Introduction. The founding of the Maryland Historical Society in 1844 marked the true beginning of

archival development in Maryland, if we consider archives as organized efforts to gather, organize, and maintain

records. Its culmination was also the result of a very long movement. Interest in records, governmental and personal,

was present, even if the concern for the preservation of public and private records was slight, sporadic, and scanty (it

is hard to find the correct word to describe the abysmal care given these records) from the earliest years of Maryland.

Their poor condition and lack of organization inhibited sophisticated historical research until late in the nineteenth

century, even though these records were critical to the livelihood of government officials and others relying on these

records. Only with the awakening of interest in the state's past, the first major accomplishment being the founding of

the Society, was the concern for records translated into concrete proposals and actions. Personal and family papers

were accorded little better care, as many believed that the critical documents were recorded governmentally as land

transactions, taxations, licenses, and other regulatory transactions. Even in 1844, after two centuries of record

accumulation, much remained to be done to ensure that these and other records would be properly maintained.

In examining the efforts, or lack thereof, to administer official and personal records, it is important not to

slip in superimposing more modern expectations on what our recordkeeping forebears were doing. While there has not

been sufficient research about early American record keeping to generate such sensitivity, it is possible to examine

other eras to see the problems inherent in having such a perspective. Modern archival pioneer Ernst Posner's study of

ancient recordkeeping stresses the consolidation of archives and records operations into centralized and authoritative

mechanisms supporting their maintenance 1, and his work has been the subject of two recent responses. Rosalind

Thomas, investigating literacy, believes Posner superimposed modern ideas of records and archives onto the ancient

world. Thomas, instead of seeing the gradual change to more efficient records programs, saw a more panoramic

movement to the fourth century when a "new spirit of professionalism creeps in and the written word seems to be

accorded greater respect." Athens became "document-minded," but she put the focus on the stone steles Posner had

seen as merely convenience copies or symbolic representations of written documents. 2James Sickinger, a classics

professor, disagrees with Thomas about the progress to a "document-minded" society and sees instead that the use of

stone inscriptions was quite limited and quite peripheral to either records or archives. Sickinger finds the fourth century

establishment of an archives building as part of a long, slow process that does not necessarily represent progress but

instead reflects a mixed bag of approaches to the administration of records. Most telling for readers of Sickinger's

study is his repeated reference to the fact that we really do not know much about how recordkeeping and archives

were viewed by the ancients. At the start of his book, the classicist writes that the origins of public recordkeeping are

"obscure." Remarkably, the nature of Sickinger's argument is more in line with what Posner wrote three decades ago,

except that Posner writes with a greater authority about what ancient archives represented. 3

The origins of an archival mentality may be easier to trace (there are more records after all), but

deciphering what constitutes this mentality is still fraught with making easy conclusions (that may be wrong or

incomplete explanations). Much in this and other chapters focus on the movement to establish archival and records

facilities and programs as the primary manifestation of an interest in archives. But, and as Sickinger represents in his

study of ancient Greece, things are clearly more complicated that this. This study suggests a framework, but it is also

obvious more work needs to be done about facets like personal recordkeeping, non-governmental organizations, and

other records generating and keeping activities – much constituting what we now see as the broad field of public

memory. If we can detect the modern immense individual interest in accumulating personal archives, such as diaries

and scrapbooks, who is to say how different this may be from similar efforts two and three centuries ago to maintain

personal correspondence, financial records, and commonplace books? A modern landscape littered with monuments,

archives, historical societies, and libraries suggests something is different today, but the origins of what is occurring

now are rooted in the colonial, revolutionary, and early national minds.

The Colonial Concept of the Past . History was a pervasive subject of colonial reading and writing

(for those who could read). Studies of estate inventories and libraries have revealed sizeable proportions of historical

works. 4This is not surprising. From the earliest promotional literature of the colonies to the more esoteric theories of

the American Enlightenment, the past was emphasized. Today the historical writings of this period are often associated

with the Puritans of New England. The multitude of their works was partially a result of their intense religious mission,

5 but colonists of all religious or irreligious impulses found in history a subject useful for understanding themselves and

their era. The later secularization of the Enlightenment also promoted a whole new body of historical composition. 6

The growing secularization of the age, even apart from the "Enlightenment," also accounted for additional volumes.

Michael Kammen, in a perceptive essay on Anglo-American historical writing between 1660 and 1760, characterizes

the increasing use of history in the eighteenth century as "an arsenal of useful precedents," particularly noting its political

uses. 7When Robert Beverly penned his History and Present State of Virginia (1705) in rebuttal to Oldmixon's

The British Empire in America because Virginia had "been misrepresented to the common people of England," 8

a new age in colonial historiography had begun.

The notion of useful precedents in writing history suggests as well a more utilitarian view of records.

While the modern archival profession wrestles internally with whether it has a cultural or practical mandate (such as

evidence or accountability), the colonials seemed to mix a myriad of views about documents into their lives. John

Winthrop in Massachusetts kept a journal as a record, but also used it as a means to struggle with and resolve his own

place in the world. In a certain way, the journal became a history, but Winthrop's leaving blank pages in order to go

back and refashion his narrative suggest another role of providing advice to his contemporaries. Aspects of

accountability and utilitarian evidence, not all that far from modern debates about the nature and purpose of records,

suggests that Winthrop was not merely creating fodder for later historians. Interpreting his increasingly more reflective

comments, as his growing self-awareness about being a historian is one means to view his journal. Another is to

understand that Winthrop was becoming more self-conscious about the power and utility of records. 9Other

colonials would achieve a similar understanding.

Maryland has been lost in the panorama of colonial historiography and recordkeeping. David D. Van

Tassel states, "by the time the revolution began, each colony had recorded its own history as an independent unit of the

British Empire, each had a backlog of historical literature which in its development followed a remarkably similar

pattern...." 10Max Savelle has, as have other scholars, linked historical writing to the growing colonial self-

consciousness. 11But Maryland had no major history written until 1811, long after the end of the colonial era and

in a period of reinterpreting what that era represented. For many long years Marylanders had to depend on minor

references, often spotty and inaccurate, in broader studies. 12This lack of a history was intricately intertwined with

the nature of archival development in Maryland, although this is by no means the only reason why histories were not as

plentiful as in other colonies. However, there does appear to be some connection with how the past was viewed and

how the colony's records were cared.

As in the other colonies, the earliest Marylanders constructed shelters, cleared land, planted crops, and

performed all the labors necessary for survival. At first, such immediate priorities might have diminished any thoughts of

historical treatises of the European settlement or antiquarian probing into the lifestyle of the aboriginals. Those with the

ability to write turned to "promotional" literature to assist the colony's chances of success, aiming at bringing more

settlers in to civilize the wilderness. Captain Robert Wintour, who penned a lengthy but ultimately unpublished

promotional essay in 1635, emphasized greatly the benefits of settlement in Maryland. This home in the New World

offered, "the repose of a quiet life sweetened with ease and plenty there to be enjoyed (exempt from a thousand

trouble-some cares and vexations which brine our sweetest pleasures and make our lives ofttimes even irksome to us

in this world)." By "this world" he meant England, and this sentiment is typical of his twenty-page manuscript.

13What we now know is that such writings, like Winthrop's journal, were as much self-reflections as promotional

treatises, as much records for later reference as signals to the world of a new way to live and prosper (much like

diaries written to be written by others). Creating these documents was just as critical for survival as were the activities

of clearing land and planting and harvesting crops, a fact suggested by the fairly traditional creation of emigrant diaries

intended to be used by others planning to follow. 14

Although men like Wintour and the Jesuit Andrew White were inclined to stress the converting and

civilizing of the heathen, such emphasis was certainly weaker than that of the Puritans of New England, at least in

public expressions. The religious mission permeating the Puritans' historical works, juxtaposed with their numerical

abundance and compared to the far fewer historical writings in the seemingly more secularly-minded southern colonies,

should not lead to the assumption that religion was the crucial factor in encouraging such a literature. 15It is not

surprising at all that a promotional thesis would dominate in Maryland since this genre had become by then a tradi

tional method of expression, reaching back to the days of Richard Hackluyt. 16Even Maryland's promotional

literature was the least significant of its kind composed about the southern colonies. 17Most likely the internecine

conflicts of Maryland, starting as early as the 1640s, soon diverted the attention of capable writers from such writing

and more serious historical research (as well as from other cultural activities).

John Hammond described his Hammond vs Heamans (1655) as "an Historical relation of the

transactions of Virginia and Maryland , under the Government and Tyranny of Richard Bennet and Colonel

Claiborn , with many remarkable passages of such State-policies as they and their creatures used..." 18This

pamphlet was no more history than those done by White or Wintour. Hammond's piece was aimed at rebutting a

publication by Roger Heaman, An Additional Brief Narrative of a late bloody design against the Protestants in

Ann Arundel County Severn in Maryland .... (1655), and both were but a part of a larger literature spurred on by

the Protestant-Catholic conflicts of the 1640s and 1650s. 19Hammond vs. Heamans was a study of the "deceits

and proceedings"employed by the Maryland Puritans since their assumption of the reins of the colonial government. By

historical Hammond clearly meant that he was providing a narrative covering a period of time, in this instance the first

two decades of the colony. Records were not necessary for his account, and the volume certainly portrayed no

document-consciousness in the early years of the settlement.

Although the espoused reason for the problems of the 1640s and 1650s and the later bloodless

revolution of 1689 was religion, there were many more causes reaching deep into the fabric of Maryland society. 20

Similarly, the partisan tracts of the seventeenth century were a smaller segment of a literary form far more vibrant and

abundant in Maryland than the earlier promotional variety. This was the utilitarian use of history, akin to modern

journalism. This is more broadly reflected in the purposefulness of colonial reading--the search for a past that was

useful for both present and future--a perspective given full sway in, and usually associated with, the historical-literary

battles of the Revolutionary era between Tory and Whig. 21Both of these later uses of history were entrenched in

Maryland as witnessed by the Antilon-First Citizen debates (Charles Carroll of Carrollton vs. Daniel Dulany the

younger) in the Maryland Gazette of 1773 whereupon historical facts were agreed upon but interpretations wandered

widely. 22For Maryland, this was not a new development of the Revolutionary milieu but was simply another

expression of an older tradition. Earlier expressions--such as the historical research conducted in the Pennsylvania-

Maryland boundary dispute and the historical-legal compilation of Thomas Bacon--were abundant.

By the end of the seventeenth century squabbles over colonial charter rights and other legal matters

provided a "new impetus" for historical research and composition. 23 The boundary dispute that commenced in the

early 1680s between William Penn and Charles Calvert, Lord Baltimore, and continued, in fits and starts, until the

erection of the Mason-Dixon line eighty years later spurred on detailed historical researches to support various

historical allegations of the disputants. The Penns' London legal counsel when the boundary dispute re-erupted in

1732, Ferdinando John Paris, "became an antiquarian" searching bookstores and libraries and reading all he could

obtain on the American settlement. 24The legal briefs and documentation accumulated by both sides reflects the

immense effort expended in such historical research. A large part of the extant papers of Maryland's proprietary family

consists of materials gathered for this case. 25This research was obviously not routine. A copy of the original

charter of 1632 had to be dispatched from England to Maryland's Attorney General, Stephen Bordley, to defend Lord

Baltimore's rights. 26A year later, when a pamphlet was published denigrating Maryland for its actions in the

dispute, Lord Baltimore's Principal Secretary, residing in England, appealed for help because "no answer here could

be produced by reason of there being few Materials to frame an Answer." 27The condition of these colonial

records, which will be considered in more detail later, discouraged the historical-legal research. 28

The debates throughout the seventeenth century, extending well into the next century, may well be part of

changing cultural conditions. Conflicts between planters and their agents, Catholics versus Protestants, the landed

gentry and the dirt farmers, and other groups sometimes drew upon records for justification or symbol. We have seen

the evidence for this in New England. Jill Lepore, in a study about King Philip's War, demonstrates the increasing roles

played by paper, books, ink, and volumes. Lepore argues that this late seventeenth century conflict was as much about

waging war as it was about writing and fighting for the meaning of the war. The historian argues that learning to read

and write by Native Americans was the first step towards cultural conversion, putting Native Americans at a distinct

disadvantage in winning conflicts with the English. 29 Another, more poignant study is Donna Merwick's analysis of

the life of Adriaen Janse van Ilpendam, a Dutch émigré to New Netherland, whose career as a notary leads him to an

uncertain existence after the English take over and their language replaces Dutch as the official language. In fact, the

notary takes his own life in 1686, as his place in society has all but evaporated. Merwick discusses how the notary's

papers form a sort of archives, relating an ironic tale as writing and record keeping become more important in the

growing colonial settlement but the Dutch notary's form of records service fades in significance. The historian reveals

the notary's struggles with English through the misspellings and other problems with the documents at the end of the

notary's life, concluding that Janse had to “read the performances of each cultural system in such a way as to find

enough meaning to survive, if not to prosper or acquiesce with equanimity. While others could do it, he could not.”

30 The role of records in cultural changes in Maryland's early colonial experience is not as obvious as what seems

to be in New England, but it is also obvious that records continued to play an increasing role in political and other

social conflict as the era moved to its conclusion.

The kind of official recordkeeper represented by the seventeenth century Dutch notary seems absent in

the contiguous time period in Maryland, but this did change in time. The publication of an Anglican rector's The Laws

of Maryland in 1765, the culmination of over a decade of labor, was the finest product and clearest evidence of

historical research in eighteenth-century Maryland. Even before it was published, this work had established Thomas

Bacon as an authority of sorts; in 1759 he was mentioned as the best equipped individual to answer a political

pamphlet since "he has Capacity and acquired Abilities for the Compiling [of] such [a] Work in its fair Character &

Nature." 31His eager response and willingness to answer this attack, in a longer historical essay which was never

completed, much in the vein of a Robert Beverly defending Virginia, is evidence that Bacon's legal project was not far

removed from the partisan work of men like Hammond, Carroll, and Dulany. 32More importantly for this study,

Bacon assumes the role of an official recordkeeper – official in the sense that his work becomes a key reference for

government officials and those doing business with government and a recordkeeper in that the sense that he gathers

systematically the key documents forming an archive (both the house – in this case – the published volume – and a

authority for interpreting the records housed there through the selection criteria and indexing). In modern terms,

Bacon's work suggests a colonial antecedent to the kind of archive “fever” Derrida describes. 33

If not wholly partisan, Bacon's work was pragmatic: "The Want of a Body of MARYLAND LAWS

hath been, for many Years felt and complained of: And the Uncertainty occasioned thereby hath often perplexed

Magistrates, Officers, and others, in the Exercise of their respective Duties to the Public and themselves." 34The

work also reflected a basic accepted idea of the relationship of law, politics, and history, ably expressed by a rising

Maryland lawyer some years before:

The best way that I know of to avoid those fatal Consequences which you suppose may Result from Errors in Opinion on the Subject of Government [and law as implied here], is first to get well grounded in the Original End & design of Government in General, by Original End & design of Government in General, by reading and considering well the best Authors that treat on the Subject, & then by reading the best Histories and other books which treat on the Constitution of our mother Country on which we so much depend, and next to Consider with Acts or Steps have been regularly taken among ourselves towards making a difference between the English Constitution and our own here, and what not. 35

Reading records was like reading digested forms of records or histories, providing a foundation for

action by immersion into documents. What was happening here was the development of a sort of “lettered” world,

whereby the colonial was becoming home for many different kinds of professionals and others whose livelihood

depended on the documents they created and ones they could read and interpret. 36

Regardless of the motivations underlying the Laws of Maryland , Bacon's work stands as a remarkable,

solitary achievement in eighteenth century Maryland scholarship. Prior to this publication, four similar compilations had

been completed, which Bacon justifiably criticized in his preface. 37Bacon's exactness in transcription and his

enthusiasm for explanatory notes, both of which have aided numerous scholars since, were secondary to his main

achievement--going back to the original records. "As it is evident this Collection could never have appeared," Bacon

noted, "in its present Form, without a diligent and accurate Inspection of the Records...." 38Earlier, he revealed a

valid reason for the time required in this project: "The Difficulties which occurred in executing this Part of the Work,

with any tolerable Degree of Exactness, were great and discouraging, and in some Cases almost unsurmountable;

occasioned by the Defects of the Public Records, which are partly owing to the several Turns and Revolutions in

Government, partly to Accident, and partly to Neglect." 39Political unrest, accidents, and neglect are suitable

explanations for the poor government recordkeeping in the colonial era, but they are not comprehensive for why public

records were in such poor shape. There was an increasing document mentality among Marylanders, and some efforts

were made to provide for the public records.

Others wanted to see the records maintained and used. Benedict Leonard Calvert, brother of Lord

Baltimore and Governor of Maryland from 1727 to 1731, intended almost from the time of his arrival in the colony to

research and publish a history of the colony. In a letter of 1729 he announced his intention "to complete... a more

perfect history of these parts, which I design for the World, if my Abilities or opportunities fall not too short." 40

Calvert, because of his premature death and the administrative burdens of his post, never completed it. Undoubtedly, it

would have been a partisan effort but would have also certainly possessed a mature and notable quality as well.

Besides, most histories of this period were unabashedly oriented to very particular viewpoints. Calvert was an

antiquarian and an adept researcher, enough so to have had a close working friendship with the elder English scholar

Thomas Hearne. 41 He was sensitive to the use of records for such purposes, and his work would have been an

important contribution to the colony's history and, like Bacon, he would have brought more attention to the condition

of the public records through such a publication.

Other than Bacon's Laws , the only work on the heritage of the colony that early Marylanders could

refer to, consisted of two chapters, covering only the seventeenth century, in a larger American history published in

1780 by a disgruntled Loyalist and former Marylander. 42George Chalmers had come to the colony a decade

before the Revolution and established himself as an able legal and political advisor. 43Upon his return to the mother

country Chalmers immersed himself in his contest for compensation of his lost fortune in the New World, assisting

some of his fellow ex-Marylanders along the way. This labor eventually led to his examination of the American

movement for independence, a partial product being the 1780 Political Annals . In it Chalmers pursued an

interpretation that was somewhat amenable to American patriots; that is, the revolt was the result of the growth of

colonial radicalism encouraged by some English politicians and an error-prone English colonial policy. But it is not the

thesis underlying Chalmer's work that is important in relation to his Maryland chapters and the discussion here. These

63 pages of print represented a well-written, logical intricately researched discourse, capitalizing on his accessibility to

the voluminous English records on the colonies, the use of which certainly aided his later securing of a position in the

Public Record Office. Over a third of the Maryland chapters consisted of "Authorities and Notes." Lawrence Henry

Gipson stated that the “ Political Annals .... established [Chalmers'] reputation as a scholar of high standing in the field

of British colonial history." 44A closer examination of his Maryland chapters supports this attribution.

This scarcity of native Maryland histories seems surprising because of the vitality and vibrancy of this

colonial culture. Richard Beale Davis portrays the "intellectual golden age" of the Chesapeake between 1720 and

1789. “In this region there was a strong expression of discriminating and widely-held taste in the arts,” writes Davis,

“as high as proportion of literate and well-educated men as existed anywhere in the colonies, frequent written and oral

discourses on religious doctrine and application, a creativity in belles-lettres, and a dynamic and reasoned political

expression springing from scores of thoughtful and sophisticated minds." 45And history is not excluded from their

long list of intellectual interests. Joseph Towne Wheeler's study of four thousand inventories demonstrated that history

was an especially popular subject of reading in Maryland. 46The interest increased dramatically within the larger

libraries. The grandest library in all of eighteenth-century Maryland, that of Edward Lloyd IV, had volumes of history,

biography, and travel totaling a third of its collection. 47This subject also attracted a broad base of interest so that

the bulk of a circulating library's stock in the Annapolis of 1783 was that of history, 48 and the lead article in a

Maryland Gazette of 1745 lauded the subject as "a great Step, by which we may attain to a competent knowledge of

Mankind; a Knowledge so necessary and useful in Life, that all Science and Learning without it, appears pedantic,

insignificant, and vain." 49This penchant for history without the production of a significant native history of the

colony leads us to be more kindly to Thomas J. Wertenbaker's caustic conclusion that the "Maryland aristocracy

enjoyed culture, but they did not produce it." 50The condition of the public records may have contributed to this

neglect, but it was certainly not because history was unimportant or because the Maryland colonist's attention was

elsewhere.

The strongest part of Maryland's "golden age" was its belletristic literature, 51 and because of the

contrasting lack of historical literature, perhaps suggests an area to search for the cause of the delayed composition of

Maryland's past. But Maryland's writers often touched upon historical topics, underscoring the interest at this time with

this subject. A poet, Ebenezer Cooke, composed some verses on an important aspect of Virginian history, Bacon's

rebellion, using it as a scenario upon which to make some satirical judgments about mankind. 52Dr. Alexander

Hamilton satirized some of the current notions of history in his farcical "history" of the Tuesday Club of Annapolis.

53 Richard Lewis in his lengthy poem in honor of Lord Baltimore's visit to the colony in 1732, Carmen Seculare,

even tersely recounted the province's first century commencing with

Oh, if the Muses would my Breast inflame,

With Spirit equal to the glorious Theme!

My verse should shew to the suceeding Age,

(Would Time permit my Verse to 'scape its Rage;)

What Toils your great PROGENITORS sustained,

To plant and cultivate the dreary Strand.

Lewis even cited an "Old Rec[ord] Book, in [the] Secr[etary's] Off[ice] Annapolis," 54 one of the

earliest public references to a viewing of older records we have for this colony. Nonetheless, it is obvious that Clio had

not truly inspired anyone in colonial Maryland.

It could be said that the reason for the absence of a history of Maryland in the eighteenth century was the

overriding emphasis on this subject's pragmatic value, but this seems unlikely to serve well as the explanation as other

regions displayed a similar practical orientation and still supported the publication of more histories. Caught up in the

repeated use of the past for legal and political arguments, Marylanders seemed to possess little appreciation for a more

sophisticated notion of "history" as research, guidepost, and instructor. Throughout the eighteenth century the very

word "history" when used in newspapers was in the realm of current events; the past usually came in the form of

"anecdotes," a use suspiciously similar to our modern newspaper fillers. 55But this would not be an overly

convincing case. Why would this singularly have resisted the production of a partisan Maryland history? Certainly,

Robert Beverley's Virginian work was partisan, and, had Benedict Leonard Calvert lived longer, it is logical to assume

that Maryland would have had a similar work.

The explanation of the absence of a serious Maryland history until 1811 goes one level deeper. What

Stephen Bordley, Thomas Bacon, and even George Chalmers all had in common was the wrestling with the lack of

readily available historical sources necessary for the completion of a history of the colony. A person, working

exclusively with the records within Maryland, could not have penned (at least, not without tremendous difficulty) an

essay in 1780 that would have approached the quality of Chalmers' work. Governor Horatio Sharpe summarized the

problem in 1760 when he reported that his colleague John Ridout

had occasion to turn over and examine the old Records... he found the Records down so low as 1703 so very deficient (many having been destroyed by Fire & some lost as he supposes during the Confusion that was in the Province about the time of the Revolution & Accounts of many Transactions being imperfectly entered in those that remain) that he imagines it would be impossible to Compile a History for the Records that are in the Province. 56

The care and proper organization of the colonial records were essential to the writing of Maryland

history, and on the eve of the Revolution neither care nor organization was evident. Still, could the early recordkeeping

have been so poor as to dispel any hope for histories to be researched and written?

Recordkeeping in Early Maryland . 57Manuscript documents of all varieties were essential to the

early Marylander. The Charles Peale Polk portrait of the Baltimore lawyer Samuel Johnston (1727-1810) is an

informative artifact. Polk, typical of portrait painters of the period, not only endeavored to attain a likeness of the

person but to create a painting symbolic of status and vocation. Johnston sits in his office with legal texts in the

background. To his right rests a packet of letters. Under his arm is a ledger, and his right hand grasps a letter

addressed to him. 58Although Johnston was a member of the upper social stratum, the importance he placed upon

such documents would not have been greatly different from that of persons of other classes. Wills, deeds, bonds, and

receipts were essential documents for nearly all members of society, except perhaps the most transient of whites and

slaves (and even there, there is room for argument as they often had to carry documents or created documents as a

result of court cases or other activities). Volumes meant to assist Marylanders, such as almanacs and gentleman's

guides, contained advice on recordkeeping, although there is little substantial evidence about how such guides affected

the way they created or cared for their personal papers. For an understanding of the recordkeeping mentality we must

still turn to the public records and their odyssey, since the debates and controversies about the records left a legacy of

documentation we can consult.

The stimulus for better record care derived from affluent, if not always upper class, political leaders.

Maryland was a proprietary colony, owing its origin to and reaping benefits for the Calvert family. The 1632 Maryland

charter guaranteed Lord Baltimore the same "rights, jurisdictions, privileges, prerogatives, liberties, immunities, and

royal rights and temporal franchises... as any bishop of Durham... within the bishopric or county palatine of Durham..."

This charter clause translated to mean that Lord Baltimore and his family owned all the land, received all its profits,

controlled most of the government, and owed the King only a nominal payment. 59This government system meant

that better record keeping was essential for the proprietary interests. Land, for example, was the basis of proprietary

income--with alienation fines, manor rents, quit rents, escheats, and outright sales--and a great source of political

patronage. It was as well the foundation of the agricultural society. As a result the government repeatedly, from the

1630s on, attempted to better regulate and maintain these records, and, one may speculate, individual planters also

strived to maintain their private records in order to protect their interests. Governor Horatio Sharpe's complaints in the

late 1750s that the proprietary leases (leases between Lord Baltimore and persons renting his land) were poorly

recorded and in many cases lost prompted Lord Baltimore to establish a Board of Revenue in 1761. 60This was a

typical occurrence: recordkeeping was tied to the government; the influence of antiquarianism or historical scholarship

was secondary. The Marylanders were, after all, part of a great British empire held together by records, information,

censuses, statistics of all kinds and as the empire increased so did its archives. 61

For most of the seventeenth century, Marylanders do not appear to have been concerned for the care of

public records. Courthouses, the earliest and most accessible repositories, were slowly and poorly constructed. 62

Clerks were allowed to freely carry about the records, and often they kept them in their homes. As clerkships

changed, and such changes were remarkably frequent in the early years, 63 the documents traveled about the

countryside. The Prince Georges' County Court had difficulties in 1696 even having access to its records when its

clerk died and his successor also proved sickly. Conditions must not have been too stable when this court required

that the new clerk bind himself for 100 pounds sterling so as not to embezzle any of the records, 64 although this

may have reflected the sense of the increasing importance of such offices rather than any immediate threats to the

records. Even when the records were centrally stored, problems arose. As early as 1649 it was reported that the

Assembly journals already had two books with their parchment covers missing and "divers of the leaves thereof having

been cut or torne out and many of them being loose and much worne and defaced." 65A quarter of a century later,

in 1673, the Secretary's clerk reported that the testamentary records haphazardly consisted of books, bundles, bags,

parcels, loose papers, and files. 66There simply was little serious government administration of records. However,

that individuals often worked to ensure that records, such as for probate, were manipulated in their favor, suggests that

there was a pervasive public records mentality even in earliest Maryland. 67

The expanding colony and the subsequent increasing government complexity 68 brought the essential

matter of record care to the fore. In 1674 the General Assembly enacted a bill requiring each county not having a

courthouse to build one, and the proliferation of courthouses afterwards shows that this act was enforced or that the

political subdivisions simply had the good sense to build facilities for governance purposes. 69 The passing in 1692

of the first legislative act to provide direct safeguards for the public records further indicates recognition of the need for

improvement in managing records. This act, although only applicable to the Secretary's office, and directing the better

indexing and recording of laws, acknowledged that many public officers had neglected their responsibilities toward the

public records. 70Governor Francis Nicholson noted similarly in 1694 the lax habits of many of the local courts,

urging that "a Law be made for a Stricter Method to be taken in keeping all records within this province..." 71

Some problems resulted from the turmoil and confusion of the 1689 rebellion, 72 a situation that Nicholson, as the

second Royal Governor, had been dispatched to the colony to rectify. But the problems went much deeper than that.

In 1698 Nicholson humbly apologized to the Board of Trade for his delay in sending the colony's records, noting that

his regular scribe had died, and that there was a "great scarcity of good clerks...." 73 Whether there were few

qualified clerks who could create and manage records or if the incentives for becoming a clerk were simply still not

strong enough is a question for which there is little evidence. However, the end result was still the same -- mixed results

in dealing with records.

Indicative of the increasing complexity of the provincial government was the move of the capital from St.

Mary's City to Annapolis in 1694. This momentous decision, again prompted by Governor Nicholson, was made to

move the capital away from the Catholics and religious tensions and to secure a location in the center of the spreading

settlement. 74The process of transferal, however, wrought havoc on the public records. Many of the records were

misplaced despite elaborate precautions, such as closing each bag of records with the Lesser Seal of the Province and

having the clerks sleep with the records as they were transported. The problems came not from any inadequacies in

the protection during the removal but with the conditions after safe delivery to the new capital. There the records were

merely dumped in the home of one of the Chancery commissioners because no government buildings had been

constructed. 75In 1697 Governor Nicholson even threatened to arrest the person responsible for constructing the

State House because he was taking so long. His concern was that delay increasingly threatened the records: "The

Records [were] lying in a very great danger to be spoiled by gusty weather and exposed to the hazard of burning...."

76 Such conditions suggest the lack of development of any sort of document mentality by this time, at least one in

which records were better cared for. There was concern for the records, but not enough to prevent from putting them

into a precarious situation for several years.

The move did not profit the public records, at least not at first. When the documents were prepared for

transfer, the Attorney General and a group of lawyers gathered to list them carefully, noting their poor condition and

state of completeness. 77Surely they observed firsthand the results of poor protection. Yet for over twenty years

nothing was done. This is shown dramatically by the burning of the Annapolis State House in 1704, a fire that

destroyed some of the main government records and all of the county records. 78The officials should have been

forewarned in 1699 when lightning struck the State House and burned off the roof, luckily sparing the records. 79

Though becoming penitent to God, the colonists enacted no legislation insuring better fire protection. The ultimate act

of protection was to build a brick chimney in the midst of a flammable wood structure. That Baltimore County had

earlier constructed a small wood structure for housing its records 80 with nothing said about the dangers of fire

vividly points out government negligence (although this type of construction was also obviously the custom of the day).

The colonial era's configuration of facilities, common use, and storage conditions makes the modern researcher pause

and wonder how any of these records managed to survive, just as far future researchers might someday wonder about

what happened with the electronic records of the late twentieth century.

Finally, in 1716, the Maryland Assembly passed the first comprehensive legislation dealing with public

records. This act was pushed through by Governor John Hart, the first governor of the second proprietary period, who

had assumed office the previous year. Hart sought to streamline his administration for the interests of both Lord

Baltimore and the King. The neglect of records would certainly affect the financial gains of both. The Assembly

incorporated parts of the 1692 legislation, again noting the negligence of the officers and clerks. These persons had the

"full Profits and Benefits" of their offices without the "obligation or Penalty" to provide for the care of the records. The

result was predictable: "Sundry Matters which have been Recorded ... are entirely lost... and a great Part.... are so

very much worn and damnified that without a Speedy Care is taken for their Amendment, it is like to prove of very ill

and dangerous Consequences to the Inhabitants of this Province in general, the most valuable Part of their Estates

Entirely dependent thereon." A commission was appointed to examine the records and to make the necessary repairs.

After this, the officers and clerks would be responsible to provide out of their own pockets the necessary money for

further repairs. Also, the officers and clerks would have to post a bond of 1000 pounds currency within three months

of assuming office to guarantee the safekeeping of the records; these bonds would be forfeited if they violated their

trust. 81

The 1716 records act appears to have been strongly enforced at first. Less than a year later the

commission hired Evan Jones to make copies of damaged records, and he was authorized to employ others if

necessary. 82In 1722 the act was re-enforced, 83 and shortly thereafter the Assembly ordered more paper and

books for transcription. 84In 1721 the Assembly arranged for the public purchase of "a good fire Engine with 20 or

30 leathern buckets" for Annapolis, chiefly to protect the government buildings 85 and also appropriated money for

the "Repairing of the Publick Buildings and Records" in the capital. 86These activities may have been prompted by

the burning of the Kent County Courthouse in 1720. 87Conditions seemed to be improving at a rate unprecedented

for the colony, but there was a century's backlog of government records to be managed, a volume that might appear to

be quite manageable to modern records custodians but which probably appeared to be a vast problem.

The outcome of all this was only a minor improvement over the total neglect of records characteristic in

the seventeenth century. In 1742 the Assembly passed an amended version of the 1716 legislation, suggesting that the

earlier act had not been very effective after all. The new measure increased the bonds required for the officers from

1,000 to 3,000 pounds, except in the Chancery Officer where the bonds remained the same. Bonds were to be

completed before assumption of office, not within three months as before. 88During the period between these two

acts, Evan Jones was reprimanded for his poor transcribing, 89 and Vachel Denton, longtime clerk of the Provincial

Court, for his outright disregard of the records. 90Numerous inspections of the records noted time and time again

their poor condition. 91Undoubtedly, the fact that so many of the kinds of records created and maintained by local

officials have survived from these years is probably testimony to the pervasiveness of such records and luck in later

efforts to gather and preserve such documents. 92Why could the records condition not be substantially improved?

The answer to the continual disregard of the records, despite stronger legislation, rests at least partly with

the politics of the period (as it probably does for most eras). Through most of the colonial period the Maryland

political milieu was governed by pro- and anti-proprietary factions. The proprietary party controlled the main

provincial offices--hence the important records--and voiced its opinions through the Upper House whose members

were appointed by Lord Baltimore. The anti-proprietary party often consisted of lesser sons and relatives of prominent

Maryland families, characteristically holding lower charges or none at all. In colonial Maryland, office holding was a

key to social advancement as well. 93Since the proprietary party controlled many of the offices and thus the

records, the public records naturally would be a matter of contention and, indeed, they were featured in a number of

squabbles. In 1660 it was ordered that the papers produced by Fendall's rebellion "be razed and torne from among

the Records." 94This is how the party in power treated the records of its opponents, and it brings to mind countless,

more modern instances (from Nazi Germany to Kosovo) of how records of defeated nations and groups have been

treated. 95

Some of the political controversies actually focused on the records. From 1716 to 1742, the years of the

two records acts, relations between the political factions gradually worsened. One of the basic disputes occurred over

the fees of government officers. Lord Baltimore wished to keep these fees as high as possible to strengthen the

patronage system, his best means of exerting any significant influence on the government. To lessen the proprietor's

influence, the Lower House logically attacked the income of the offices. In 1725 the Lower House's Committee of

Aggrievances disagreed with the principle that the colony should be forced to pay a "Vast Charge" for record repair,

which amounted at that time to 1000 pounds, "Whilst the particular officers enjoy the full benefit of these offices great

part of the prerequisites whereof arise from these very Records that are now so much worn by constant Use." The

Lower House resolved that the officers should pay for the repairs by having part of their salaries withheld annually.

96 The delegates certainly had reasons for complaint; even the cost of transcription had risen rapidly in a few years.

97 The Upper House disagreed vehemently "because by that means we should punish one man for anothers fault a

great deal of the Impairs in the Records being occasioned by other Officers then those who are now in Possession of

them." For the Upper House charging the public was the only solution, especially since the officers had already posted

bonds. 98

This dispute, and others, was really over the prerogative to which each house believed it was entitled.

The Upper House, most of whose members were also important office holders, naturally defended itself against a

measure that threatened to lessen its income. 99The Lower House always saw fees, of any sort, as infringements on

their English rights. This often produced irrational and ridiculous results such as an incident in 1739-40 over access to

legislative records.

On June 4, 1939 the Lower House reported its fear that several of their journals were missing. The

delegates appointed a committee to locate the missing journals "and that they likewise obtain authentick copies of all

other papers they shall have occasion for the use of the publick." 100The secretary of this committee, Stephen

Bordley, was sent to the records office to check into this. He tried twice and could find no one at the office or its key.

Finally, he located William Ghiselin, the Clerk of the Provincial Court, at home and a quarrel erupted about the use of

the key. A month later Bordley was again sent to the office, this time with a note from the committee (although they

later denied writing it) to avoid any of the previous problems. The note directed the clerk to allow Bordley to see the

records he needed and to make any copies Bordley desired. This request was denied, however, on the grounds that

no provision had been made to pay the "usual Fees," although the committee had sent a dispatch directing service costs

to be charged to the Lower House account. 101

Enraged, the delegates sent a scathing message to the Upper House upholding the right of any person to

examine public records; refusal, they claimed, was a "Violation of the Rights of the People of this Province, and tends

to weaken and destroy the Properties and Titles of their Estates Real and Personal." 102The Upper House calmly

replied in May 1740 that Bordley had been refused access to the records because the Lower House committee had

been functioning when the Assembly was prorogued, thereupon making it illegal. Those who applied by the regular

channels—that is, paid the necessary fees--would receive the desired service. After all, the Upper House had a

"sincere desire for the Welfare and Satisfaction of the good People of Maryland." 103Similar incidents occurred

again in the 1760s and 1770s. 104

Occasionally the two houses cooperated in regard to the records. The most important occurrence of this

came during the administration of Governor Benedict Leonard Calvert from 1727 to 1731. Calvert's antiquarian

interests spurred him to attempt to write a history of the colony, as previously described. In his first address to the

General Assembly, he talked briefly of the condition of the public records, especially that of the Assembly's own

archives. He lamented that if these documents were not cared for and were possibly destroyed, the history of the

colony would "be hereafter only known by uncertain Traditions... Whereas Records will speak for themselves."

105 The Lower House must have been inspired or cajoled. It ordered a committee to inspect their records and

began a week later to repair them. 106

Since 1716, public records, especially the earliest ones, had been recopied. Governor Calvert praised

this work in 1727 and urged "a Separate Repository for the old records... to secure us from a total loss... in Case of

Fire or other unavoidable Accident." 107He reiterated this again in 1729. 108This time work was begun on a

structure entirely of brick, sixteen feet long and twelve feet wide, with a tile or slate roof, two windows on each side,

and shutters or iron bars on the windows. Inside the building were boxes for storing the papers and a table for reading

and examining them. 109The building was completed in 1730. The fact that this repository was close to the State

House and thus accessible probably encouraged the delegates' participation. The Upper House agreed to the project

because of a directive from the proprietor, pointing out that "great Inconveniences have arisen to my Ancestors &

Myself from the Want of a proper office or Repository in the City of Annapolis in which may be kept such Books &

Papers as may relate to the Lord Proprietory's Revenues." 110This concern was typical of governments in all

societies of the period, as they struggled to contend with both the increasing quantity of records and their need for

convenient access. The need to organize and store records so that they could be used when needed represents a

serious change in attitude towards records, reflecting a new document centered society. 111In the colonial era, the

construction of such facilities may represent a shift to a greater sense of social and governmental stability, although later

events may throw such a conclusion into doubt.

The public records repository was the high point of record care during the colonial years and, in fact,

until well into the nineteenth century. Record care did not improve much further. The structure itself was continually

refurbished, 112 but even by the late 1760s it was too small and a new State House was being contemplated that

would give more room for record storage. 113The results of the inspection of the records in May 1766 exhibit the

basic failure of efforts of nearly three-quarters of a century at record preservation. In the Commissary's Office "the

Greatest part of those Records do not appear ever to have been examined and that there have been great Errors

committed in Recording them." In the Land Office "many Certificates before the year 1740, are thrown into an old

Chest in the Office where they lay in the Greatest confusion much torn and defaced and the Books which Contain

those Certificates are not marked Examined." The sum of the report was that "the Records in the Publick Offices for a

Considerable time Past Appear to be made up generally by Persons who write incorrect and unsettled hands.”

114Anyone who has worked with government records in our own modern period will recognize these depictions as

ones they have seen replicated.

One improvement that did begin to take place in the later years of the colonial period was the increasing

concern for county records. Leonardtown, the seat of St. Mary's County, built a separate repository in 1736, possibly

imitating the one constructed earlier at Annapolis. 115In 1747 the house of the Charles County clerk of the court

burned and a number of official papers were destroyed, prompting legislation forbidding clerks to remove records

from public offices. 116Unfortunately, complaints poured in from officers and clerks telling of the hardships this act

created, and a year later a new bill allowed the most recent records to be removed. Another provision was added,

however. For the first time clerks of the county courts were required "to attend at their several and respective County

Court Houses one or more Days in every Week . . . and to remain there, either by themselves or Deputy, from Nine of

the Clock in the forenoon until Sunset, and then and there give all possible Dispatch to the necessary Business of such

Person or Persons as shall apply to them for the same." If the clerks failed to perform these duties, they could be fined

six hundred pounds of tobacco. 117As was happening elsewhere in the Chesapeake, county courthouses were

becoming social, political, and economic centers. The growing importance of records required that institutions like the

courthouses, where records were created, posted, and stored, assume a greater role. Just as a greater concern for

teaching handwriting targeted for certain business or social functions was growing in this era, 118 functions

performed by entities like the courthouses also increased in importance.

No matter what degree of success of record care would have been reached by the end of the colonial

years, much of it would have been undone by the Revolutionary War. 119For one, the war delayed the completion

of the State House for seven long years (from 1772 to 1779) and many of the public records were without permanent

storage facilities. 120More importantly, the threats of British capture--sometimes real, sometimes imagined--caused

the shuffling of records back and forth.

As early as the end of 1775, when the fighting was still restricted northward, Marylanders began to

worry about the safety of their records. 121By January 1776 the Council of Safety, the provisional executive

government, decided that the important papers should be moved from the capital, an inviting target for the King's army.

The Council informed the Committee of Observation for Prince George's County that Upper Marlborough would be a

safe storage location, and the Committee was directed to provide room in their courthouse or to secure a vacant

house. 122With the added incentive of news in March 1777 of the British Navy on the Chesapeake Bay, most of

the records were actually removed from Annapolis. The storage of the public records at Upper Marlborough made it

extremely difficult for clerks to have access to the papers and for the normal functioning of the state government. In

1778, with the danger seemingly over, the records were transported back to Annapolis. With a renewed threat the

following year, the records were again sent to Upper Marlborough and some to Elk Ridge as well. The records

remained at these locations until after the British surrender at Yorktown, Virginia in 1781. 123

As during the transferring of the public papers in the mid-1690s, the Maryland government was

extremely cautious in these record movements. In the first major transfer, in 1777, the Council of Safety assigned

experienced clerks to the records of the Land Secretary's and Commissary's offices. Two members of the Anne

Arundel County Committee of Observation accompanied the records from Annapolis to Queen Anne. There, two

members of the Prince George's committee accepted the records and conducted them to Upper Marlborough.

124Even with these safeguards, more damage was inflicted upon the public records from their transportation than

from British deprecations, reminiscent of the move of the records to Annapolis in the late seventeenth century. The

British captured a group of Cecil County land records; although this produced inconvenience for Cecil Countians and

the gaps were not totally rectified for a number of years, the loss was minimal. 125But with the record shuffling of

the 1770s the only concern was with the safe storage from the enemy. Consequently, the records were piled and

packed with little regard for the greater threats of dampness, dust, and neglect. In 1783 Stephen West related to

Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer that he carried some of the Auditor General's records to his home because they were

"very much damaged." West continued, "the Hurry & Bustle of War & frequent packing up of Bonds and papers was

not time for Calm settlement of such intricate Accounts [and for care of the records]." 126

The aftermath of the war brought no new efforts in public record care. Things continued much as they

had been in 1716 or 1742. Attempts were made to gather the scattered records, some of which had not been turned

in from the old proprietary officials. 127The customary method of records care continued to be the transcription of

records that were "defaced," the making of alphabets (indexes) for easier use, rebinding, the construction of shelving or

boxes for storage, and the regular inspection of all "books, records and papers" in public offices. 128The problems

remained virtually the same, as reflected in John Gassaway's (the Register of Wills) 1789 plea for the preservation and

security of the records of the Prerogative Office and Register of Wills Office: "I . . . take this opportunity of Soliciting

your honors, that some person may be appointed by your Honorable board to put Doors to the Cases in the said

office, for the purpose of preventing the dust from injuring the papers and Records, they have abroad suffered from the

Want of this security, and must in process of Time be greatly Damaged." 129

Adding to the normal recordkeeping problems was the occurrence of another war with England in 1812-

15, and the moving – again -- of the public papers from Annapolis to "protect" them. The records were moved at least

four times: in early 1813 a short distance out of Annapolis; in the summer of that year to Upper Marlborough in Prince

George's County; in the summer of 1814 eight miles outside of Upper Marlborough; and in 1815 the records were

finally returned to Annapolis. 130Unlike during the Revolution, the legislature was politically divided and often

disagreed on the mechanism of record transfer. On December 8, 1813 Governor Levin Winder sought advice from

both the Senate and House regarding the care of the records. Winder noted that the records would have to be moved

when the British threatened, but also pointed out that "there is a considerable danger of their [the records] being lost or

destroyed by frequent removals: The legislature will see the necessity of making some further provision with respect to

them." 131Even with this cautioning it was not until 1815, when the war was over, that the legislature could agree to

a standard procedure. During the December 1814 session the two houses haggled over the finer details of record

access and security. The Senate, for example, believed that Baltimore would be the safest locations. The House, on

the other hand, believed Frederick to be better, an idea they gave up on to enable finally the passing of a resolution,

one of the "utmost importance to the good people of the state," on February 2, 1815. 132

Although there were not descriptions of damages inflicted upon the public records during the War of

1812, care certainly was not improved. During 1812, the Senate appointed its clerk to "arrange" its records "in the

way he may think best calculated to preserve them, and to make a reference to them easy." The clerk found that "all

the original papers of the senate, for many years past, have been thrown promiscuously into the cases, in the greatest

disorder, without endorsements, and not one can now be found without great difficulty." 133The result of this was

yet another broad record act -- "An act to compel all public record officers in this state to keep up their records."

134Within a few years a transformation of attitude toward public records became noticeable. During the 1820s and

1830s the Legislature became interested in the records for their historical significance, the first such glimmer of

historical interest since the days of Benedict Leonard Calvert a century before. What prompted this change was an

awakening of the historical consciousness in Maryland and the efforts of David Ridgely, the first State Librarian.

The Awakening of the Historical Consciousness and the Origins of Archival Development,

1811-1844 . Between 1811 and 1831 five Maryland histories were composed and published by leading local

businessmen, lawyers, and politicians. John Leeds Bozman's A Sketch of the History of Maryland was the first,

although with its long pedantic review of English colonization from the sixteenth century, the "sketch" only covered the

1630's. 135William H. Winder, under the pseudonym "A Gentleman of Baltimore," published an eight-part essay on

Maryland's history in the Baltimore-based Journal of the Times . 136After a lengthy introduction, it too barely

considered Maryland. Thomas Waters Griffith's Sketches of the Early History of Maryland (1821) and Annals of

Baltimore (1824) 137 were the first full-length histories of both. Both were poorly composed chronicles with little

interpretation, although they were typical of such histories of this period and they do reflect an increasing historical

interest. John Van Lear McMahan's An Historical View of the Government of Maryland , 138 published in

1831, was an intricately detailed institutional study which ranks as one of the state's best early histories. The clustering

of the publication of these histories represents some sort of new consciousness about the past in Maryland, although it

is at best operating at a fairly primitive level.

The appearance of these histories was connected to the increasing nationalism prevalent from the

Revolution and reinforced by the War of 1812. Numerous national and local histories were published in America in

these years. 139Nationalism was also present in Maryland. Baltimoreans, between 1815 and 1840, constructed the

first major monument to the memory of George Washington. 140The visit of Lafayette to the state in 1824 and the

presence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, from 1826 to his death in 1832 the last surviving signer of the Declaration of

Independence, buttressed nationalism. 141The dance performances in Baltimore were, according to one critic, "all

collected under one artistic umbrella--a very complex plot which continued to embody strong patriotic sentiment."

142 Even the histories paid homage to such sentiments. Bozman stated, it is "natural for every man... to know

something of the transactions of his own neighborhood " and lamented "while almost every other state in the Union has

had its historian, Maryland, though one of the earliest British colonies, has never yet had even its first provincial

transactions developed to the inquiring reader." 143Winder believed Maryland had been neglected because of

Virginia and its rank as the first successful colony and New England with its mystique of religious motivations.

144McMahon possibly summed up the basis of all these works when he wrote the following: “All have passed, or

are passing into oblivion; and after the lapse of two centuries, we are yet a new people, with scarcely a single

monument or cherished remembrance of the past, around which State pride may cling... Intent upon the present, we

seem to have forgotten that the great secret of national advancement consists in the cultivation of a proper national

pride; and that the elements of this pride exist in the associations of a nation's history, and in the devotion to her

institutions which springs from a knowledge of their nature and ends.” 145 We would hear similar sentiments in

other generations as well, but such ideas were new for Americans in this period.

Nationalism was not a monolithic cause of the historical publications. Bozman, although he stated that he

began his study because Maryland had no history, confessed to a keen interest in history generally. 146He also

desired to write the first history of Maryland as a matter of personal prestige. 147McMahon, a leading lawyer and

politician, had originally commenced his research for "an Elementary Treatise upon the Laws and Institutions of the

State." When he learned that the state government was undertaking a similar project, he switched to a broader view.

148Thomas Waters Griffith had little interest in history or any other scholarly pursuit until late in life. At the age of

fourteen he knew he was "not an apt Scholar, for I scarcely understood my Grammar." 149When he was asked by

the Baltimore publisher Edward J. Coale to write "A Picture of Baltimore, upon the plan of those of London, New

York, etc...." Griffith assented to it, as much for the money as anything else, and began to construct "a digest of the

History of Maryland, as a necessary introduction to that of the City." Soon he had collected so much information that

he abandoned the guidebook to compose a history of the state. 150Griffith merely built upon this to write his later

history of Baltimore.

Despite such fundamental differences in motivations, the four authors shared one common viewpoint,

even more important than that of a nationalistic outlook --- all lamented the condition of Maryland's historical records.

When his health declined, restricting him to his estate on the Eastern Shore, Bozman endeavored to gather materials

through correspondence; in 1819 he requested from one acquaintance the loan of "any old book, pamphlet, or

manuscript--even letters [that] throw light on the early part of the History of Maryland." 151Earlier, he emphasized the importance of such records believing that they were the only means to reconstruct the state's past and urging that

the state government hire "some judicious compiler... to arrange and publish such documents remaining of our

provincial or state records." Other states successfully accomplished this very thing, he added. Not only would such

copying "preserve" historical records, but it would also encourage other historical research. 152Winder, after

examining published materials and finding them "wanting," resorted to collecting the memoirs of surviving Maryland

patriarchs. 153McMahon, who made the most extensive use of original records (consulting over twenty different

manuscript journals of government proceedings), 154 confessed that he had been "compelled to rely principally, for

the sources of his information, upon unpublished and imperfect records, the very perusal of which, if inflicted as a

punishment, would be intolerable." 155

As these Maryland historians attracted a wider public attention to the need for the better care of the

historical records, American historical editing -- largely as a method of records preservation - was appearing. Thomas

Jefferson, declaring in 1791 his support for the work of Ebenezer Hazard, wept over the "daily havoc" committed on

America's historical records and urged "such a multiplication of copies as shall place them beyond the reach of

accident." 156Jefferson's sentiment has been repeated often as justification for documentary editions down to our

present day. In Maryland the effects of this national movement appeared strongly in the 1820s in two areas--the

collecting of local records for regional or national studies and the private collecting of autographs.

Autograph collecting was especially strong in Maryland, although whether it was stronger than any other

area of the nation is unknown since we have no history of such collecting (my sense is that Maryland's autograph

collectors were representative of what was going on elsewhere). Jacob Engelbrecht of Frederick collected the

autographs of national figures and between 1824 and 1827 succeeded in obtaining letters of Thomas Jefferson, John

Adams, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, James Madison, and even a letter of George Washington from his nephew

Bushrod Washington. 157Robert Gilmor, Jr., a prominent Baltimore businessman, was a collector of art 158 and

autographs and considered himself the American pioneer of the latter. Gilmor began a collection in the mid-1820s,

eventually including a complete set of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, numerous national and

international figures, and a number of manuscripts significant in Maryland's history. 159In 1831 and 1841 he

published detailed inventories of the collection; in the former year 1244 different individuals were represented and by

1841 the collection had more than doubled. 160A close friend of Gilmor, Brantz Mayer, also ventured into this

avocation. An 1836 letter to John Neal described it as one of his "whim-whams and fancies" and requested any

"interesting fragments" he might have so as to "be appointed their guardians, promising that they shall be entitled to

Clean Sheets in a russia leather case, and to such other Hospitalities of bed and board--as their antiquity--literary

interest or association may require." 161Mayer's description is as good a characterization of the motives for

collecting in this era as you will find.

Interest in Maryland records as necessary and desirable materials for national history also intensified in

the 1820s and after. John Paca, the son of William Paca, a Maryland signer of the Declaration of Independence, was

besieged by a historian seeking information relative to his famous father in 1827. 162The aging John Eager Howard

was consulted by another striving to reconstruct the Revolutionary War in the South. 163The more important

projects were those guided by Jared Sparks and Peter Force. Both, laboring on immense editorial works, visited the

state and appraised its records. Sparks traveled to Annapolis in the spring of 1826, examined a few of the public

documents, and declared that "it is evident that the materials for a colonial history of Maryland are full, and in a

tolerable state of preservation. They are much scattered, however, in the different offices, and no person seems to be

acquainted with them, and to know where they can all be found.... They might easily be arranged." 164When Force

began his collecting Sparks guided him to some Maryland collections. 165By then the presence of David Ridgely,

the Maryland State Librarian, had made Force's task much easier. Ridgely became a spokesman for the concept of a

state archives, obviously influenced by both Sparks and Force, 166 and became the knowledgeable person Sparks

had wished for a decade before. There is also evidence that personal recordkeeping, such as in the construction of

scrapbooks, emerged at this time as means of personal and other forms of expression. Ann Elizabeth Buckler, in

Baltimore , created a scrapbook between 1832 and 1855, described as a “creative expression, a deliberate effort by

one individual to make sense of her life by composing it: to sort through daily trivia and cope with the total spectrum of

human emotion and experience.” 167Such motivations also guided many in their collecting of autographs and other

documents.

David Ridgely was in charge of the Maryland State Library when it opened on December 11, 1827. Its

origins went back to 1803. 168The raison d'etre then and in 1827 was the administrative need for legislative

reference. Using this as a mandate, Ridgely began to collect and centralize the storage of the original records of

Maryland. This archival function of the Library slowly evolved and evolved only because of the peculiar interests of

Ridgely. The December 1829 legislative session approved a resolution "for the preservation of printed copies of

certain bills, resolutions and other public documents" by the deposition of five copies each in the Library. 169Similar

measures were ultimately taken with regard to the manuscript records. In the mid-1830s Ridgely issued three reports

on this subject. He examined the records housed in the old Chancery Office, Auditor General's Office, Treasury of the

Western Shore, the loft of the Treasury Department, the Land Office, Committee Room of the Senate, Council

Chamber, the stairway under the State House dome, and the Executive Chamber, and urged for their preservation and

selective publication. 170For Ridgely such work was the main function of the Library. In 1838 he summarized his

philosophy by stating that "the true interest of the library would be best subserved by the endeavor to collect and

preserve all such documents as would give correctness to our own history." 171

David Ridgely lobbied for the preservation of Maryland historical records from the late 1820s through

the 1830s. Because of his insistence, the state purchased in 1838 the extensive papers of Horatio Ridout, a colonial

official, 172 and later a transcript of an unpublished tract of Father Andrew White, one of the first Maryland

settlers. 173Ridgely also was an important aide to McMahon's research, 174 and he also influenced the state's

acceptance of John Leeds Kerr's offer to publish the fuller historical manuscript by Bozman, 175 as well as assisting

in the publication of the journals of the Maryland conventions of 1774-76. 176Typical of Ridgely's concern was his

attempt to have the state adopt "a work illustrative of the geography and history of Maryland, for the instruction of

youth, to be used in the elementary school of the State." 177Ridgely had prepared such a work and although it was

never published, 178his Annals of Annapolis (1841) certainly soothed any disappointment; the Annals was the

first serious attempt at systematic editing of manuscript records in Maryland. 179

With Ridgely's retirement in the mid-1840s, the State Library ceased its efforts in the preservation of

historical records, reflecting that the documentary interests were personal concerns of Ridgely rather than part of an

institutional mandate for the State Library. His successors were more interested in serving the reference needs of

legislators, not historians, other researchers, or the public. Even with Ridgely in charge, the function of historic

preservation was secondary and spotted with failures and lack of interest. Ridgely could not protect the records from

autograph collectors. 180And even when George Bancroft and Jared Sparks visited the Library, examined and

urged the publication of the Ridout manuscript collection, Ridgely could not secure the adequate finances necessary

from private or public funds. 181The colonial legacy of lackadaisical public recordkeeping continued into well into

the nineteenth century. Nonetheless, Maryland's historical consciousness was awakened. The immense popularity of

John Pendleton Kennedy's historical novel, Rob of the Bowl , set in seventeenth-century Maryland and based upon

manuscript records is clearly indicative of that. 182When the State Library ceased as the bulwark of historical

research, it was a natural consequence that the Maryland Historical Society was chartered.

1 Ernst Posner, Archives in the Ancient World (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972).

2 Rosalind Thomas, Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), quotation p. 14.

3 James P. Sickinger Public Records and Archives in Classical Athens (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), quotation p. 8.

4 See, for example, Richard Beale Davis, Intellectual Life in Jefferson's Virginia 1790-1830 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1964), chapter 3 and Louis B. Wright, The Cultural Life of the American Colonies 1607-1763 (New York: Harper and Row, 1957), chapter 6. See, for Maryland, Carl E. Garrigus, Jr., “The Reading Habits of Maryland's Planter Gentry, 1718-1747,” Maryland Historical Magazine 92 (Spring 1997): 37-53.

5 The literature on this subject is extensive. For an introduction, refer to Peter Gay, A Loss of Mastery: Puritan Historians in Colonial America (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966).

6 Stow Persons, "The Cyclical Theory of History in Eighteenth Century America," American Quarterly 6(Summer 1954): 147-63.

7 William Smith, Jr., The History of the Province of New York , ed. Michael Kammen (Cambridge: Belknap Press, Harvard University Press, 1972), 1:xxxviii-lvi.

8 See Louis B. Wright, "Beverley's History... of Virginia (1705), A Neglected Classic," William and Mary Quarterly , 3rd series, 1(January 1944): 49-64 (quote p. 51) and Robert D. Arner, "The Quest for Freedom: Style and Meaning in Robert Beverley's History and Present State of Virginia, Southern Literary Journal 8(Spring 1976): 79-98.

9 James G. Moseley, John Winthrop's World: History as a Story, The Story as History (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992) provides an interesting reflection on the writing of this journal, and suggests other ways to interpret it.

10 Recording American's Past: An Interpretation of the Development of Historical Studies in America 1607-1884 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 30.

11 Seeds of Liberty: The Genesis of the American Mind (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1965), pp. 376-85.

12 John Ogilby, American: Being the Latest, and Most Accurate Description of the New World .... (London: Published by the author, 1671), pp. 183-92. Elizabeth Baer has called this "description of Maryland ... one of the most complete and accurate of any published up to this time...;" Seventeenth Century Maryland: A Bibliography (Baltimore: John Work Garrett Library, 1949), p. 70. A better account is found in John Oldmixon, The British Empire in America ... 2 vols. (London: Published by the author, 1708). Yet Oldmixon admitted that "it cannot be expected that we should be able to give as perfect an Account of every colony" and that "had we been better supply'd with Memoirs, we should have given a better Account of this Colony [Maryland], which we confess deserved it;" 2:196.

13 John D. Krugler, ed., To Live L.ike Princes: "A Short Treatise Sett Downe in a Letter Written by R. W. to His Worthy Friend C. J. R. concerning the New Plantation Now Erecting under the Right Honorable the Lord Baltimore in Maryland ..." (Baltimore: Enoch Pratt Free Library 1976). The most prolific promotional writer was Father Andrew White; see J. A. Leo Lemay, Men of Letters in Colonial Maryland (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1972), pp. 3-27.

14 This can be seen in Andrew Hassam, Sailing to Australia: Shipboard Diaries by Nineteenth-Century British Emigrants (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1995).

15 Scholars have emphasized some of the Puritans' use of secular history methods. William Bradford's Of Plymouth Plantation , long portrayed as an example of the pious Puritan history, is certainly more complex. See David Levin, "William Bradford: The Value of Puritan Historiography," Major Writers of Early American Literature ed. Everett Emerson (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1972), pp. 11-31, and Kenneth Alan Hovey, "The Theology of History in Of Plymouth Plantation and Its Predecessors," Early American Literature 10(Spring 1975): 47-66.

16 See Van Tassel, Recording America's Past , pp. 1-9.

17 Hugh T. Lefler, "Promotional Literature of the Southern Colonies," Journal of Southern History 33(February 1967): 13-15.

18 Quoted in Lemay, Men of Letters , p. 37.

19 For this literature see the fuller study on Hammond in Lemay, Men of Letters , pp. 28-47.

20 For further explorations on this subject start with John D. Krugler, "Lord Baltimore, Roman Catholic and Toleration: Religious Policy in Maryland during the Early Catholic Years, 1634-1949," Catholic Historical Review and Michael G. Kammen, "The Causes of the Maryland Revolution of 1689," Maryland Historical Magazine 55(December 1960):

21 See H. Trevor Colbourn, The Lamp of Experience: Whig History and the Intellectual Origins of the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: Institute of Early American History and Culture at Williamsburg, Virginia, University of North Carolina Press, 1965).

22 The letters of this debate are printed in full in Peter S. Onuf, ed., Maryland and the Empire, 1773: The Antilon-First Citizen Letters (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974).

23 Van Tassel, Recording America's Past , p. 19.

24 Nicholas B. Wainwright, "Tale of a Runaway Cape: The Penn-Baltimore Agreement of 1732," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 87(July 1963): 279.

25 See Richard J. Cox, A Guide to the Microfilm Edition of the Calvert Papers (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1973). Another collection which owes its preservation to this legal contest is described in Richard J. Cox, "The Dr. Hugh H. Young Collection of Early Maryland Manuscripts: An Introduction," Historic Documents Relating to the Early Days of the Colony of Maryland ... (Baltimore: Enoch Pratt Free Library, 1976), [pp. 1-5].

26 Cecilius Calvert to Horatio Sharpe, 3 March 58, in William H. Browne, et al, eds., Archives of Maryland , 72 vols. (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1883, 172), 31: 497 (hereafter cited as Archives ).

27 Cecilius Calvert to Horatio Sharpe, 18 November 1759, Archives , 31: 521.

28 Typical of the results is "A plain view of all that has been done or publickly talked for these twenty years last by past concerning the Boundaries of the Provinces of Maryland and Pennsylvania," a paper presented to the Council on 2 March 1722; Archives , 25:403-09.

29 Jill Lepore , The Name of War: King Philip's War and the Origins of American Identity (New York: Vintage Books, 1999).

30 Donna Merwick, Death of a Notary: Conquest and Change in Colonial New York (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1999), quotation p. 186.

31 Same as footnote 22.

32 For a full study of Bacon see Lemay, Men of Letters , pp. 313-42. Bacon, in his preface to the 1765 compilation, revealed his political persuasion by noting that in all the various political upheavals in the colony that the proprietaries "never forfeited those private Rights [to Maryland] by an Act of Disloyalty or illegal Resistance to the established Power;" Laws of Maryland at Large .... (Annapolis: Jonas Green, 1765), p. [iv].

33 Michael Lynch, “Archives in Formation: Privileged Spaces, Popular Archives and Paper Trails,” History of the Human Sciences 12, no. 2 (1999): 65-86.

34 Ibid., p. [i].

35 Stephen Bordley to M[attias] H[arris], 22 February 1739, Bordley Letterbooks, MS. 81, Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore (hereafter cited as MdHi). An excellent study of Bordley's legal career is Joseph Chandler Morton, "Stephen Bordley of Colonial Annapolis" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, 1964).

36 The idea comes from Angel Rama, The Lettered City , trans and ed. John Charles Chasteen (Durham: Duke University Press, 1996).

37 All the Laws of Maryland Now in Force (Annapolis: Thomas Reading, 1707); Acts of Assembly, Passed in the Province of Maryland, From 1692, to 1715 (London: John Baskett, 1723); A Complete Collection of the Laws of Maryland .... (Annapolis: William Parks, 27); and James Bisset, Abridgement and Collection of the Acts of Assembly of the Province of Maryland, At Present in Force ... (Philadelphia: William Bradford, 59).

38 Bacon, Laws of Maryland , [p. iv].

39 Ibid., [p. ii].

40 Benedict Leonard Calvert to Thomas Hearne, 18 March 1728/9, "Calvert Memorabilia," Maryland Historical Magazine , 11(September 1916): 284.

41 See Aubrey C. Land, "An Unwritten History of Maryland," Maryland Historical Magazine 61(March 1966): 77-81 for a fuller discussion of this and Bernard C. Steiner, "Benedict Leonard Calvert, Esq., Governor of the Province of Maryland, 1727-31," Maryland Historical Magazine 3(September 1908): 191-22, (December 1908): 283-342 for a biographical sketch.

42 Political Annals of the Present United Colonies, From Their Settlement to the Peace of 1763: Compiled Chiefly from Records, and Authorized Often by the Insertion of State Papers (London: J. Bowen, 1780), pp. 200-37, 360-84.

43 For his biography see Grace A. Cockroft, The Public Life of George Chalmers (New York: Columbia University Press, 1939).

44 "George Chalmers and the Political Annals" in The Colonial Legacy , vol. 2: The Loyalist Historians , ed. Lawrence H. Leder (New York: Harper and Row, 1971). p. 33. For other studies of Chalmers' historical work see John A. Schutz, "George Chalmers and An Introduction to the History of the Revolt," The Colonial Legacy , pp. 36-58 and Peter Hoffer, "Fettered Loyalism: A Re-evaluation of Robert Proud's and George Chalmers' Unfinished Colonial Histories," Maryland Historical Magazine 68(Summer 73): 160-72.

45 "The Intellectual Golden Age in the Colonial Chesapeake Bay Country," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 78(April 1970): 132.

46 "Literary Culture in Eighteenth Century Maryland, 1700-1776," Maryland Historical Magazine 38(September 1943): 273-76.

47 Edwin Wolf, II, "The Library of Edward Lloyd IV of Wye House," Winterthur Portfolio 5, ed. Richard K. Doud (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia for the Henry Francis duPont Winterthur Museum, 1970), pp. 88-90.

48 A Catalogue of the Annapolis Circulating Library .... (Annapolis: For Stephen Clark by Frederick and Samuel Green, 1783), pp. 7-17, 23-25.

49 Maryland Gazette , 7 June 1745.

50 The Golden Age of Colonial Culture (New York: New York University Press, 1942), p. 103.

51 Davis, "Intellectual Golden Age," p. 139 and Lemay, Men of Letters .

52 Robert D. Arner, "Clio's Rhimes: History and Satire in Ebenezer Cooke's 'History of Bacon's Rebellion'," Southern Literary Journal 6(Spring 1974): 91-106.

53 Elaine G. Breslaw, "Dr. Alexander Hamilton and the Enlightenment in Maryland" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, 1973), pp. 211-13 and "Wit, Whimsy, and Politics: The Use of Satire by the Tuesday Club of Annapolis, 1744-1756," William and Mary Quarterly 3rd series, 32(April 1975): 295-306.

54 Carmen Seculare, For the Year M,DCC,XXXII . To the Right Honurable Charles... Lord Baron of Baltimore, & c. [Annapolis, 1732].

55 For example under the heading, "The History of Europe" in the Maryland Gazette of 16 November 1748 was published all the contemporary occurrences on that continent. For examples of anecdotes see "Anecdote of the celebrated Columbus" in The Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser for January 20 - February 10, 1774.

56 Horatio Sharpe to Cecilius Calvert, 26 May 1760, Archives 9:417-18.

57 A portion of this chapter was published as "Public Records in Colonial Maryland," American Archivist 37(April 1974): 263-75.

58 Eugenia Calvert Holland, et al, Four Generations of Commissions: The Peale Collection of the Maryland Historical Society March 3, 1975-June 29, 1975 (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1975), pp. 43, 146-47.

59 The most extensive analysis of the propriety system is still Newton D. Mereness, Maryland as a Proprietary Province (New York: Macmillan Co., 1901); the quotation is from p. 509. Donnell MacClure Owings, His Lordship's Patronage: Offices of Profit in Colonial Maryland , Studies in Maryland History No. 1 (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1953) provides a briefer introduction to his subject.

60 A full study of the land records is available in Elizabeth Hartsook and Gust Skordas, Land Office and Prerogative Court Records of Colonial Maryland , Publication of the Hall of Records Commission No. 4 (Annapolis: Hall of Records Commission, 1946); Sharpe's comments are on pp. 31-32. For an estimate of the income from land refer to Charles Albro Barker, The Background of the Revolution in Maryland (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1940) pp. 140-41.

61 Although describing the British Empire a century later, Thomas Richards's study is edifying and instructive for understanding how Marylanders might have participated in the extensive archival work. See his The Imperial Archive: Knowledge and the Fantasy of Empire (London: Verso, 1993).

62 See Morris L. Radoff, The County Courthouses and Records of Maryland; Part One: The Courthouses , Publication of the Hall of Records Commission no 12 (Annapolis: Hall of Records Commission, 1960). For an idea of the problems confronting historians because of the destruction of records refer to Carr and Jordan, Maryland's Revolution , pp. 303-10.

63 For example, from 1654 to 1695 the Kent County Court had seventeen clerks, but only five from 1695 the Kent County Court had seventeen clerks, but only five from 1695 to 1776. Owings, His Lordship's Patronage , p. 58.

64 Joseph H. Smith and Philip A. Crowl, eds., Court Records of Prince Georges' County, Maryland 1696-1699 , American Legal Records, vol. 9 (Washington, D.C.: American Historical Association in collaboration with the Hall of Records Commission of the State of Maryland, 1964), pp. xxxiii-iv.

65 Archives , 3: 230.

66 Ibid., 15: 26.

67 See Karina Paape, “Providence: A Case Study in Probate Manipulation, 1670-79,” Maryland Historical Magazine 94 (Spring 1999): 65-87.

68 One example will suffice to illustrate this. The Secretary originally had all the duties not assigned to either the Governor or the Chancellor. Principally he was notary public and the custodian of the records and had the power to appoint his own as well as the court clerks. Gradually, however, these functions were whittled away by the creation of other offices. These positions were the Surveyor General (1641/2), the Agent and Receiver General (1651), Attorney General (1657), Commissary General (1673), Naval Officer (1676), Rent Roll Keeper (1689), Deputy Secretary (1705/61), and Judge of the Land Office (1738). Owings, His Lordship's Patronage , pp. 6-7.

69 Archives, 13: 413-14. See Radoff's discussion of each county in Courthouses .

70 Archives , 13: 448-49.

71 Ibid., 19:37.

72 The most common problem was the refusal of proprietary clerks to give up their records. For instances of this see Bayley Ellen Marks, "Royal Maryland: The First Critical Decade, 1692-1702" (M.A. thesis, University of Virginia, 1967), pp. 16-18 and Carr and Jordan, Maryland's Revolution , pp. 90-91, 120-21.

73 Francis Nicholson to the Board of Trade, 20 August 1698, Archives , 23:48-49. Earlier the Board of Trade had informed the Governor that "the Laws of Province of Maryland we find to be in great disorder"; Board of Trade to Francis Nicholson, 2 September 1697, Archives , 23:209.

74 Eugenia Calvert Holland, "Anne Arundel Takes Over," Maryland Historical Magazine 44(March 1949):42-51 and Edward C. Papenfuse, In Pursuit of Profit: The Annapolis Merchants in the Era of the American Revolution 1763-1805 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975) pp. 8-10.

75 Archives , 19:135; 20:192-95.

76 Ibid., 23:62.

77 Ibid., 19:23; 20:192-93, 197-98.

78 Archives , 26:427-28; Morris Radoff, "Early Annapolis Records," Maryland Historical Magazine 35 (March 1940): 74-75.

79 Archives , 25:96-97.

80 Radoff, Courthouses , p. 19.

81 Archives , 30:607-11.

82 Ibid., 33:96-97.

83 Ibid., 34:367, 380.

84 Ibid., 34:456-66.

85 Ibid., 34:146, 148, 228, 240.

86 Radoff, Courthouses , p. 107.

87 Archives , 34:116.

88 Ibid., 42:406-9.

89 Ibid., 34:262.

90 Ibid., 39:305-06.

91 There had been inspections in 1723, 128, 1730, 1734-35, and 1739-40. Archives , 34:559-60; 236-39; 37:25; 39:225, 263-64; 42:227.

92 See, for example, Jean E. Russo, “The Constables' Lists: An Invaluable Resource,” Maryland Historical Magazine 85 (Summer 1990): 164-170.

93 An understanding of this can be gleaned from Carr and Jordan, Maryland's Revolution: Barker, Background of the Revolution; Ronald Hoffman, A Spirit of Dissension: Economics, Politics, and the Revolution in Maryland (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973); and David C. Skaggs, The Roots of Maryland Democracy 1753-1776 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1973). I have tried to describe this in a popular essay, "From Feudalism to Freedom: Maryland in the American Revolution," Maryland Heritage: Five Baltimore Institutions Celebrate the American Bicentennial , ed. John B. Boles (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1976), pp. 127-60.

94 Archives , 41:379.

95 See, for example, James M. O'Toole, Understanding Archives and Manuscripts (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1990).

96 Ibid., 35:234-35, 350.

97 The cost had jumped from three pence sterling per side in 1723 to nine in 1725. Archives , 34:560; 35:336.

98 Archives , 35:235-36.

99 Among the eight men participating in the 1725 session of the Upper House were two judges of probate, the Surveyor General of the Western Shore, the surveyor and searcher of Annapolis, the naval officer of Annapolis, the Chancellor, and the collector of Patuxent. Archives , 35:195, 203; Owings, His Lordship's Patronage , pp. 124, 131, 163, 180, 182-3.

100 Archives , 20:82; 40:384.

101 Ibid., 28:182-88.

102 Ibid., 40:547-48.

103 Ibid., 40:541.

104 Ibid., 57:408-9, 411; 58:202.

105 Archives , 36:6.

106 Ibid., 36:71.

107 Ibid., 36:6. A brief account of this records office is in Morris L. Radoff, Buildings of the State of Maryland at Annapolis , Hall of Records Commission Publication No. 9 (Annapolis: Hall of Records Commission, 1954), pp. 63-65.

108 Archives., 36:310.

109 Ibid, 36:369; 37:9, 42-42, 71, 110.

110 Document no. 652, Calvert Papers MS. 174, MdHi.

111See chapters two and three in M y Closing an Era: Historical Perspectives on Modern Archives and Records Management (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2000).

112 It was repaired in 1746, 1751, and 1762. Archives , 44:446; 46:597; 58:39, 56.

113 Ibid., 62:148.

114 The 1768 report said about the same. Archives , 61:22-23, 25, 33-34, 62, 140, 333, 344, 355-56.

115 Ibid., 39:483.

116 Ibid., 44:638-41.

117 Ibid., 46:129-31.

118 See Tamara Plakins Thornton, Handwriting in America: A Cultural History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996).

119 Much of this is based upon Morris L. Radoff, "The Maryland Records in the Revolutionary War," American Archivist 37(April 1974): 277-85.

120 Radoff, "Maryland Records," p. 278.

121 Archives , 11:89.

122 Council of Safety to Committee of Observation for Prince George's County, 23 January 1776, Archives , 11:108.

123 Radoff, "Maryland Records," pp. 280-83.

124 Archives , 11:141-42.

125 Radoff, "Maryland Records," pp. 283-85.

126 Stephen West to Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, 5 June 1783, Scharf Papers, MS. 1999, Md.Hi. In November 8 the Assembly considered the 'deranged state of the public accounts in the auditor's office...." Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates... November Session 1783 , p. 16.

127 Archives , 48:208; 72:257.

128 Ibid., 72:164, 168, 184; Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates...November Session 1790, pp. 103, 107, 109; Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates... November Session 1795 , p. 76; Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates... November Session 1803 , p. 58, 65, 68, 81; Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates... November Session 1804 , pp. 90, 117, 130, 134.

129 John Gassaway to the Governor and Council, 14 April 1789, MS. 1999.

130 Frank F. White, Jr., "Archival Confusion on the Severn: Maryland Moves Its Records, 1813-1815," unpublished manuscript available at the Maryland Historical Society, discusses this in much greater detail.

131 Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly... December Session 1813 , p. 7.

132 White, "Archival Confusion," discusses this session in full.

133 Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly... December Session 1822 , p. 84.

134 Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly... December Session 1822 , p. 86.

135 Bozman believed that to properly write such a book, "it is indispensably necessary to be acquainted, in some measure, with those events which immediately led to its colonization." A Sketch of the History of Maryland, During the Three First Years After its Settlement: Tho Which is Prefixed, A Copious Introduction (Baltimore: Edward J. Coale, 1811), pp. 9-10.

136 "History of Maryland", Journal of the Times 1 (September 12- November 7, 1818): 4-9, 17-21, 33-36, 59-63, 65-68, 81-85, 113-17, 129-34.

137 Sketches of the Early History of Maryland (Baltimore: Frederick G. Schaeffer, 1821) and Annals of Baltimore (Baltimore: William Wooddy, 1824.)

138 An Historical View of the Government of Maryland, From Its Colonization to the Present Day (Baltimore: F. Lucas, Jr., Cushing & Sons, and William and Joseph Neal, 1831).

139 Van Tassel, Recording American's Past , parts two and three are an excellent introduction to this.

140 J. Jefferson Miller, II, "Baltimore's Washington Monument" (M.A. thesis, University of Delaware, 1962).

141 See Dorothy Mackay Quynn, "Lafayette's Visit in Frederick, 1824," Maryland Historical Magazine 49(December 1954): 290-300; Edgar Ewing Brandon, comp. and ed., Lafayette Guest of the Nation: A Contemporary Account of the Triumphal Tour of General Lafayette Through the United States in 1824-25 as Reported by the Local Newspapers (Oxford, Ohio: Oxford Historical Press, 1954), 2:119-58; and Robert P. Hay, "Charles Carroll and the Passing of the Revolutionary Generation," Maryland Historical Magazine 67 (Spring 1972): 54-62.

142 Chrystelle T. Bond, "A Chronicle of Dance in Baltimore 1780-1814," Dance Perspectives 66 (Summer 1976):23.

143 A Sketch , pp. v-vi.

144 This was not published but was found in his notes in the Cohen Collection, MS. 251, MdHi.

145 An Historical Review , p. v; see also pp. 133-38.

146 A Sketch , p. v. In 1785, while study in London, he wrote home that "the magnificence of the Buildings here are the first that seem most probable to strike the attention of a Stranger;--and the Air of antiquity, that many of them wear, is constantly calling up to remembrance some ancient historical fact." John Leeds Bozman to John Leeds, 8 January 1785, Bozman-Kerr Collection, Container 4, Library of Congress.

147 He published his work in 1811 because he learned that William Kilty, the clerk of the Land Office, was laboring on a similar history; A Sketch , pp. vi-vii. Although his publisher urged him to complete the history, he never finished it. In 1837, longer after his death, his manuscript carrying the story to 1660 was published. Edward J. Coale to John Leeds Bozman, 16 July 1811, 17 September 1811, Bozman-Kerr Collection, Container 2, Library of Congress. The History of Maryland From Its First Settlement, in 1633, To the Restoration, in 1660... 2 vols. (Baltimore: James Lucas and E. K. Deaver, 1837).

148 An Historical View , p. iv.

149 Thomas W. Griffith Reminiscences, MS. 412.2, pp. 6-7, MdHi.

150 Reminiscences, MS. 412.2, pp. 292-93, MdHi.

151 John Leeds Bozman to Joseph Jackson, 30 May 1819, Bozman-Kerr Collection, Container 4, Library of Congress.

152 A Sketch , pp. vii-viii.

153 William H. Winder to ?, 23 March 1803, Vertical File, MdHi.

154 An Historical View , pp. 14-16, 21, 31, 37, 40, 44-45, 52, 80-81, 118, 202, 210, 214, 237, 239, 243, 255, 257, 357-58.

155 An Historical View , p. vi.

156 Lester J. Cappon, "American Historical Editors Before Jared Sparks," William and Mary Quarterly , 3rd series, 30(July 1974): 375-400 and Fred Shelley, "Ebenezer Hazard: America's First Historical Editor," William and Mary Quarterly , 3rd series, 12(January 1955):44-73.

157 W. R. Quynn, ed., "Jacob Engelbrecht: Collector of Autograph Letters (1797-1878)," Maryland Historical Magazine 56 (December 1961): 399-408.

158 Anna Wells Rutledge, "Robert Gilmor, Jr., Baltimore Collector," Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 12 (1949):19-39.

159 Francis C. Haber, "Robert Gilmor, Jr., --Pioneer American Autograph Collector," Manuscripts 7 (Fall 1954):13-17.

160 Catalogue of a Collection of Autographs in the Possession of Robert Gilmor, of Baltimore, 1832 (Privately printed) and Catalogue of a Collection of Autographs in the Possession of Robert Gilmore, of Baltimore, 1841. Part the First. Foreign Collection (Baltimore: Jos. Robinson). Both of these volumes are in the Rare Book Room of the Maryland Historical Society.

161 Brantz Mayer to John Neal, 30 August 1836, Vertical File, MdHi. Mayer's collection was quite extensive: after his death, his collection comprised more than 1300 lots of autographs and filled a 68-page catalogue. Catalogue of the Autograph Letters and Manuscripts to the Late Col. Brantz Mayer of Baltimore (Boston: Sullivan Brothers and Libbie, 1879). Mayer also attempted to collect a complete set of autographs of the Signers: Brantz Mayer to Mrs. Mary Bayard Deveraux Clarke, 26 March 1866, Clarke Papers, MS. 2287, MdHi.

162 William White to John Paca, 10 March 1827, 14 February 1827, 17 February 1827, Vertical File, MdHi.

163 Howard had a lengthy correspondence with Henry Lee about his research for The Campaign of 1781 in the Carolina's.... (Philadelphia: E. Littel, 1824) in which Howard had participated; for these letters see the Howard Papers, Box 7, MS. 469, MdHi.

164 Herbert B. Adams, The Life and Writings of Jared Sparks Comprising Selections from His Journals and Correspondence , 2 vols. (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, and Co., 1893), 1:466.

165 Jared Sparks to Matthew St. C. Clarke, 28 September 1833, Series I, Volume 13, Peter Force Papers, Library of Congress. See also Force to Fielding Lucas, Jr., 28 August 1834; Force to Hezekiah Niles, 28 August 1834; Lucas to Force, 30 August 1834; Force to Lucas, 1 September 1834; Force to Jonas Green, 18 November 1834; George C. Brewer to Force, 24 November 1834; Force to Brewer, 27 November 1934, all Series I, Volume 14, Force Papers, Library of Congress.

166 Ridgely was one of Force's chief copyists; Carolyn Hoover Sung, "The Careers of Peter Force, 1790-1868" (M.A. thesis, University of Maryland, 1970), pp. 58-59.

167 Patricia P. Buckler and C. Kay Leeper, “An Antebellum Woman's Scrapbook As Autobiographical Composition,” Journal of American Culture 14, no. 1 (1991): 108 (quotation p. 1).

168 Robert W. Coover, A History of the Maryland State Library 1827-1939 (With a Summary of Events from 1939-1959) (Annapolis: Maryland State Library, 1959), pp. 1-3.

169 Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly of The State of Maryland at the December Session, 1829, pp. 34, 576.

170 Report of D. Ridgely, State Librarian, To the Executive of Maryland... (Annapolis: Jeremiah Hughes, 1836); Second Report of D. Ridgley, State Librarian, To the Executive of Maryland... (Annapolis: Jeremiah Hughes, 1836); Third Report of D. Ridgely, Librarian... Made to the Executive of Maryland, The 23rd of December, 1836 (Annapolis: Jeremiah Hughes, 1836).

171 Coover, A History , p. 13.

172 Journal of the Proceedings of the House of Delegates at the December Session, 1837 , pp. 523-24.

173 David Ridgely to William George Read, 22 January 1842, Read Papers, MS. 1400, MdHi.

174 An Historical View , p. vii.

175 See Mr. Pigman's Report Upon the Autobiographical Manuscript of the History of Maryland, by John Leeds Bozman (n.p., [1836]).

176 Proceedings of the Convention of the Province of Maryland, Held at the City of Annapolis, In 1774, 1775, 1776 (Baltimore: James Lucas and E. K. Deaver, 1836); Coover, A History , pp. 6-7.

177 Journal of the Proceedings of the House of Delegates at the December Session, 1840 , p. 278.

178 "A Geographical Description of the State of Maryland together with the outlines of its Geological Features: Also of the Counties, Towns, Rivers Bays and Islands... For the Use of the Academies and Common Schools in Maryland," David Ridgely of Annapolis Papers, MS. 1603, MdHi.

179 Annals of Annapolis, Comprising Secondary Notices of that Old City From the Period of the First Settlements in Its Vicinity in the Year 1649, Until the War of 1812... (Baltimore: Cushing and Brother, 1841).

180 David Ridgely to Levin Handy, 4 October 1841, MS. 1603.

181 Coover, A History, p. 17.

182 Charles H. Bohner, "As Much History as... Invention: John P. Kennedy's Rob of the Bowl ," William and Mary Quarterly , 3rd series, 17 (July 1960): 329-40.