Maryland State Archives

2001/05

Writing the two genres--institutional history and biography--hasn't been easy, even though the information overlaps significantly. I suppose I've been more comfortable with the institutional history, as it is closer to other histories I've written, and because I've had more information to work with.

Turner's biography has been frustrating. I was unable to find any personal papers at the Talbot County Historical Society or the Maryland Historical Society, so most of the particular information I was able to gather came from other secondary sources (e.g., Arthur Pue Gorman) or scattered newspaper articles, including Turner's obituary. Although I generally enjoy newspaper research because it gives one a real flavor of the times, I was thwarted in this project by the hit-or-miss nature of the research. The articles I found in the Sun were extremely cursory concerning Turner or the Comptroller's office during his tenure. I went through a few reels of the Evening Capital without finding anything of substance on either the man or the office, perhaps because that newspaper was in its infancy in 1884 when Turner took office. And although I found a few good pieces on the 1887 campaign and election in the Easton Democrat, none of the Easton papers held in the MSA covered the first two decades of the 20th century, when Turner ran for and lost office twice. Unfortunately, the Sun for that period doesn't dwell on the races Turner entered, perhaps because they weren't hard-fought or big enough for Baltimore City attention.

Nonetheless, I've found the practice illuminating and hope to continue in this vein in some way in my future career.

2001/04/28

About three more hours logged at the McKeldin microfilm readers. By pulling together information from Lambert's biography of Arthur Pue Gorman and the Sun's reporting of the 1887 election (when Victor Baughman replaced Turner as Comptroller), I think I've figured out why Turner "retired" from the office. Nothing titillating, just a story of good old-fashioned politics and patronage in the late 19th century. But again, this is an educated guess. I really wouldn't expect the Comptroller's office to object to publishing this information/assumption, as long as it is presented as a conclusion based on the evidence available, rather than as an indisputable fact. But it makes me wonder if institutions generally prefer to withhold such unflattering conclusions because they aren't fact--thus keeping the "official" history tepid but without controversy--or publish such conclusions on the theory that they make the histories more interesting, believable and readable. (Understand that I'm not talking about inflamatory or libelous statements.) The latter approach would make more sense to me, both in the spirit of "open government" and to hold the interest of the readers. But, of course, it all depends on the institution's purpose in writing the history; is it to be unabashedly celebratory, or more of an evolution of the office and government. Just some general musings.

2001/04/24

I've spent a few hours--often in short spurts here and there--looking over the histories presented by Nasim, Joanne, Linda and Gloria. (By the bye, I've had problems on several occasions over the past week getting into our "ecpclio" site, getting a message saying "the server is down." Is this happening to anyone else?) I'm grateful for the guidance given by Dr. Papenfuse in his answer to Joanne's question about the different approaches we should take in presenting the biography and the institutional history, which is helping me assemble my material for presentation in these two public history genres.

I've been frustrated in my biographical research. I haven't found much about Turner's tenure as Comptroller specifically; he didn't seem to have had a significant impact on the office. I'm finding it necessary to draw conclusions/educated guesses about his service as Comptroller by extrapolating from certain events and/or general conditions in Maryland government, politics and economy during the 1884-1888 period.

2001/04/07

I spent about four hours in McKeldin reviewing microfilm of the Baltimore Sun for the 1883 and 1885 elections for Comptroller, which Turner won. (In the days leading up to and just after the elections, political reporting steals some of the ink from the Sun's agressive reporting of murders and suicides, the more gruesome the better.) Even taking into account the newspaper's bias in favor of the Old Guard democrats, this source gives a great deal of information about the political climate of Maryland--and especially Baltimore--during the mid-1880s. I am finding a much more varied and competitive picture of the political scene than I had been led to believe from reading the general histories we have used.

2001/03/31

I spent two to three hours at the state archives reviewing the Evening Capital for the years 1884-1888 for information on the work of the Comptroller during this time. Without specific events or dates to work with (Turner didn't seem to make any earthshattering decisions or create any great controvery during his term of office), the exercise was largely frustrating. The Capital only began publication in 1884, and many of the early issues are missing and/or were never microfilmed. In addition, there is precious little of what we would consider "news" in these early issues. While I found only one or two specific (and very minor) references to the Comptroller himself or the office, I did get some information on the general financial climate in the state during the period, which were enlightening.

2001/03/26

Review of www.publichistory.org

1.Describe your overall impressions of the PHRC site.

I was very impressed with both the ambitions and the accomplishments of the students who created this site. I believe the essay on the background of the site explains the purpose of the site and the intentions of its creators very well. I found the site well-structured--working from the broad/general to the narrow/specific--and relatively easy to navigate. I especially appreciated the links to other sites dealing with general website evaluations, and thought the PHRC's public history website evaluation criteria well thought out and practical. Overall, I believe that this site has the potential to add a great deal to professionals' understanding of the practice of public history on the web, but the creators must build upon their impressive work here if they are to realize the ambitious goal they have set for themselves.

2. Which components of the site are strongest?

I found the navigational/searching aids to be very useful, especially the Site Map and the Index. The Site Map proved to be an excellent "Table of Contents," and I appreciated the Advanced Search function of the Index. The Page Headings (and Endings) were also good both as identification and as avenues to other areas. Finally, I enjoyed the links to other sites--not only are they interesting and informative, but they also demonstrate the diversity of the public history field.

3. Which components of the site are weakest?

Ironically, I thought the Home Page one of the weakest elements of the site. In an attempt to highlight particular aspects of the site or newly-added elements, the creators have downplayed the overall depth and breadth of the site. In addition, I wondered if the webmasters were breaking one of their own rules by failing to maintain the currency of the information on the site. I found several nonworking links (i.e., the UCLA website evaluation link, the State Historical Society of Iowa), and it appeared that several of the online resources had not been reviewed since May 1999 (i.e., PUBHIST), although I couldn't tell whether the list hadn't been visited at all since May 1999, or simply that the creators felt the weaknesses listed in the May 1999 review were still valid. Knowing how frequently online resources change, I think it essential that these reviews be frequently updated. Finally, without disparaging the thoughtful and well-written essays of the creators, I think the site needs more "expert" content to give it more diversity and authority.

4. Suggestions for improvements in these areas.

As mentioned above, I believe more frequent updating of material/reviews and checking of links are necessary, and that a greater variety of contributors (especially persons considered "experts" in the field) would lend balance and authority to the site. Also, because I found the Site Map so helpful, I think a specific reference and link to it should be made more prominent on the Home Page to point users to an overview of the site's offerings that can also serve as a home base for navigating through it.

5. Additions to the site.

I've always been extremely impressed with Terry Abrahams' University of Idaho Library/Special Collections Website (www.lib.uidaho.edu/special-collections/), both as a gateway to other archival sites and for its featured digital exhibits, and I think it might be a nice addition to the PHRC site.

6. Future directions for "Views from the Field" and "How to Practice Public History."

I liked the "Views from the Field" selections. In particular, I thought Tom Connors' article was not only an excellent snapshop from the archivists' viewpoint, but also very revealing of the crossover and the blurring of distinctions between disciplines/occupations in the public history field. I would be interested in seeing contributions from professors of public history and museum curators. I think the "How to Practice" section needs to be broadened to include other types of researchers, i.e., those in corporate history/archives; those researching municipal/county/state history for special events or anniversaries; representatives of the National Park Service, or someone who has worked at Colonial Williamsburg or the Smithsonian. I would very much like to see an essay/article on archival research done in connection with the Nazi Gold scandal, or perhaps someone at the National Gallery could write about the return of art work stolen by the Nazis. I think these types of highly-publicized cases can really bring home to the public the importance of archives/historical sources and their preservation for future generations, as well as serving as instructive case-studies for professionals in the field.

2001/03/24

Spent 2 hours at the State Archives. I reviewed the Annual Reports filed by Turner during his tenure as Comptroller. As I had suspected, significant portions of each of the reports are devoted to explaining expenditures in support of the State's "Oyster Navy" and the continuing woes of the State's "Unproductive Investments," primarily the C&O Canal. Turner also seemed intensely interested in lowering the State's debt to the point that direct taxes on citizens could be eliminated. I also reviewed newspapers on microfilm looking for additional obituaries, and the Talbot County Wills Index and Inventories Indes for information on Turner's personal financial status at the time of his death.

2001/03/17

I spent three and one-half hours reviewing and making notes on the PHRC website, which I found very impressive and very promising (see review).

2001/03/05

I met with Emily Squires for about one and one-half hours to discuss biographical research at the MSA and other repositories throughout the state. After our meeting, I reviewed the Biographic File on J. Frank Turner, as I had been unable to open the Turner tiff files on my computer at home. The Denton Journal obituary in the file was particularly helpful, not only giving a synopsis of Turner's career but also indicating that another obituary had appeared in the Easton Ledger. I have begun to peruse newspapers for other obituaries. In addition, I have contacted the Talbot County Historical Society to request information on its holdings on Turner, as he was probably a better known figure in Talbot County than statewide.

The review with Emily was invaluable, and I believe I have a good handle on which sources are most likely to provide information for both my Turner biography and the institutional history.

2001/03/02

I spent about four to five hours reviewing various sources to develop the historical context for Turner's tenure as Comptroller, including the relevant sections of Wilner's history of the Board of Public Works, The Old Line State (Radoff, ed.), Maryland: A History (Walsh and Fox, eds.), and Maryland, A Middle Temperament (Brugger). Each source provided insights into different aspects of the state's history during the 1880s, and putting them together has given me a pretty well-rounded snapshot of the 'state of the state' at that time. On the one hand, my job hasn't been made easy by finding any specific fiscal emergency or government scandal during Turner's term as Comptroller; on the contrary, his term seems to have been placid and without any great controversy. However, knowing the demographic, economic and political changes taking place during the 1880s and the upheaval of the 1890s allows me to ferret out some of the issues Turner would have faced in his role as Comptroller of Maryland.

2001/02/14

For my biographical history assignment, I would like to profile either Comptroller J. Frank Turner (1884-1888) or L. Victor Baughman (1888-1892), as I am doing some research in another capacity that involves financial conditions in the U.S. during this period.

Review of The Maryland Board of Public Works: A History, by Alan M. Wilner.

I found Wilner's history both readable and informative, characteristics that are essential to any public history if one's purpose is to present one's "case" to the public. Despite being a native of Maryland, I had only the vaguest idea of the function and duties of the Board of Public Works ("BPW") before reading this book. The author takes the reader from the creation of the first BPW by the General Assembly in 1825 to oversee the state's involvement in "works of internal improvements," to the modern BPW of the 1980s with broad powers over state fiscal affairs and the management of state property. Along the way, he reveals the natural evolution of this agency, including the often surprising and unintended consequences of the expansion of the Board's powers and scope of operations.

In this sense, Wilner has rendered a great service to readers in providing the context for the creation and development of the BPW. Considering that Maryland is the only state to have such a body (at least as of 1984), Wilner sets out a convincing argument that the agency that was created for the purpose of overseeing the state's financial interests in canals and railroads still serves a legitimate purpose 150 years later in safeguarding the public's interest in state public works and the management of public property. Wilner makes perhaps one of the strongest arguments in favor of continuing the Board in his Epilogue, where he cites the public decision-making carried out by the BPW, that might be much more hidden if handled by the governor alone.

Unfortunately, while Wilner gives a detailed account of the context of the creation of the Board within Maryland, the reader has little if any idea of other methods for handling such decision-making in other states. If this history was written in the course of a debate over whether or not to continue the BPW, it would be most helpful to know how the other 49 states have managed their fiscal matters and the management of their public property. I can understand that such a work might have been well outside the scope of Wilner's responsibilities to the 1976 Task Force (as well as beyond his available time allotment), but the information would have been very helpful in determining the need for the BPW and in comparing Maryland's record with that of other states in performing its fiscal duties and obligations to the public.

I learned little about the Comptroller's office specifically from this work, although, of course, that was not the author's purpose in writing. Obliquely, I now realize that the Comptroller's office in Maryland may be a more open and public office than it is in other states, simply because of the Comptroller's position on the BPW and his need to articluate his reasoning for stances on certain "hot" or controversial issues.

In conclusion, Wilner has presented a detailed history of the impetus for and subsequent development of the BPW. His writing is careful and deliberate, as any work of public history must be to take into account the multiple viewpoints on his subject. Ultimately, he provides a solid justification for the continuation of the body. It is a fascinating lesson in the myriad events and impulses that lead to the growth of governmental authority in ways that were never contemplated by those who originally set the machine in motion. As Wilner puts it, "The delegates to the 1864 Constitutional Convention accidentally stumbled onto something worthwhile" (p. 124).