History

The Woman on the Declaration

July 4, 2019 By Karen A. Chase

Founding-Documents Blog Series: Part Six

On this, July 4th, my blog features the last in a brief series related to the history and signing of the Declaration of Independence… Part one began here.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

So many blogs will rightly tell you that the Declaration of Independence was not written, voted for, or even signed on July 4th. All true. Today, however, I’d rather talk about the only woman whose name graces the Declaration. A woman featured in Carrying Independence.

Mary Katharine Goddard

Her brother was a drunkard. He owned his own print-shop which often fell into neglect as he stumbled around the colonies bemoaning (whining) that Benjamin Franklin had been given the title of Postmaster General over him.

When the print shop was left in Mary Katharine’s hands in Baltimore in the mid 1770s, Mary Katharine (with two As) became known not only as the printer, but the editor and the first female Postmaster of Baltimore. (As she says in novel, “It does not take a man to organize the mail… I was already writing and publishing both the Maryland Journal and the Baltimore Advertiser, so why not know the post routes, too?”)

Postmasters in the colonies were paid by Congress, making Mary Katharine the first female federal employee of the newly formed United States. But by the end of 1776, problems in that new country were afoot.

Congress Had a Failing Army

Getting all the congressmen to sign a sole copy of a Declaration—while hiding their identities—was one thing. Ensuring troops stayed to fight was quite another. By January of 1777, the enlistments of soldiers who had joined in July of ’76 were nearly up. Their morale was severely down. Would you have stuck around after 6–8 months of marching, starving, and losing, or would you go home to tend your farm and eat?

Congress decided to admit “to a candid world” who the signers were. They put out the call to printers asking them to make a copy of the Declaration with all their names typeset so all those soldiers could see exactly who and what they were fighting for.

A Woman Volunteers

Enter Mary Katharine Goddard. In February of 1777, she volunteered her print shop in Baltimore to print documents, called broadsides. She used the font Caslon, which, ironically, was created in a type foundry in England. Two hundred copies were made and circulated among the states. To date, nine copies still exist.

Only one signer’s name does not appear on the Goddard broadside. That of Thomas McKean of Delaware. It’s believed that when Goddard printed these copies, the congressmen had yet to sign the original—further proof that the congressmen were not all together on August 2nd for the formal engrossing.

Although her name doesn’t appear on the original signed version of the Declaration, I still point to her when historians ignore women’s roles in the struggle for independence. Mary Katharine not only participated, she even had the wherewithal to typeset her own name on her copies, thereby inking herself into history.

The Smithsonian has a lovely article by Erick Trickey on Mary Katharine Goddard‘s life, background, and achievements.

Reader Insider Note: In order to make copies like the Goddard broadside, printers often worked alongside the original document. In my novel, my protagonist, Nathaniel, not only delivers the document, but stays to help Mary Katharine Goddard typeset the thing. To read how it was done, and to see the sparks fly between Postmistress and Post rider, you can get the book… (ahem—it’s just 99¢ all this week).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For more history nerd posts like these, subscribe to the blog. Guest posts are welcomed and encouraged. Contact me for details.

For behind-the-scenes author-related news, giveaways, and to find out where I might be speaking near you, subscribe to my e-publication, CHASING HISTORIES.

Declaration of Independence Mistakes

June 13, 2019 By Karen A. Chase

Founding-Documents Blog Series: Part Five

Between now and July 4th, my blog features an ongoing series related to the history and signing of the Declaration of Independence… Part one began here.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

While researching the Declaration for Carrying Independence, I came across a few unique things about the the document itself.

The Declaration is a Document With Mistakes

Timothy Matlack was hired to copy the text from Jefferson’s drafts onto the official document. He was responsible for the ink used for the text and the signers (see Part Four here), but in the copying, there were a couple mistakes.

As Kris Spisak wrote, when she was a guest on my blog in her article on Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of an American Language, we often discuss the use of “unalienable” versus “inalienable.” Alison VanNest also wrote an article for Grammarly.com on the spelling and grammatical errors. She illustrates how some mistakes (the spelling of “Brittish” and “shewn”) are simply because of the usage at the time.

The Declaration was Later Corrected

Personally I love the two corrections that were made—some assume by Jefferson’s hand—after it was fully crafted. The word “representatives” was missing the “en” so that was penned in. The word “only” was inserted about ten lines up from the bottom into, “…our repeated Petitions have been answered only in repeated injury.” Cropped images of those sections are below (see the whole document close up here).

A Handprint on the Declaration

There is also a handprint is embedded into the paper in the bottom corner, possibly having seeped through from the back. The size is smaller, as if from the hand of a woman. It’s impossible to determine when it was set or to test for any traces that might result in a DNA examination without pulling up chunks of the actual document. So there it sits, an unknown shadow sealed forever in parchment.

Reader Insider Note: What’s more fun that an unknown piece of history like an inky handprint when you’re a fiction writer? Not much, so youbetchya… I had to scoop that up and provide a scenario for how it got there! No… I can’t tell you what that scenario is right now, but you can get the book… (ahem).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For more history nerd posts like these, subscribe to the blog. Guest posts are welcomed and encouraged. Contact me for details.

For behind-the-scenes author-related news, giveaways, and to find out where I might be speaking near you, subscribe to my e-publication, CHASING HISTORIES.

Faded Ink Informs 1776 History

June 4, 2019 By Karen A. Chase

Founding-Documents Blog Series: Part Four

Between now and July 4th, my blog features an ongoing series related to the history and signing of the Declaration of Independence…

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Evidence to Support An Incomplete Declaration of Independence

My novel, Carrying Independence, as covered in Part One, is fiction supported by the fact that not all 56 congressmen were in the same room on August 2nd, 1776 to affix their signatures to the Declaration. Two factors contributed to my being assured that there were men missing from that formal signing.

Ink Fades Based on the “Recipe”

“Timothy Matlack, a revolutionary leader and one of the official scribes of the Declaration of Independence, copied the official document,” writes Kelly Dickerson for LiveScience.com. “[The delegates] signed it in iron ink, which is made with an acidic chemical compound that bleeds into parchment. The staining makes the ink last longer.”

There was one batch of ink made for one hand-made silver inkwell holding the one pen used by 49 congressmen assembling in the one room at the State House on August 2nd, 1776. The subsequent signers used whatever ink was on hand—some of which are different recipes than Timothy Matlack’s. Those signatures have faded differently.

A Woman Proves the Last Signer of the Declaration

In Part Three of this series, I noted that Thomas McKean was the last man to sign the document. For proof, enter Mary Katharine Goddard (more on her in the next post).

In 1777, Congress decided to typeset a copy of the Declaration that included all the names of the signers. ALL their names. But it doesn’t.

Goddard volunteered to make the copies (shown above) in her print shop. Just like other printers, when she reproduced large documents it was customary to build the printing plates (text inserted, one letter at a time, into metal frames) with the original document before her for comparison.

She would read, and then she or an employee (a composer) would type-set that line. “When in the course of human events…” Type-set. “…it becomes necessary for one people…” Type-set. All the way down to the signatures. “John Hancock…” Type-set. “Thomas Jefferson…” Type-set.

In January of 1777, she completed 200 copies. One name, based on one signature, is missing. Thomas McKean.

Reader Insider Notes: The Goddard Broadside (of which, to date, 9 still exist) helped fix my time frame for inserting McKean into the novel. Also, when you discover a fact in history that suggests the very document your fictional protagonist, Nathaniel, is carrying ended up in the print shop of an historical figure… well, what would you do? Put him there working alongside her, of course! Here, an excerpt from the chapter informed by the research:

“So long as the document stays, so do you. I have to follow the original to replicate it exactly, and I was told your being here should be hush-hush.” Mary Katharine waggled the apron at Nathaniel, and he [reluctantly] took it from her. “Also, my pressman is ill, and my best type composer joined the Cause last week. It must be you.”

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For more history nerd posts like these, subscribe to the blog. Guest posts are welcomed and encouraged. Contact me for details.

For behind-the-scenes author-related news, giveaways, and to find out where I might be speaking near you, subscribe to my e-publication, CHASING HISTORIES.

There is only One Declaration of Independence

May 16, 2019 By Karen A. Chase

Founding-Documents Blog Series: Part One

Between now and July 4th, my blog will be an ongoing series related to the history and signing of the Declaration of Independence. While our country and the media is lately consumed with the US Constitution, understanding our founding better begins with an examination of the documents in order of creation.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

How many copies exist of the Declaration of Independence?

Hundreds. You’ll find a tabloid size copy in historic homes like Berkley Plantation, home of Benjamin Harrison IV, signer of the original document. There’s a massive copy hanging on the wall in the Virginia State capitol building. The American Revolution Museum at Yorktown has a broadside. We see so many versions of the Declaration of Independence, and you can buy a replica for about $4 at historic museums. However, in 1776 there was only ONE piece of parchment—with hand-written calligraphy—drafted to contain all the signatures.

The Sole Declaration of Independence

Yes, it’s this document (approx. 24″x30″) at the National Archives that thousands of people (over 275,000 during June and July alone) visit when they come to the museum each year. It’s the one encased in bullet-proof glass stolen by Nicholas Cage. I wouldn’t call it a copy. A copy implies that it’s a duplicate. That ONE original document (shown above), is the only one that contains all 56 original signatures of the Congress. (Until November of 1776 there were only 55 signatures, but that’s a whole other story.)

Why was there one Declaration of Independence?

It was a contract. It was a unanimous agreement between the men and between the thirteen colonies—an agreement for the colonies to separate from the Crown AND come together as these united states (yes, lower case) of America.

The copies you see—often called Broadsides and with typeset text and names—were made before the original contract was signed and afterward. Broadsides were notices, distributed and posted, detailing what Congress had agreed to do.

What they had agreed to was not war. I find it easiest to remember the purpose of the Declaration by describing it one of two ways… It was both a divorce decree and a marriage agreement. It was one of the biggest “Dear John” letters in history.

“The #DeclarationofIndependence was not a declaration of war. It was both a divorce decree and a marriage agreement. Basically, it was the biggest ‘Dear John’ letter in history.” Huzzah to #carryingindependence and sharing #ChasingHistories with author @karenachase – Tweet This…

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For more history nerd posts like these, subscribe to the blog. Guest posts are welcomed and encouraged. Contact me for details.

For behind-the-scenes author-related news, giveaways, and to find out where I might be speaking near you, subscribe to my e-publication, CHASING HISTORIES.

Cocktails in 1776

May 9, 2019 By Karen A. Chase

I’m throwing a party for my Carrying Independence, “Experience the Revolution” book launch, and what better way to imbibe on the era than to offer attendees a 1776-ish cocktail. The trouble is, there weren’t that many cocktails back then, and my book features just the classic spirits of Whisky, Madeira, and Port. I needed some advice.

Drink Historians

While there are several books about drinking in America, like the aptly named Drinking in America by Mark Lender and James Kirby Martin, there are also drink historians. First, who knew that was a thing? Second, why no person I met in college ever majored in it is beyond me—some of them seemed like they were. But I digress…

I reached out to one such historian, Philip Greene, author of a delightful book called To Have and Have Another (about the drinks featured within Hemingway’s stories). He suggested that if I wanted to “make what is considered the original cocktail,” which is like an Old Fashioned, it was defined in a newspaper from May 13, 1806 (Balance and Colombian Repository) as “spirits of any kind, sugar, water, and bitters.”

Phil also referred me to his friend, Mark Will-Weber—journalist and author of Mint Juleps with Teddy Roosevelt—who chimed in about three revolutionary-era cocktails. “The ‘Stone Fence,’ which is rum & hard cider mixed together—an Ethan Allen favorite… Philadelphia Fish House Punch and ‘Flip,'” which is beer, rum, and sugar, heated with a red-hot iron, and over the years eggs were added. Mark admitted that when he recently served “Flip” at an event, the general consensus wasn’t “Wow!” Most just said, “Interesting…” Uhm… maybe not that one.

The Winning Revolutionary-era Cocktails

As a result of their input, my book launch will now be replete with two aptly renamed cocktails available at the cash bar:
Patriot’s Punch. Based on the “Stone Fence” recipe.
Signer’s Cocktail. Based on the “Old Fashioned,” and using (of course) 1776 Rye by James E. Pepper.

Come hoist a glass, drown your revolutionary sorrows, and while you’re at it, visit with a few founding fathers who will be there to celebrate with us at the Patrick Henry Pub & Grill. Event co-hosted with Fountain Bookstore. JUNE 11, 6–8PM. All are welcome.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For more history nerd posts like these, subscribe to the blog. Guest posts are welcomed and encouraged. Contact me for details.

For behind-the-scenes author-related news, giveaways, and to find out where I might be speaking near you, subscribe to my e-publication, CHASING HISTORIES.

General Pulaski Was More Likely a Woman or Intersex

April 30, 2019 By Karen A. Chase

April was a crazy month in Revolutionary news with a new Smithsonian Channel documentary discussing the achievements and staggering DNA results of war hero, General Pulaski, a Polish Count who died of battle wounds supporting the American Cause at Savannah in 1779. Last month, it was revealed that he was not really a “he” after all.

What Pulaski’s DNA Reveals About Us

The historian in me loves it when new information helps us piece together a truer version of the past’s facts. DNA was the proof to substantiate a speculation that General Pulaski was born intersex or with reproductive organs that aren’t either typically female or male.

The writer in me loves how we insert solutions based on only what we know or believe at the time. It used to be said, for instance, that Pulaski’s hips were shaped more like a woman’s because he rode horses so much. (Immediately, I have questions about generals Washington and Lee now.)

The comedian in me loves how new information can reveal human folly. Case in point is the insight my friend and fellow Revolutionary historian, John Millar, shared with me about Pulaski’s long-time followers:

“Right after [Pulaski’s] death, some of his friends in Williamsburg founded the Pulaski Club in his honor, which is still going strong. Members of the Club sometimes meet at some nice sidewalk wooden seats on Duke of Gloucester Street near the corner of Nassau Street, where a plaque recognizes the club. In spite of Pulaski’s legendary moustache, the forensic specialists found that Pulaski’s pelvis was that of a woman, so Pulaski was actually a woman in disguise (and yes, the DNA was matched to a member of Pulaski’s family). The Pulaski Club, which permits itself to have as many members as the number of years elapsed since Pulaski’s birth in 1745, limits its membership exclusively to men: no women … Ooops!”

Ooops, indeed. Reexamining our past is important so we can be better going forward. Perhaps the truth of Pulaski might help us recognize that being a great military leader or a contributing citizen in our country has nothing whatsoever to do with gender.

General_Casimir_Pulaski_by_Kasimir_Chodzinski_-_Washington,_D.C._-_Stierch.jpg — A statue of General Pulaski in Washington, DC. The photo is, appropriately, a bit blurred.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For more history nerd like these, subscribe to the blog. Guest posts are welcomed and encouraged. Contact me for details.

For behind-the-scenes author-related news, giveaways, and to find out where I might be speaking near you, subscribe to my e-publication, CHASING HISTORIES.

The Real Reverend Ewing

April 25, 2019 By Karen A. Chase

While researching various aspects for my novel, Carrying Independence, now and then I discovered an historical figure (not the usual founding father) who I’d never heard of, and whose life could bring extra meaning to the story. Enter Rev. John Ewing of Philadelphia.

Doctor John Ewing, More than a Reverend

I first encountered John Ewing, on the pages of a 1953 Historic Philadelphia book, published by the American Philosophical Society and given to me by friend Bill Ochester (who is also a reenactor as Ben Franklin).

In these pages, Ewing was described not only as pastor of the First Presbyterian Church on Pine Street, but as Provost of the University of Pennsylvania, a mathematician, and scientist. He was the “Director of the Observation of the Transit of Venus in 1769 in Independence Hall Yard under the auspices of the American Philosophical Society.”

I fall hard for historic figures who illustrate how we humans have long-been nuanced. Today, we too often position scientists and the clergy as opposites. Here was a devout theologically-minded minister who also mapped the trajectory of Venus, and challenged the thoughts of the day—so much so that even Dr. Benjamin Rush was said to have “left the church because of Doctor Ewing.”

Rev. Ewing’s Own Words

A bit more investigation on Ewing, and I discovered research gold. A 444-page book of Ewing’s own words—his sermons—was published in 1812. It includes a brief biographical sketch and words spoken about him at his funeral. In the book is a footnote about how Ewing often referenced a lesson learned in his own childhood after coming upon a snake and a frightened bird.

In my novel, readers will find Ewing in his rectory, peering through a telescope borrowed from the Philosophical Society, sharing this childhood tale (paraphrased, of course), with a member of his congregation—one of my fictional characters. Hopefully I have portrayed Ewing’s “easy and affable” manner well. By his actions, I trust you’ll experience Ewing as he saw himself—a thoughtful man convinced that “his own investigation confirmed him in his belief of the doctrines of grace.”

A PDF of Rev. Ewing’s sermons can be found linked through my Carrying Independence Research Pinterest Page here.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For more history nerd tidbits like these, subscribe to the blog. Guest posts are welcomed and encouraged. Contact me for details.

For behind-the-scenes author-related news, giveaways, and to find out where I might be speaking near you, subscribe to my e-publication, CHASING HISTORIES.

Do Author Signatures Matter? Will mine?

April 9, 2019 By Karen A. Chase

I was in a bookstore a few weeks ago, buying a book written by an author I admire. The bookseller informed me, with much enthusiasm, that they had a stack of signed copies. The author was not there at the moment, and with dozens of signed copies before me, I wondered just how valuable the signature was. To the author. To collectors. To me.

As with every part of this publishing journey, I decided to stop and ask two questions about the process. Why do we do that? Do I need to do that?

What’s in a signature?

In a world in which there are fewer reasons to sign documents, as outlined in this 2018 New York Times article, Why Signatures Matter, to some the signature has lost all meaning. It used to be that, as Steven Petro writes, “each signature was an original creation.” Now, in many cases—credit cards with chips for instance—the signature has become moot. Based on that logic, sign all the books I want, right?

However, in the last couple of years, the only documents that required my signature (and proof of it) were forms to refinance my house, my passport, banking documents, and HIPAA/medical release forms. Those are major documents where the signature becomes part of a binding agreement, and not one to lightly toss around. So is my signature more valuable than I thought?

Does an author signature have value?

An item—art, stamps, a signed book—has value for the joy it brings the owner. However, as my parents always said of stamps and art… it’s only worth money if I sell it. For book collectors, the same applies to author signatures. There are multiple variations on the way authors sign books, as outlined in this article by Denise Enck. Whether it’s inscribed, signed, or attributed, ultimately the worth of the book, “could be large, moderate, or negligible, depending upon the book in question.”

I own an illustrated edition of David McCullough’s 1776. I could buy it signed for $150 on ebay, but the copy I have is more valuable to me because it was a gift from a dear friend. Would I want McCullough to sign it if I met him? Not necessarily, because it’s not like I’m going to sell it. I’d rather ask him if he ever got the letter I wrote to him and then I hope we’d talk about George Washington in Harlem Heights, but I digress…

Perhaps popularity or whether an author is alive or dead matters. A first-edition Ann Patchett can run about $10. A first edition Hemingway, A Farewell To Arms, sold for over $18,000 in 2014. I ain’t no Hemingway.

Mine is a first edition. But it’s a paperback. But I’m kind of a nobody and alive. For now. So what am I to do? I turned back to the story within my book and to the founding fathers.

P145_Signing_the_Declaration_of_American_Independence_Cassell_KarenAChase — “Signing of the Declaration of American Independence.” *Cassell’s Illustrated History of England, Volume 5*, page 145. (1865)

This country is founded on the importance of signatures.

The whole premise of CARRYING INDEPENDENCE is based upon the simple fact that the newly-formed Congress in 1776 deemed it 100% necessary to ensure the original signatures from all 56 men in Congress were affixed to ONE copy of the Declaration of Independence. (My protagonist, Nathaniel, also struggles mightily, as many an Americans did, over whether to sign an oath to the Crown or to the colonies.)

When the last delegate, Thomas McKean, signed the Declaration (a topic for another day), Congress had a formal unanimous agreement to separate from the Crown (which they had done verbally on July 2nd), and now they had a written contract that also bound together the 13 united states. We still honor that document today. Revere it! Signatures damn-well mattered.

Limited Signed Editions of Carrying Independence.

After much thought, and in the spirit of the document, I am limiting the number of signed copies of my novel to just 76 (in honor of the year 1776, of course). I am reserving the first 20 copies for personal use and charitable endeavors, and 56 are being made available on a first-come-basis to the public during the pre-sale period, which begins this Thursday on April 11th. Each of those 76 copies will have a full signature, each will be numbered, and each will carry my personal seal (shown here).

“But how will you autograph them at book talks?” a friend asked. I will still inscribe a copy to readers with their name, but alas, my full signature will not be penned. Nor will you find my scrawl in stacks of books set upon tables for just anyone to pick up.

Is that arrogant? Maybe. Isn’t assuming everyone will want my autograph equally so? Ultimately, I believe that signatures matter. They surely did in 1776. Perhaps one day history might determine mine does, too.

Follow/watch my Author Facebook page on April 11th for details on how you might secure one of the 56 signed copies.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Thanks for sharing in the spirit of learning about our collective American History by subscribing to the blog. Guest posts are welcomed and encouraged. Contact me for details.

For Karen-related author research tidbits, book news and events, subscribe to my e-publication, CHASING HISTORIES.

Why the Revolution?

April 4, 2019 By Karen A. Chase

On Writing About the American Revolution

A Guest Post by Lars D. H. Hedbor

I’m often asked why I write about the American Revolution. It is true that here are many fascinating and compelling eras in human history. Indeed, when I reach the end of my explorations of the Revolution, I expect to broaden my scope.

There is Opportunity in Writing About the American Revolution

In part, I started writing about the Revolution because of the opportunity—there are a lot of fascinating small stories that contributed to the big events of the Revolution, and few of them have been explored in fiction. Having a wide, uncrowded field in which to work is hugely appealing.

Too, the events of the Revolution are familiar (if imperfectly), so I’m not having to explain to my readers that the Americans fought the British to achieve independence. They open my books knowing that much. The details and nuances, though, make terrific grist for my imagination.

Then there is the opportunity to remind readers that history is shaped by the small decisions of ordinary people. The Revolution was not accomplished by just a few heroic figures striding across the pages of history atop mighty white horses. Critical events were shaped at the kitchen tables of folks who would never make it into our histories. I take my readers to those kitchen tables and let them imagine what choices they might have made—and reflect on how they may affect history with their choices today.

The American Revolution Changed Humanity

Most importantly, though, I write about the Revolution because it changed the course of human history. It is unique in that it was not fought over the question of which prince would rule over a patch of dirt. The American War of Independence was as much a philosophical revolution as it was a military one. It reframed the very concept of governance—the whole relationship between the people and their leaders.

With the Revolution, we emerged from being subjects of the King to becoming citizens of the Republic. We were no longer ruled under divine right, but are led by men and women of our own choosing. It has become fashionable to focus solely on the imperfections of the Revolution—which were many and about which I write unflinchingly. However, thinking only about what the Founders got wrong tends to overlook how much they got right.

This magnificent accomplishment, which took a scattered collection of hardscrabble colonies and united them as one of the leading nations of the world, is well worth understanding deeply. That is why I write about the American Revolution, and will do so for some time to come.

Lars D. H. Hedbor is the author of the Tales From a Revolution series, each of which explores the Revolution as it unfolded in a different colony or future state. His most recent release is The Tree: Tales From a Revolution—New-Hampshire, which follows a young man as he is abruptly orphaned, and is left to manage his father’s timber grants with only the help of his eccentric aunt. He finds comfort in a new friendship with Betty, a decidedly odd neighbor. Defying the Royal Governor’s crackdowns and his aunt’s commands, Abe makes choices that put him on a collision course with both. With rebellion in the air, Abe must escape detection by the Governor’s agents and solve the puzzle of Betty’s past in order to secure his future.

The Tree is available in ebook, paperback, and audiobook. You can learn about all of Hedbor’s books on his website, LarsDHHedbor.com.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Thanks for sharing in the spirit of learning about our collective American History by subscribing to the blog. Guest posts like this one are welcomed and encouraged––by academics, historians, authors, artists, and storytellers. Contact me for details.

For Karen-related author research tidbits, book news and events, subscribe to my e-publication, CHASING HISTORIES.

How to Garden Like Thomas Jefferson

March 28, 2019 By Karen A. Chase

Watercolor ”View of the West Front of Monticello and Garden” (1825) by Jane Braddick. Peticolas. The children are Thomas Jefferson’s grandchildren. – WikimediaCommons/PublicDomain

While planting season in Virginia usually begins around tax day, I’m anxious to get into my garden now. I live an hour or so from Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello where I frequently visit his historic gardens, which are still jaw-droppingly impressive. In three distinct garden areas, the estate sprouts flowers, fruits, and vegetables. To produce gardens, even on a small scale, that will make us equally proud, here are three simple tips:

One: Keep a Gardening Notebook

In order to be a keen observer of what works in different areas of your garden from season-to-season, you can keep notes in a brief journal or calendar. Jefferson kept track of the weather and how it affected plantings, along with sketches and other memoranda, in what he called his “Garden Kalendar.” (Which you can meander through thanks to the Massachusetts Historical Society, Thomas Jefferson Papers.)

Two: Buy Heirloom Seeds

Over 300 varieties of vegetables were produced by Monticello including beans, peppers, and tomatoes. Thanks to a long-sustained heirloom project—whereby seeds were and are harvested from plants each season—some of those original varietals can be yours. Why heirloom? According to Lynn Coulter on a post on Gardening Know How, some reasons may include better taste, pest resistent, or more fragrant flowers. With delightfully-painted new package designs, by local artist Tim O’Kane, the Monticello heirloom seeds feel even more charming.

Three: Plant Abundant Flowers Along Walkways

In a letter from 1807, Jefferson writes that a “limited number of our flower beds will too much restrain the variety of flowers in which we might wish to indulge.” The borders of his walkways—which were curved, not straight—were packed with flowers that help keep the gardener amused and enthralled.

For more information and events about the historic plantings at Monticello and in early America, connect with the Thomas Jefferson Center for Historic Plants.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Thanks for sharing in the spirit of learning about our collective American History by subscribing to the blog. Guest posts are welcomed and encouraged. Contact me for details.

For deeper dives on book-related research, giveaways, book news, and author events, subscribe to my e-publication, CHASING HISTORIES.

SaveSave