The Proceedings of the Cambridge Historical Society, Volume 40, 1964-1966 Contents Officers 5 PAPERS The Devil and Daniel Shays BY ROBERT A. FREER 7 Boston Woven Hose and Rubber Company: Eighty-Four Years In Cambridge BY ALDEN S. FOSS 23 The Middlesex Canal BY BRENTON H. DICKSON 43 Lydia's Conversion: An issue in Hooker's Departures BY NORMAN PETIT 59 Robert Frost of Brewster Village BY ERASTUS H. HEWITT 84 The Discovery of the Charles River by the Vikings According to the Book of Horsford BY WENDELL D. GARRETT 94 Behind the Scenes at 47 Workshop BY ELIZABETH W. BOLSTER 110 Jonathan Sewall: A Lawyer in Conflict BY HILLER B. ZOBEL 123 Seventy-Five Years of Continuing Education: The Prospect Union Association BY ZELDA LIONS AND GORDON W. ALLPORT 137 A Historical Perspective BY DAVID B. POTTS 159 Annual Reports 162 Members 167 The Cambridge Historical Society LIST OF OFFICERS FOR 1964-1966 1964 President Mr. William L. Payson Honorary Vice-President Miss Lois Lilley Howe Vice-Presidents Mr. Richard C. Evarts Mr. Richard W. Hall Mrs. Robert W. Harwood Secretary Mrs. Charles S. Jeffrey Treasurer Mr. Alden S. Foss Honorary Curator Mrs. Henry H. Saunderson Curator Mrs. George W. Howe Editor Mr. Wendell D. Garrett 1965 President Mr. Richard C. Evarts Vice Presidents Mr. Charles Conrad Wright Mr. Hollis G. Gerrish Mrs. Robert W. Harwood Secretary Mrs. Charles S. Jeffrey Treasurer Mr. Alden S. Foss Honorary Curator Mrs. Henry H. Saunderson Curator Mrs. George W. Howe Editor Mr. Wendell D. Garrett 5 1966 President Mr. Richard C. Evarts Vice-Presidents Mr. Charles Conrad Wright Mr. Foster McC. Palmer Mrs. Robert W. Harwood Secretary Mrs. Charles S. Jeffreyy Treasurer Mr. Alden S. Foss Honorary Curator Mrs. Henry H. Saunderson Curator Mrs. George W. Howe Editor Mr. Wendell D. Garrett MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL 1964 Mrs. Charles S. Bolster Mr. Robert G. Henderson Mr. Hollis G. Gerrish Miss Penelope B. Noyes Mrs. Charles Chauncey Gray Mr. Charles Conrad Wright 1965 Mrs. Charles S. Bolster Miss Penelope B. Noyes Mrs. Richard W. Hall Mr. Foster McC. Palmer Mrs. Charles Chauncey Gray Mr. Hartwell Pond 1966 Mr. Oakes I. Ames Mrs. Richard W. Hall Miss Eleanor R. Appel Mrs. Ralph May Mrs. Charles Chauncey Gray Mr. Hartwell Pond 6 The Devil and Daniel Shays BY ROBERT A. PEER S children grow up, they change in many ways. But one important characteristic of A ​ childhood​ is never lost. Most people, of whatever age, sex, or description, retain one childish trait throughout their lives: the tendency to look for scapegoats, the effort to blame everything which goes wrong on someone else, the desire, the desperate desire, to find simple explanations for complex happenings — in short, to believe in the devil theory of history. When a child is doing badly in his school work, the explanation may be a combination of several factors —he may be physically unwell; he may be distracted because his parents are constantly quarreling; he may be insecure and intensely jealous of his brothers and sisters. But the child will have one very simple explanation for his poor showing in school: "Mommy, the teacher doesn't like me." And so, the child explains history in terms of the devil, the devil in this case having taken the shape of the teacher. And so it is with adults. In the late 1940's and early 1950's, it was fashionable in some circles to blame the Communist triumph in China on Harry Truman. Never mind the corruption of Chiang Kai-shek and the unwillingness of Chinese peasants to fight for a government which was doing nothing for them; never mind the military strength of the Communists or the hopes of a better future which the Communists held out to the Chinese. Never mind these and many other factors which account for the Communist victory; blame it all on Harry Truman. 7 Or, to take another example of the devil theory of history, the sit-in demonstrations, which have done so much to help win freedom for the American Negro, developed as a result of many factors ranging all the way from the adoption of the Declaration of Independence a century and three-quarters earlier to the sacrifices which Negro Americans made in World War n to defeat German and Japanese racism. And yet, in 1960, Harry Truman —the same Harry Truman who had himself been the victim of the devil theory of history a few years earlier — explained the sit-in demonstrations by recourse to the devil. The sit-ins, he proclaimed, were engineered by the Communists! Blaming the devil is hardly new, however. Shays's Rebellion, which took place in western Massachusetts shortly after the American Revolution, has frequently been blamed upon the devil. What form did the devil take in Massachusetts during the winter of 1786— 1787 as farmers in western counties attacked the courts and the jails in order to keep from losing their farms to mortgage holders? It all depends upon which devil theory you care to accept, for two different devil theories have been developed to explain Shays's Rebellion. According to one version, Shays's Rebellion was the work of Tories; according to another, it was brought about by conservative Boston businessmen. Soon after Shays's Rebellion broke out late in the summer of 1786, the Boston town meeting adopted a resolution which put the matter simply and directly: "We are convinced that the present disturbances, arise from British Emissaries residing Among us, whose 1 every wish is for our Overthrow and ruin." ​ At about the same time, a newspaper editor ​ commented concerning the armed attacks on courts, "I do seriously believe them to be excited, supported and encouraged by the emissaries of that nation to which we were formerly subject. They could not conquer us in the field, and they mean now to attempt our disturbance and ruin by exciting commotions, which tend to destroy the energy of our 2 government and render it contemptible." And​ so it went, with many ​ 1 ​ Boston Town Records, 1784 to 1796 (Boston, 1903), p. 131. 2 ​ Hampshire Gazette, Sept. 20, 1786. ​ 8 Americans, some of whom should have known better, blaming Shays's Rebellion on agents provocateurs sent into western Massachusetts by the British and by their American allies, the Tories. It is sometimes difficult for the historian to prove that something was not being done. But, in this case, all of the available evidence makes it quite plain that neither Tories nor British agents were plotting or abetting a rebellion in Massachusetts. Thomas Clarke, a local politician and representative to the General Court from Roxbury, wrote to Governor James Bowdoin early in September 1786, telling him about a neighbor in Roxbury who had a friend fifty miles away in Worcester County whose acquaintance had 3 asked him to sign "a petition to the Parliament of Great Britain." ​ This, according to Clarke, ​ proved that British agents were responsible for Shays's Rebellion. Bowdoin asked a confidant in Worcester County whose loyalty he trusted to look into the matter. No evidence of Tory troublemakers was uncovered, and the matter was dropped. This is typical of the flimsy evidence offered by those who argued that British and Tory agents provocateurs had started the Rebellion.4 ​ The letters and diaries of Tories and British officials fail to uncover any plot against the government of Massachusetts. Just the opposite — their writings suggest that they had not heard of any such plot and would not have wanted to become involved even if the suggestion had been made to them. By the mid-1780's, most Tories had already faced up to the fact of American independence and were anxious to resume normal relations with their neighbors. And British diplomatic agents in America were convinced by the winter of 1786-1787 that the United States was here to stay and that it would be more realistic to try to get along with the new government than to hope for its collapse. Phineas Bond, who was appointed British consul for the middle 3 ​ Thomas Clarke to James Bowdoin, Roxbury, Sept. 8, 1786 (Massachusetts Archives, Vol. cxc, fol. 238). 4 ​ For other reports of suspected Tory activity, see the following: Artemus Ward to James Bowdoin, Shrewsbury, Sept. 12, 1786 (Mass. Archives, Vol. CXC, fol. 252); Elbridge Gerry to Rufus King, Cambridge, ​ ​ ​ Oct. 29, 1786 (Rufus King Papers, New-York Historical Society); Hampshire Gazette, Oct. 18, Nov. 8, 1786. 9 states in April of 1786 and arrived in Philadelphia the following autumn, had no fondness for the United States. He suggested opening a free port in the Bahamas from which the Spanish West Indies could be supplied, thus cutting off American trade and her most important source of specie. He helped smuggle back to England some textile machines which enterprising Americans had sneaked out of that country. And he suggested "very discreet and careful management" to encourage Americans to migrate to Canada. But he never proposed stirring up internal disorders or using secret agents to overturn American governments. Indeed, soon after his arrival in this country, Bond was convinced that Britain should prefer stable governments in America to weak ones.5 ​ Throughout these years, Governor Bowdoin maintained an active correspondence with several British citizens who were sympathetic to the new American governments and who would likely have heard of any schemes of the British government to regain the lost colonies. John Temple, who came to the United States as British consul general, happened to be Bowdoin's son-in-law and was on good terms with the Massachusetts governor.