Asa) serving in the Revolution and, with some question, an additional soldier brother Nathaniel.   Aside from a muster and payroll record indicating that “Nathaniel” Parlin marched from Acton to Roxbury on March 4, 1776 and served six days, we could find no vital or other records for a man of that name.  It is very likely that the record was actually Nathan’s.  Samuel had a sister Elizabeth who never married, and as the Parlin genealogy added, unhelpfully, “There were four other children, all girls.”  (p. 22).  We were able to find in Acton’s vital records that Samuel had three additional sisters, Sarah, Lucy, and Mary.  Sarah died in 1759.  Acton death records do not mention Lucy and Mary, but they must have died before their father, as his probate record does not list them as survivors.  (It also does not list a son Nathaniel.)

Samuel’s father Jonathan died in 1767.  His estate included an 87-acre farm, partly in Acton and partly in Westford, bordering on the land of John Heald Jr.  The farm was left 1/3 to Samuel’s mother, as was customary, and 2/3 to the eldest surviving brother Nathan who lived out his life in Carlisle.  Asa eventually farmed nearby and served the town of Carlisle for many years as town clerk and selectman.

Samuel Parlin, however, moved to a part of town that remained Acton. On March 26, 1772, he married Lucy Davis (1749-1829), daughter of John and Sarah (Flint) Davis of Acton.  Samuel and Lucy had eight children:
 

1. Samuel (1773-1778) - The Parlin genealogy has this child living to adulthood, but Acton records and a gravestone show that this Samuel died Sept. 29, 1778.
2. Lucy (1774-1800) married Lieut. Phinehas Wheeler
3. Jonathan (1777-1830)
4. Eunice (1779-1822) married Joseph Robbins Jr.
5. Warner (1781- 1839) married Lydia Davis (another Capt. Isaac Davis relative)
6. Sally (1785-1859)
7. Susanna (1788-1825)
8. Davis (1791 – 1857), married Nancy Barnard and Sarah Keyes.  For information about his son Henry Davis Parlin, see our blog post on F. W. Pelton’s students.

 
We know that Samuel Parlin lived at what would now be 48 Hammond Street.  The house, which stood until a tragic fire in 1985, was believed to have been built approximately 1772 -1776, presumably based on the date of Samuel’s marriage to Lucy Davis.  Supporting that estimate, we found that in the tax valuation of 1771, Samuel was listed without taxable property, but in Lucy’s father’s 1778 probate record, Samuel Parlin was already a landowner.  Lucy inherited eight acres of pasture and woodland, known as part of the “Proctor Place” that bordered land of “Samuel Parling.”  The probate record also noted that Lucy’s father had previously given her 86 pounds, 19 shillings and 9 pence, probably the value of land John gave to Lucy and Samuel as they started their life together.  Lucy inherited an additional thirty-acre lot on the “westerly side of Nagog Hill” when her eldest brother John died in an accident on March 2, 1791.  The lot was bounded by land that had been set off to her sister Abigail Conant and by land of Simon Tuttle and Samuel Jones Jr.

Samuel first appears in Acton’s town meeting records as a fence viewer in 1776.  He was clearly back from military service in 1780 because he was chosen selectman and assessor in that year.  Starting in 1783, he was chosen regularly for roles such as constable, tithing man, assessor, surveyor of timbers or highways, and school committee.  He was also selected as a member of special committees, for example to deal with abatements to individuals’ taxes and to deal with the selectmen about town expenditures.  He was made a member of the committee to instruct the Convention at Concord in Oct. 1786 (probably the Middlesex County convention dealing with issues that led to Shay’s Rebellion).  In May 1798, town meeting records show that he was selected for a special committee “In a Constitutional mannar to take under Consideration the alarming Situation of our publick affairs and express there minds thereon the Town Expressed there minds agreeable to this article and Chose Jonas Brooks John Edwards Jonas Heald Samuel Parling and Thomas Noys a Committee to publish the Same.”  (This was probably related to tricky diplomatic issues with France.)  It is clear that Samuel Parlin was a trusted figure in town, someone who could handle both money and negotiations amid controversy.

According to church records, on Nov. 24, 1791, Samuel Parlin was chosen for the office of Deacon of the First Parish church of Acton.  On April 19, 1792, the record continued that Samuel Parlin having declined, the church chose Simon Hunt who accepted and “took the seat” in August.  While the Parlin genealogy refers to him as “Deacon Samuel,” there is no record that Samuel Parlin actually ever “took the seat” himself.  The story of why he declined the honor never made it to the history books.

Samuel Parlin died on March 7, 1827, leaving his widow Lucy and four surviving children.  At the time of his death, his real estate included the home farm containing 38 acres of land, a 5-acre “Sargent Meadow”, a 6-acre “Chaffin Meadow”, and an 11-acre “Littleton Pasture.”  He also had the title to pew number 42 on the lower floor of the Acton Meeting house.  Among his personal belongings were agricultural products and tools, cows, swine, sheep, and, oddly, ½ of a horse.  Samuel’s widow Lucy survived him by two years, and eldest son Jonathan only by three.  The home farm passed to son Davis in 1831. The house eventually went out of the family to Thomas Hammond whose name was given to the road on which they lived.  When some of the land was developed in the late 1960s, the new road was given the name of Samuel Parlin Drive.

Our research into Samuel Parlin reminded us of a few lessons that are worth repeating.  Despite having found what looked like a very complete genealogy of the Parlin family, if we had not checked each item, we would have believed that Samuel had an additional brother named Nathaniel and that Samuel’s son Samuel Jr. lived to adulthood and married a woman named Phoebe.  If we had only paid attention to the flag holder in Woodlawn Cemetery, we would have thought that Samuel’s military service was in the War of 1812, not the Revolution.  And if we had stopped our searching at Massachusetts Soldiers and Sailors of the Revolutionary War, we would have missed Samuel’s service, the best documentation of which, ironically, is in our own archives.

As mentioned in a recent blog post, in mid-1800s Acton, a college student or recent graduate could earn funds by teaching an advanced private school session during the fall when the public schools were closed.  A descendant of a student in one of those schools recently shared with us a document relating to Lyman Cutler’s Select School held in the autumn of 1849.  This presumably was the Mr. Cutler whose teaching in the fall of 1848, according to the 1848-1849 School Committee report, was so popular that it created problems for the teacher of the public school in the winter term; the older students apparently did not give the public schoolteacher a chance.  Until seeing this document, we did not know that Mr. Cutler came back to Acton the following autumn.

The document lists the 29 students of the school, divided into “Masters” and “Misses.”  Some were also students in F. W. Pelton’s 1852 private high school, and some were siblings.  The document may have been a recommendation, because the “Remarks” at the bottom state that, “The Scholars enjoyed the School without any exceptions, and in the opinions of Visitors made good improvement.”

We looked into the life of this promising teacher.  Lyman Cutler was born in Holliston, MA on August 4, 1826 to Amos Cutler and Sarah Topliff.  He had at least three brothers and a sister.  Instability and tragedy seem to have affected the family during Lyman’s childhood, and Sarah and her children returned to Dorchester where she had grown up.  Despite apparent early difficulties, three sons were able to pursue higher education.  Lyman studied privately under Reverend Dr. Perry of Bradford, MA and entered Dartmouth College in 1843.  While there, he was a member of the Alpha Delta Phi fraternity.  He graduated with honor in 1847 and immediately went to Andover Theological Seminary.  It would have been during fall breaks in his Andover studies that he taught in Acton to earn money.  He graduated in 1850.  (Two younger brothers followed him to Andover Theological Seminary; Calvin, who graduated from Dartmouth in 1856 and Seminary in 1861 and Elijah who graduated from Williams College in 1856 and Seminary in 1862.)

The newly-minted Reverend Cutler was called to the Evangelical Church in Pepperell, MA and was installed on January 22, 1851.  The Boston Recorder reported the event and indicated that Pepperell had done well to have obtained Lyman Cutler as their pastor, because his “reputation as a youthful preacher has already made him somewhat in demand among the churches.”  (Jan. 30, 1851, p. 18)  On March 14, 1851, he married Elizabeth Hill of Conway, NH.  Lyman Cutler returned to Acton to participate in the installation of Rev. Benjamin Dodge at the Evangelical (Congregational) Church in October, 1852, presumably seeing some of his former students there. 

Rev. Cutler was only in Pepperell for 2.5 years.  While there, however, he managed to get into a dispute with Daniel Foster, a speaker for the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society who lectured in Pepperell in May 1852.  The dispute may have been partly personal and partly religious, but without actually mentioning names, Rev. Cutler apparently attempted to persuade his flock that Daniel Foster was not to be trusted, causing quite a furor.  To be fair, we only have the words of aggrieved letter writers in the Liberator and not Rev. Cutler’s side of the story.  (Oct. 8, 1852, p. 163, Dec. 17, 1852, p. 204)  He was not the first minister with Acton ties to be at odds with the Liberator, as discussed in our blog post on Rev. James T. Woodbury’s dispute with Liberator editor William Lloyd Garrison.  (We can see from the student list that Reverend Woodbury’s son Porter was in Lyman Cutler’s 1849 school.)  Other references to Rev. Cutler’s career were more favorable.  He did not have long to prove himself.  By November 1853, he was sick and asked to be dismissed from his role in Pepperell.  It was a difficult decision for him.  With rest, he managed to regain his health enough to start preaching again. 

Though not in perfect health, he was called by Eliot Church in Newton to be their pastor and was installed there on October 25, 1854.  Unfortunately, 1855 was a terrible year for the family.  Lyman and his wife Elizabeth lost their only child Lyman Edwards Cutler on January 16, 1855 at the age of sixteen months to “congestion of the brain.”  The Boston Herald had just reported that Rev. Cutler was in a “feeble state of health” himself and would be taking a leave of absence with pay.  (Jan. 12, 1855, p. 2)  Sadly, on April 28, 1855, Lyman succumbed to tuberculosis at the age of 28.  His gravestone, next to his son’s in East Parish Burying Ground in Newton, was erected by members of the Eliot Church “in memory of their late beloved pastor.”

A lengthy obituary in the Congregationalist mentioned Lyman Cutler’s ability to speak with “great force and beauty of imagination,” “great emotive power” and “irrepressible fervency....  When he was impassioned the tones of his voice were thrilling.  The work of persuading men was natural to him.”  He was also apparently social and warm-hearted and had a capacity for drawing “to himself the hearts of his fellow-men.”  (May 18, 1855, p.1)  It is not at all surprising that Lyman Cutler’s school would have been exceptionally popular with Acton’s students.

References:
A comprehensive biography of Lyman Cutler can be found in the Congregationalist, May 18, 1855, p. 1, “Rev. Lyman Cutler.”  His select school is mentioned in the 1848-1849 Acton School Committee report, p. 11.  He also appeared in catalogues of alumni of both Dartmouth College and Andover Theological Seminary and was mentioned in his brothers’ biographies as well.  See especially his entry in Chapman’s 1867 Sketches of the Alumni of Dartmouth College, page 366.  The Boston Recorder described his installation at Pepperell (Jan. 30, 1851, p. 18) and Newton (Nov. 2, 1854, p. 174) and his visit to Acton (Nov. 4, 1852, p. 178).  Brown University has a copy of his 1854 installation program in its archives.

A biography of Daniel Foster that sheds some light on the dispute with Lyman Cutler and other “orthodox” ministers can be found in the October 2005 newsletter of the Chester Historical Society, “Reverend Daniel Foster ‘The Fighting Chaplain of the Massachusetts 33rd.”

Thank you to our donor for sharing information about Lyman Cutler’s Select School.  In the course of researching Rev. Cutler’s time at Dartmouth, we found quite a few other Dartmouth students who taught in Acton.  Most taught in the winter term of the public schools and were discussed in school committee reports.  We did not find such records for the teaching of Reverend James Fletcher (1843-1844) and Sylvanus Dearborn (1855), either because of record availability or because they taught privately.  If you have more information about their teaching or about other private school teachers in Acton, please contact us.