Chapman Publishing Company.

Genealogy and biography of leading families of the city of Baltimore and Baltimore County, Maryland .. online

. (page 1 of 124)
Online LibraryChapman Publishing CompanyGenealogy and biography of leading families of the city of Baltimore and Baltimore County, Maryland .. → online text (page 1 of 124)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


.iand is best told in the
lives of the people. Their prosperity has meant
her advancement, and their suffering her adver-
sity. The character and progress of a state is
largely dependent upon its first settlers. The
I)eople of New England may in some measure owe
the characteristics for which they are noted to
the influence of climate and environment, but to
a large extent tiiey are due to the all-permeating
influences of ancestry, bj- which is moulded, for
weal or woe, the destiny of generations yet to
come. The' people of Pennsylvania, also, still

bear in their characters the impress of their
Quaker forefathers, while the enterprise of the
citizens of New York to-day is largely inherited
from their ancestors, the thrifty and energetic
pioneers of New Amsterdam. Very appropri-
ately, then, we may review the history of the
early settlement of Maryland; and from the rec-
ords of its pioneers gain an insight into the traits
that characterize their descendants of to-day.


George Calvert, Baron of Baltimore, was born
in Yorkshire, England, in 1582. When a young
man he became secretar>- to Sir Robert Cecil,
later was made clerk to the privy council, and
ultimately served as secretarj- of state to James I.
This positi m, however, he resigned in 1624, be-
cause of his conversion to the Roman Catholic
religion, ''n 1625 he was given the title of Baron
of Baltimore, in the kingdom of Ireland. During
his secretary.ship he obtained a grant of the
province of Avalon, Newfoundland, and made an
effort to secure a settlement there, but failed. Be-
lieving that he couUi succeed in a more favorable
climate, he visited Virginia, and was immediately
impressed by the facilities presented for .settlement
upon the Chesapeake Bay. Returning to Eng-
land, he obtained a grant of the province of Mar>'-
land from King Charles, but early in 1632, when
his charter was ready for pas.sage under the great
.seal, he died, and the grant was inherited by l.i:,
son, Cecilius Calvert, to whom the charter of
Maryland was granted, June 20, 1632.

The granting of Mar>'land to Lord Baltimore
aroused the indignation of Virginian colonists,


owing to the fact that the land lay within the
limits of Virginia according to its charter govern-
ment, and they still considered it a part of their
possessions, although the original charter had
been annulled and the colony was under royal
government after 1625. Some of the residents
of the Old Dominion presented a petition to the
house of commons, asking for the restoration of
the ancient patents, but the governor and council
of the colony remonstrated against a change of
charter, and the king's reply, in July, 1642,
allayed whatever fears they may have had on the
subject. In 1658 the province of Maryland was
surrendered to Feudal 1, the proprietary's gover-
nor, after which nothing more is heard concern-
ing Virginia's claim of Maryland.


While, however, there was no further trouble
regarding the claim, its territorial limits continued
for many years to be the source of constant con-
tention. Not only were there frequent disputes
with Virginia as to the location of Watkin's Point,
upon which depended the boundary line between
the eastern shores of Virginia and Maryland, but
there was also considerable controversy with
William Penn about the northern and eastern
boundaries. When James, Duke of York, and a
friend of Penn, came to the throne, the latter pre-
sented an application for a new grant, and met
with success, for in November, 1685, the com-
missioners of trades and plantations, to whom the
matter had been referred, decided that Lord Bal-
timore's grant included only " lands uncultivated
and inhabited by savages, and that the territory
along the Delaware had been settled by Christians
antecedent to his grant, and was therefore not in-
cluded within it," and they directed that the
peninsula between the two bays should be divided
into two equal parts by a line drawn from the
latitude of Cape Henlopen to the fortieth degree
of north latitude; and that the western portion
belonged to Baltimore and the eastern to Penn.

When the goverimient of England was taken
from the hands of James and given to William of
Orange, the anti-Catholic feeling that had been
fostered by attending circumstances, extended to

the province of Maryland, and a Protestant asso-
ciation was formed by John Coode and others, to
supersede the proprietary government, which ob-
ject they attained in 1689; but the next year it
was taken from them and afterward remained a
royal government until 1716. A compact was
entered into, May 10, 1732, between Lord Balti-
more and John, Richard and Thomas Penn, the
sons of William Penn by his last marriage. This
agreement provided that the boundaries should
consist of a line beginning at the easternmost
part of Cape Henlopen, and running due west to
the exact middle of the peninsula at that point,
and of a line running from that middle point to
the north, forming a tangent to a circle drawa
around Newcastle, with a radius of twelve miles.
In adjusting the boundary between Marjland and
Pennsylvania, the agreement provided that it
.should begin, not at the fortieth degree of lati-
tude as previously provided, but at a latitude fif-
teen English statute miles south of the most
southerly part of Philadelphia. However, the
commissioners appointed to carry out this agree-
ment were of such different opinions that further
negotiations became impossible. Finally, in May,
1738, it was decided to run a temporary line, to
be used until the final adjustment was made, and
the following year this provisional line was
actually run.

The final decision regarding the boundary was
still a matter of doubt when Charles, Lord Balti-
more, died, in April, 1751, and it was left to his
heir, Frederick, to bring to a culmination the
plans for the adjustment of the permanent bound-
ary, which was finally decided upon by com-
missioners, appointed for the purpose, and who
were engaged in the performance of their duty
from November 19, 1760, to November 9, 1768.


The first settlements within Maryland , made
under the proprietary, were at and near St.
Mary's City, and were made in 1633-34. Prior
to this a small settlement had been made on Kent
Island, which, after Clayborne's rebellion, was
brought into submission and formed the nucleus
of the eastern shore settlements. For .some years


afterward these two points were the only settle-
ments in the province, and they formed the
nucleus from which sprang other settlements.
Talbot County was erected in 1661, Somerset
in 1666, Cecil m 1674, Dorchester in 1669, yueen
Anne in 1706, Worcester in 1742 and Caroline in
1773. About 1659 Baltimore County was formed
out of the territory north of Anne Arundel, and a
proclamation June 6, 1674, declared that its
southern boundaries should be "the south side
of Patapsco River, and from the highest planta-
tions on that side of the river, due south two
miles into the woods." Cecil County was erected
in 1674, by the proclamation of the governor,
Charles Calvert, its boundaries being described as
e.xtending "from the mouth of the Susquehanna
River down the eastern side of the bay to Swan
point; thence to Hell point, and so up Chester
River to the head thereof." These bounds,
slightly varied a few days afterward, remained
until the act of 1706, which enacts that "Cecil
County shall contain all the lands on the north
side of the Sassafras River and Kent County, and
shall be bounded on the east and north by the
bounds of the province, on the west by the Sus-
quehanna and the bay, and on the south by the
Sassafras River and Kent County. Harford
County was created in 1773, by an act which de-
clares that ' 'its bounds shall begin at the mouth
of the Little Falls of Gunpowder River, and run
thence with said falls to the fountain head; thence
north to the line of the province; thence with
that line to the Susquehanna River: thence
with that river to the Chesapeake Bay; thence
with the bay, including Spesutia and Pool's
Islands, to the mouth of Gunpowder River; and
thence up said river to the beginning."


The history of Maryland up to the Revolution
naturally divides itself into three periotls. The
first of these extends from the first settlement to
1688, when events were shaping themselves to-
ward the formation of the Protestant a.ssociation.
The second epoch extends from 1688 to the res-
toration of proprietary power in 17 15, and the
third period from that time to the treaty con-

cluded in Paris, in 1763. During the one hun-
dred and thirty years comprised within these
three epochs, the colony had developed from its
incipiency to a prosperous commotiwealth. In-
dians had disappeared before the advance of civil-
ization. Cities had been built, and forests trans-
formed into beautiful plantations, where men and
women labored happily and successfully. Settle-
ments had been enlarged and extended, and com-
mercial resources had been developed. Upon the
fair name of the state is no stain of religious per-
secution, no stigma of the exercise of tyrannical
power over the red men of the forest. It was the
policy of the men who shaped the government to
protect all who were under it, and hence persecu-
tion was almost unknown in the province. "The
annals of Maryland, " in the words of Dr. Ram-
say, "are barren of those striking events which
illustrate the page of history. This is probably
the reason that so little of its history has been
published. Its internal peace in the period ot
infancy was but little disturbed, either by Indians
or insurgents, though not wholly exempt from
either. Its early settlers loved their king and
their proprietary. They were not given to
change, but attached to ancient forms, their na-
tive country and its constitution."

By those who are familiar with the early his-
tory of America it will be remembered that the
majority of people who sought homes here did so
in the hope of securing religious freedom. For a
somewhat similar rea.son were the men influenced
who became the pioneers of Maryland. George
Calvert was an adherent to the doctrines of the
Roman Catholic Church, and while he stood in
favor with the king, his religion was proscribed
and embarrassment to himself ensued. Without
doubt, his thoughts must have often turned to a
country where he might have freedom to wor-
ship as the dictates of his conscience directed. He
visited Virginia, but found there the same intol-
erance to Catholicism exhibited in his native
land. Then it was that he was attracted to the
land lying on both sides of Chesapeake Bay, a
land that seemed unexcelled for fertility of .soil
and beauty of climate, and a land that was as yet
unclaimed. His ambitious spirit prompted him


to attempt to found a settlement here, and had it
not been for his untimely death he would have
witnessed the triumph of his undertaking, the
success of his enterprise. The spirit which
prompted him, and the energy characteristic of
his every action, were inherited by his son,
Cecilius, who, unable to accompany the expedi-
tion in person, consigned it to the care of his
brother, Leonard.


November 22, 1633, about two hundred per-
sons took passage from the Isle of Wight, en
route to the new world, taking with them all their
worldly possessions, and a large stock of courage
and hope, without which .such an expedition
would have soon failed. The most of the voy-
ageurs were Roman Catholics, and some were gen-
tlemen of wealth. It was on the 24th of Febru-
ary, 1634, when, weary with the long voyage
upon the ocean, they landed at Point Comfort,
Va., and from there they sailed up the Potomac
in search of a site for the colony. They journej'ed
up St. Mary's River about seven miles, until
they came to an Indian town, Yaocomoco. The
first act of the governor, Leonard Calvert, was
to the town from the Indians and secure
their consent to hi.'- residence within it. March
27, 1634, the pilgrims of Maryland landed at Yao-
comoco and laid the foundations of the old town
of St. Mary's and of the present commonwealth.
At the expense of the proprietary, the colony
was provided with implements for farming, pro-
visions and clothing, and material for the erection
of houses. During the first few years of its es-
tablishment, the proprietary expended upon it
about forty thousand pounds sterling. His kind-
ness, however, was not limited to the gift of
money and materials. What was far better, his
policy of government was exceptionally good, and
aroused the confidence of the settlers as well as
secured their happiness. The freemen were con-
vened in assembly, and were made to realize that
the government was their own. Religious lib-
erty was allowed. Courts of justice were intro-
duced and the administration of law was strict

and firm. For seven years the colony pro.spered,
and when trouble arose, it was from without, not
from within. The succeeding years were years
of strife, occasioned largely by the hostile acts of
William Clayborne, whose name is identified
with almost every act of hostility to Maryland
during the first twenty-five years of its settlement.
In Julv, 1656, Josias Feudal) was commissioned
governor by the proprietary, and the province
formally surrendered to him, March 20, 1658.
However, his rule was of short duration, and
proprietary government was again established.

In 1662 Charles Calvert was sent to the prov-
ince as its governor, and he continued to reside
there until the death of his father, Cecilius, Lord
Baltimore, which occurred November 30, 1675.
His son, Charles, then succeeded to the title and
estates, and, naming his son, Cecil, as nominal
governor, he departed for England, but found
himself and his goverinnent the subject of com-
plaint there. Some of the resident clergy of the
province had made representations to the heads
of the established church in England, declaring
that there existed immoralities that required, and as a remedy they proposed the estab-
lishment and endowment of lands. The answer
of the proprietary was easily made. He referred
to the permanent law of the province, tolerating
all Christians; and to the impracticability of pro-
curing the exclusive establishment of any church,
and he was released from the subject by the in-
junction to enforce the laws against immorality
and to endeavor to procure a maintenance for the
support of some of the clergy of the church of
England. In February, 1680 (new style"), the
proprietary returned to Maryland, where he re-
mained until 1684, and then went back to Eng-
land, where the peculiar circumstances rendered
it advisable for him to be. Complaints had been
poured into the ear of King Charles, in relation
to the Catholic partialities of the proprietary. It
is said the latter transmitted to the home govern-
ment a list of the officers of the province, which
showed that the majority of the positions were
in the hands of the Protestants, and in reply to
this communication he received an order from
Charles to "put all the offices into the hands of



Baltimore County




glOGRAPHY alone can justly represent the progress of local history' and portray with accuracy
the relation of men to events. It is the only means of perpetuating the lives and deeds of
those men to whom the advancement of a city or county and the enlightenment of its people
are due. The compilers of this work have striven to honor, not only men of present prominence,
but also, as far as possible, those who in years gone by labored to promote the welfare of their cora-
ninnity. The following sketches have been prepared from the standpoint of no man's prejudice,
hut with an impartial aim to render justice to progressive and public-spirited citizens and to collect
personal records that will be of value to generations yet to come.

To be forgotten has been the great dread of mankind from remotest ages. All will be forgotten
soon enough, in spite of their best works and the most earnest efforts of their friends to presen-e the
memory of their lives. The means employed to prevent oblivion and to perpetuate their memory
have been in proportion to the amount of intelligence they po.sse.ssed. The pyramids of Egypt were
built to perpetuate the names and deeds of their great rulers. The exhumations made by the
archaeologists of Egypt from buried Memphis indicate a desire of people to perpetuate the
memorj- of their achievements. The erection of the great obelisks was for the .same
Coming down to a later period, we find the Greeks and Romans erecting mausoleums and
monuments, and carving out statues to chronicle their great achievements and carry them down the
ages. It is evident that the Mound-builders, in piling up their great mounds of earth, had but
this idea — to leave something to show that they had lived. All works, though many of them
costly in the extreme, give but a faint idea of the lives and character of those whose memory they
were intended to perpetuate, and scarcely anything of the of the people that then lived. The
great pyramids and some of the obeli.sks remain objects only of curiosity: the raau.soleums,
monuments and statues are crumbling into dust.

It was left to modern ages to establish an intelligent, undecaying, immutable method of
perpetuating a full history — immutable in that it is almost unlimited in extent and perpetual in its
action; and this is through the art of printing.

To the present generation, however, we are indebted for the introduction of the admirable
system of local biography. By this .system every man, though he has not achieved what the world
calls greatness, has the means to perpetuate his life, his histon,-, through the coming ages.

The scythe of Time cuts down all; nothing of the physical man is left. The monument which
his children or friends may erect to his raeraor>- in the cemetery will crumble into dust and pass
away; but his life, his achievements, the work he has accomplished, which otherwise would be
forgotten, is perpetuated by a record of this kind.

To preserve the lineaments of our companions we engrave their portraits; for the same reason
we collect the attainable facts of their history. Nor do we think it necessary, as we speak only
tnith of them, to wait until they are dead, or until who know them are gone; to do this we
are ashamed only to publish to the world the histor>' of those whose lives are unworthy of public


"TXOCH PRATT. One of Maryland's widest
^ known and most prominent men, and the
__ founder of the great public library that bears
his name was Enoch Pratt, who was born at
North Middleboro, Plymouth County, Mass.,
September lo, 1808, and died at his home in the
city of Balti more, Septe mber 17, 1896. At the
age of fifteen he graduated from an academy at
Bridgewater, Mass., after which he obtained a
position as clerk in a Boston store, and after thus
accumulating $150, he started in business in Balti-
more as a commission hardware merchant and
later as a wholesale dealer in iron. After a time
his cousin, Martin Keith, was admitted into part-
nership, and about ten years later his younger
brother became a member of the firm, which took
the name of E. Pratt & Bro. After the death of
the brother, David, Henry Janes became associ-
ated with Mr. Pratt, and after the death of Mr.
Janes, the latter'sson, Henry Pratt Janes, became
a partner and remained so until Mr. Pratt's

In i860 Mr. Pratt became president of the
Farmers and Planters' Bank, ha%'ing previouslj-
been one of its directors for many years, and as
he worked untiringly in its interests it became

Online LibraryChapman Publishing CompanyGenealogy and biography of leading families of the city of Baltimore and Baltimore County, Maryland .. → online text (page 1 of 124)