The Empty Chair: An Old Family Story Debunked

The Central Tavern, bought by Lewis in 1826

What’s the idea of an empty chair? It was an expression often used in the 19th century to refer to someone who left home for war or another reason, and never came back. It was used widely in the Civil War on both sides to refer to that young man (or men) who didn't return from war. 

In my family we have a very long memory. It probably comes from living in one place for many generations. I grew up hearing about the two empty chairs in the Lewis branch of my family, my father’s mother’s ancestry. The first one is my gr. gr. gr. grandfather, Partrick Lewis. He was a merchant and business owner in Meriden, Connecticut in the 1830’s. The second was his son, George H. Lewis, who enlisted in the 15th Connecticut Regiment in 1862 during the Civil War. He never came home. More on George Lewis later. I grew up with the story that Partrick Lewis didn’t trust his partner, Elias Holt. He gave a substantial amount of money to an apprentice, Charles Parker. When Holt had left town with whatever he could get his hands on, Lewis went back to Parker to get his money and Parker claimed he had never given him anything. As a result Lewis went bankrupt, moved to Iowa to homestead, and died. This was the family story. My father heard it from his grandfather, Samuel Lewis, who was himself a grandson of Partrick.

There’s only one problem.

It didn’t happen that way.

Charles Parker was no saint. He had a reputation for cheating people when he could get away with it. But he didn't cheat my ancestor.

And, Elias Holt didn’t skip town. 

Partrick Lewis was a young industrialist in burgeoning Meriden, Connecticut in the late 1820’s and early 1830’s. He and a partner, Elias Holt, opened a store around 1826, building a brick building to house the store. Business must have been good. In 1826 Lewis bought what is now known as the Central Tavern (no longer standing) for $6000, mortgaging most of that amount. The Central Tavern was on the site of what is now an auto parts store. He ran another store, it seems, in the ell of the tavern. In 1832 he and Holt bought a small factory in the center of Meriden and opened a factory making coffee mills and coffee pots made of britannia ware (now known as pewter). It was harder than lead and business owners found, once electroplating was invented, that britannia ware easily took on silver plating.

It looks like things were good for awhile. In 1830 Lewis built what was the first substantial mansion in town at the head of Broad and East Main Streets. If anyone wanted to impress the neighbors that would be the place to do it. East Main Street goes up a steep hill to meet Broad Street. The house was right at the intersection.  The 1830 House, as it came to be called, was quite a fancy place. It had eight fireplaces, and a incredibly oversized Greek Revival portico in front. There’s a grocery store there now. I can remember when it was being torn down in 1964. We were all in the car and my father stopped the car and went over to the site. He told the foreman that his ancestor had built the house, and asked if he could take some pieces of wood. The foreman agreed, and he took away some sections of beams and interior woodwork. For years Dad used a couple of pieces of the beams as foot rests. I am using one right now for that purpose.

The intersection of Broad and East Main Streets was the center of town in the 1830's. Anyone who has grown up in Meriden knows that the center of downtown now is the intersection of West Main and Colony Streets, down the hill from Broad Street. That's because the railroad went in in the 1840's. Prior to that the low section that is now downtown was actually rather swampy, with Harbor Brook running through it. Part of the brook has been uncovered in recent work downtown. But in the 1830's Broad Street was the place to be. The major businesses were located there, and to have a house at the center of it was to make quite a statement.

The economic conditions of the 1830’s provide the context for Patrick Lewis’ rise and fall. He and Elias Holt started the company up in 1830 at a time when many startup manufactories took advantage of a rosy economic forecast. Lewis appears to have been the dominant partner, assuming the debt himself. It also seems likely that he provided boarding facilities for at least some of his employees, for his household in the 1830 census comprises 22 people, only five of which would have been his immediate family. Most are men between the ages of 20-29.

The economy depended on the sale and purchase of real estate. Then as now, real estate transactions were an indicator of the health of the economy. The factor driving the real estate market in the 1830’s was the availability of public land for sale beginning in 1833. There had been land available at times before then, but with the opening of the Wisconsin Territory in 1833 the purchase of federal land skyrocketed.

One other factor helped drive the economy. The issuing of specie (paper money) by state banks made it possible to conduct transactions without cash, a term which at the time meant only coin.  Availability of gold, silver and copper for coinage fluctuated. 

It didn't last, though. In fact it only lasted four short years.

By 1833 it is clear that Lewis & Holt were in trouble financially. Lewis mortgaged just about everything he owned to keep the business afloat. It’s hard to say what the problem was. My guess is that a good part of the problem was that they tried to get too big too quickly. That’s a story that never grows old.  The debts piled up. Lewis was now taking out bridge loans to tide them over until he could sell previous promissory notes. It may have helped short term, but in the end it wasn’t enough.  

His financial problems didn’t start with the business. It actually started with the purchase of the Central Tavern in 1826. He was only 24 and newly married. Buying such a large property and mortgaging it right away was risky and the money he earned back from the lease may not have covered the mortgage. His lifestyle once he built the palatial home on Broad street was extravagant as well. His account book, held at the Meriden Historical Society, contains many entries for fancy fabric for clothing. One entry is for the purchase of twelve yards of Italian silk for $1 a yard. That would be a steal in today’s world but at the time it would have been a huge amount—$34.44 a yard in today’s money, which would not be unusual today, and a total today of $413.28. 

In January, 1834 Lewis and Holt were taken to court for non-payment of debts totaling $9,000, which in today’s money would be about $315,000. It’s pretty difficult to recover from that. Their firm was dissolved by mutual consent on September 20. Noah Pomeroy, the principal plaintiff, took the house and store as payment of the debt and put it up for sale as indicated by the above ad.

Partrick Lewis limped along for a couple of years.  Noah Pomeroy, one of their chief creditors, took charge of the sale as seen in the classified ad above. He sold the mansion to another local merchant, Eli Birdsey, whose family lived in it for over a century. 

 

Next time I'll look at the rapid growth of the Wisconsin Territory and the Panic of 1837.

Overprints On Stamps and the Need for Quick Action!

Many think of postage stamps as being static—they are printed, put on letters, and either wind up in a collection or get thrown out. There is sometimes more to it than that. In various times in the past countries have found it necessary to print on top of an original new stamp. The overprint could be an increased value or provide new information. When time was of the essence it was easier to overprint an existing stamp than to start from scratch.

Russian 20 ruble stamp with a 1922 overprint of 5000 rubles

German 200 mark stamp with 2 million mark overprint

A common reason for overprints was inflation. In the case of hyperinflation governments sometimes could not keep up with new stamps all the time and would resort to overprinting on previously issued stamps to reflect current costs. Hyperinflation has occurred in recent times but with advances in printing technology governments have been able to keep up. Not so in the past. In the first years of the RSFSR (predecessor to the USSR) rampant hyperinflation ravaged the Russian economy. 

The classic example of hyperinflation, however, is that which occurred in Weimar Germany in 1922-1923.

1923 German 500 million note overprinted with 20 billion marks.

At its worst a single postage stamp cost as much as 20 billion marks.  The post-war German government could not keep up with the rate of inflation that had spiraled out of control and resorted to overprinting stamps. At times it even became necessary to overprint money.

Austro-Hungarian stamp from 1914 with 1919 Yugoslavian overprint

 

Ukrainian overprint of Russian stamp

Overprinting stamps has sometimes occurred the end of a war with changes in government. Some new governments supplied postage stamps to their populations by overprinting stamps from a previous government.  This happened in post war Austria. In the newly formed Yugoslavia the new government overprinted stamps from the old Austrian-Hungarian empire’s annexation of Bosnia, deliberately printing over the face of the old emperor Franz Josef.   In newly formed and independent Ukraine, the new government overprinted stamps from Czarist Russia with the Ukrainian trident.

Old Austrian stamp overprinted by the new Austrian government

Italian overprint of Austro-Hungarian stamp

After WW I Italy occupied parts of the southern section of the former Austrian-Hungarian empire and used old military post stamps as seen here. 

Russian overprint of old stamp with semipostal surcharge for flood relief

The Russian Federation’s postal system printed vast numbers of stamps which became outdated, and overprinting with new values became necessary . Even after the period of hyperinflation  ended overprinting was a useful practice.  In September 1924 Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) experienced devastating flooding. The government responded to the need for relief by issuing semi postal stamps with the standard value plus a surcharge to raise money for relief efforts.  They used leftover stocks of stamps from the period of hyperinflation and overprinted new values.

There aren’t many recent examples of overprinting, a practice which has become a thing of the past with the decline in mailing letters as the principal means of communication.  The USPS has eliminated the need for printing stamps with new values by introducing the “Forever” values on first class stamps--the price goes up but the stamps remain.

The Russian Imperial Government's Addiction to Vodka

I turn again to stamps and paper money and ephemera to look at history. All the images here are in my collection. This time it's about vodka. Russia’s relationship with vodka is, like everything else in Russian history, a complicated one. Vodka was developed probably in the mid-15th century when Russians were first exposed to the idea of distilling. By 1472 it had become so popular that Czar Ivan III imposed a state monopoly on the production and distribution. Homemade vodka became all the rage, and the resulting rotgut caused many deaths, especially among men.

 By the mid 18th century Czarina Catherine the Great allowed landowners to make their own vodka for their serfs, a privilege they enjoyed for a century until 1861 when the serfs were freed and the loose restrictions on vodka production allowed for some enterprising makers to enter the market. The brewing of vodka took a large amount of grain and periodic grain shortages and low scale famines resulted. 

Alexander III (r. 1881-1894) from a 1909 25 ruble note

 

 As the 19th century progressed and disruptions in Russian society became more frequent the effects of vodka were clear, but nothing was done about it. Not only were Russians addicted to vodka, the state was too. Under Czar Nicholas II taxes on vodka contributed one third of all government revenue. That is a staggering amount of money and an even more staggering amount of vodka. Alcoholism was universal among men, especially in the lower classes, and life expectancy was short. Addiction provided short term relief from grinding poverty but in the end it created more problems than it solved. In retrospect it is not surprising that the state didn’t take the bull by the horns and eliminate the problem. The state itself was addicted to the suffering imposed on their own people. This clearly reflects the attitude of the nobility about the lower classes, who were still seen as serfs even though serfdom had been ended. 

A revenue stamp for the vodka tax, 1902

Then came Nicholas II. As a younger man Nicholas was a hard drinker. It was a family habit. His father, Czar Alexander III also drank and smoked heavily and this undoubtedly caused his early death at 49, making Nicholas Czar. Eventually Nicholas got religion and quit drinking, and gave thought to how he might get his people off vodka too. He knew that the abuse of vodka permeated every level of Russian society including the military, and would have been aware of the effect it had on Russia’s recent disastrous war with Japan. In 1914 he decided to ban the sale of vodka. This didn’t eliminate it from Russian society, though. People had always made their own to circumvent the high tax on vodka bought legally. Unfortunately for the Russians who made their own vodka, it was often of inferior quality and even more dangerous to drink than the legal stuff. But they made it any way. No doubt the making of vodka permeated the military as well, dampening Nicholas’ effort to keep the army dry. 

A bond for 1 million rubles from 1915.

Nicholas made a big financial gamble in banning the sale of vodka. One third of the state’s revenue came from the vodka tax, and the government was without that revenue at a time when an expensive war (World War I) made revenue even more vital. The government’s only recourse was to borrow. And borrow. And borrow. 

Occasionally articles will appear online suggesting that the ban on vodka sales doomed the Romanov dynasty. That’s not quite accurate. The Romanovs were doomed long before the war. The decision to ban vodka sales and eliminate that source of revenue hastened the end but it didn’t cause it.

Britain Must Confront Its Colonial Past

It’s been a few days now since Queen Elizabeth II died, although her funeral hasn’t been held yet. That will be on Sept. 19. 

 

It hasn’t taken long for multiple editorials to appear in newspapers online about the significance of her death. Not the outpouring of love from at least some of the British public. The other significance.

 

I hope my British friends will take this not as a criticism but as a hopeful perspective. I love Britain. Most of my ancestry is British. I've been there twice and would jump at the chance to go there again.

 

I surely sympathize with the royal family and wish them the best as they grieve privately and publicly, and for the people of Britain as well. They have lost someone who was a steady presence for three quarters of a century. 

Some could say that the US must look at its own violent past and leave Britain alone. But here's the problem. We're a part of their violent past, with the sanctioned institution of slavery, the conquest of a continent and the brutal genocide visited on the peoples who already lived here. We can't look at Britain's colonial past without looking at our own, and vice versa.

It can’t be forgotten that Elizabeth became a queen when there was still a British Empire, even though a significant part, India, had become independent only a few years previous.

One word sticks out in the brief public statement that she made on her 21st birthday to serve her country for however long her life was. She referred to her “imperial” family. That’s the word.

Britain has lost two empires. We in the United States were much of the first. The second one began slipping away in the 40’s and is all but gone today.

As Elizabeth is remembered, her family is wrapped in traditional roles, probably somewhat comforting in its predictability. The pageantry is everywhere. The emphasis is on tradition and Britain’s heritage.

But which one? King Arthur, Henry VIII, Shakespeare and tea, or the excesses of empire?

Bear in mind that I have a great love for Britain and their people. If I had to live somewhere other than New England it would be Britain. But I have to be honest to myself about the colonial heritage.

England started to flex its colonial muscle during the reign of Elizabeth I in the second half of the 16th century. First to feel the might of the rumbles of empire was Ireland. Bear in mind that England was obsessed with Ireland for some time before Elizabeth, but under her reign the colonization of Ireland happened. The tensions in Northern Ireland between Catholic and Protestant are a direct result of this colonization. The Protestants were the wealthy landowners and the Catholics were their workers.

England next turned its collective eye to the newly discovered New World, although they were hardly alone in that. For a century and a half England dominated the eastern half of North America. After 1776 we know how that went. George III never got over it. BTW George was Elizabeth’s 4 gr. grandfather. She knew that. She seemed to have gotten over the loss of their first empire, having made numerous trips to the US. And why not? I was always glad to see her come.

The remnants of the first empire in the New World continued in the sugar plantations of the Caribbean, which kept slave traders in business until the slave trade was abolished in 1807. The brutality of the sugar industry was beyond description. The average survival of an enslaved worker was no more than a year or two before they were burned to death.

After Britain lost their first empire they turned east. The East India Company had been formed a long time before and they ruled India like one big happy plantation. Once the bottom fell out in the 1850’s the British government (under Queen Victoria) took direct control of the government of India. By that time Britain had taken countries all over the world. By that point they had given up on getting us back.

Africa and Asia were a major focus as well as the Pacific Islands. Where they couldn’t control directly they controlled indirectly, such in the Opium Wars during Victoria’s reign. They forced the opium trade on China to finance the tea trade. Nice.

 

I could go on about atrocities, such as the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh, also known as the Amritsar massacre, in 1919, when several hundred Indians were gunned down brutally during a protest. They couldn’t escape because they were in a closed courtyard. Books have been written about Britain’s racist, violent colonial occupation of many countries.

No, none of that was Elizabeth’s fault. She inherited the legacy, though. She reigned through the dismemberment of the empire and created the Commonwealth, sort of an empire lite, without the military presence.

But Elizabeth is dead, and her sometimes cranky son Charles has become King Charles III. He has a tall order. In the short term, being a steady presence as Britain navigates their self-imposed post-Brexit hangover. Long term, he needs to help create a new Britain based not on the tired old empire of the past but on an island nation with an international profile. He needs to  publicly acknowledge the many sins of the imperial past and say that they aren’t going back there again. There was a hint of that in his first speech to the nation. Let’s hope he follows through.