Here you will find entries covering topics ranging from reports on current Dutchess History Community events to research articles, how-to guides, and guest contributions. Please visit us regularly to see new content. For our older posts, please visit the archives page here.
Thank you for your interest in Dutchess History!
by William P. Tatum III, Ph.D., Dutchess County Historian
The bottom line:
As Dutchess County begins the process of loosening social distancing measures and re-opening the economy, it is time for the county history community to consider how we will adapt to the challenges of COVID-19. Moving away from a strict lockdown does not imply that the coronavirus is in retreat or any less virulent than it was in March: the health threat remains, particularly to those individuals suffering from pre-existing health conditions or who are over 50.
The primary issue under discussion in the Dutchess History Community is the future of in-person events. For well over a century, History organizations have focused on in-person programming as the primary method for delivering content to audiences. From museum exhibits that assume a steady stream of visitors to lectures based on large crowd attendance, our sector has always sought to bring groups of people together in close proximity. Our primary method for measuring success has been counting audience turn-out. Even our fundraising strategies have relied on crowds, either in terms of visitor ticket revenue or gala events. It is likely that we won’t be able to return to the old model of doing business for some time to come.
As a new (novel) virus, the scientific community is still uncertain when it comes to many particulars of what COVID-19 does to the human body, particularly what the long-term effects of infection might be. Avoiding exposure to the virus remains an important goal for anyone in the At-Risk category (pre-existing health conditions, age above 50). The timeline for developing a vaccine runs from the extremely optimistic 18 months (Mayo Clinic Article) to the pessimistic 15 years (WebMD Article). Developing a vaccine for coronavirus involves serious complicating challenges (Live Science Article).The outlook is not good for safely holding conventional in-person events any time soon.
“If you build it, they will come” is a great idea for Hollywood, but does not work out so well in reality. Event attendance is a two-part decision: One part is the choices that the hosting organization makes on what to offer, the other part concerns the thoughts and feelings of potential attendees. Does any given member of your organization or visitor feel comfortable venturing out of their house after lockdown ends? What do people consider to be unnecessary risks? The American Alliance of Museums has partnered with Wilkening Consulting to analyse several surveys of the museum-going population on when they will feel comfortable returning to museums. While the Dutchess History Community consists of many different kinds of sites, the analysis of the survey (which you can read here) provides food for thought that applies across the board.
Losing in-person events creates a tremendous hole in the history community fabric, one that cannot be bridged by technology alone. While most of the History Sector is shifting to digital delivery for programming, the approach has its drawbacks. The expense of technology, re-training staff after decades of focusing on hands-on learning, and a communications market glutted with digital outreach are all sobering factors. Most importantly, however, are the segments of the population that the digital shift leaves behind: anyone without a good computer/smartphone and access to a high speed data line, anyone who is not interested in embracing new technologies, anyone who has physical impairments (sight, hearing) that complicate their engagement with technology.
To understand the factors complicating in-person programming, we must turn to the science. In his recent popular blog article (visit it here or download it here), Biologist Erin Bromage of the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth has laid out the science of infection as it concerns COVID-19. The key variable in this case is the respiratory droplet: all the fluid that exits your mouth and nose when you exhale. Different types of exhalations involve different amounts of respiratory droplets: the cough and sneeze generate far more than a calm breath. All of the government-mandated protocols, from social distancing to mask-wearing, are designed to reduce an individual’s exposure to respiratory droplets, either airborne or on surfaces, which are the main means by which COVID-19 spreads.
Professor Bromage has also provided us with a checklist of issues to consider when it comes to in-person programming. Please refer to his article for the specific scientific breakdown of these issues (except the last one):
Current social distancing regulations in New York are based on households (people physically living together under the same roof) and require a minimum of 6 feet between individuals of different households. So if your entire household—everyone living under the same roof—decides to attend an event together, you don’t need to maintain 6 feet of separation from each other. But all of you, collectively, should maintain 6 feet of separation from any other individuals. One must also consider laying out clear avenues for moving through the space that guarantee visitors from different households will not violate the 6-Foot Rule.
The standard in-person history event involves large numbers of people seated together, whether they are listening to a lecture or attending a fundraising gala. The key to these events in the pre-COVID-19 world was packing in as many people as possible to make the best use of the space available. In general, that meant an organization could use a wide variety of interior or exterior spaces for programming.
Seating plans that adequately meet the requirements of current social distancing regulations require tremendous amounts of space. Here is how those measurements play out for a single seat, assuming that the seat of a chair is 18 inches square:
For every seated person, a venue would need to provide a 13.5 x 13.5 foot square, or 182.25 square feet. For reference, your average Subaru Outback is 16 feet long. Another way to think of this issue is how many rooms in your dwelling are larger than 13×13 feet? Putting that math to work on even a small scale quickly requires large open spaces.
These seating requirements do not lend themselves to most forms of participatory programming, such as meetings, seminars, and dinners. With that much physical distance, anyone with impaired hearing or sight will have difficulty interacting with any other attendee. The approach used in crowded auditoriums of carrying microphones around to audience members so that they can weigh in would violate social distancing and introduce new cleaning regimens: that microphone would have to be sanitized between uses.
The space requirements for individuals standing would likely be comparable to the above charts. However, when one takes households into account, the social distancing square expands significantly, fluctuating in relation to the size of space required for the group to stand or sit together.
If you had enough space, you could make the social distancing seating chart work. But could you draw a sufficient audience to make the effort worthwhile? The types of events for which that approach to seating would work are all passive (listening, looking) and would require new effort on the part of audience members to navigate the venue. Social distancing in this context defeats one of the prime motivations of audiences for in-person events: the feeling of being part of a group or community.
When someone coughs in the foyer, where do the particles go? That’s no longer a “tree falling in the woods” question.
Bromage’s discussion of super-spreader events (where a large number of people are infected in one place) covers the basics of this issue. Ventilation systems and airflow define how those respiratory droplets can move through interior spaces. Any venue that has HVAC but lacks viral filters can dump contagious particles in any number of places, depending on how the system is set up. In outdoor venues, one must bear in mind the airflow of breezes as well as physical proximity of guests.
As Bromage notes, “Any environment that is enclosed, with poor air circulation and high density of people, spells trouble.”
While Bromage’s article focuses on respiratory transmission (exhaling and inhaling those droplets in the air), surface cleaning is still necessary. The infectious respiratory droplets have to fall somewhere. Thought must be given to what surfaces people touch, how often they touch them, and what cleaning methods best suit those surfaces.
Surface cleaning also has an impact on the other factors. For example, if your interior venue decides that it will address cleaning of door knobs by having all doors open (so that the knobs can be cleaned less often), there is an impact on social distancing and on air circulation.
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is an answer to situations where social distancing is not possible: classically in a hospital setting, but now including everything from the grocery store to busy walking paths.
PPE is not a complete answer in and of itself. Professional PPE is designed to be worn for extended periods of time, but that doesn’t make it comfortable. Also, wearing PPE for extended periods of time is usually teamed with a broader procedural approach that includes some form of sanitization/decontamination and a social distancing/containment component so that someone wearing PPE doesn’t spread the virus to other people. For an extreme example, think of the airlocks and decontamination chambers designed to create a buffer for clean spaces.
Unless you are a frontline responder, you probably don’t have professional PPE. Instead, you have a cloth mask, which works more to keep you from infecting other people than to keep other people from infecting you. Wearing these masks (which lack a one-way valve for expelling CO2) can restrict the flow of oxygen into the body over long periods of time. So individuals should only be making quick, essential trips and limiting their exposure as much as possible: grocery store run, yes; history lecture, no.
PPE does have an essential role to play in increasing safety for in-person events that adequately address the other points in this post. The government of the State of New York is clear that you should bring and wear PPE on any ventures beyond the confines of your household.
Bromage alludes to this variable in his commentary on face-to-face interactions (where PPE and Social Distancing make a big difference).
The bottom line for the history community is that in-person events (if they could effectively address all of the above issues) would require new procedures moving forward. Those protocols would define how visitors can interact with each other and with staff/volunteers, and how staff/volunteers would act to address everything from emergency situations to cleaning the site.
Staffing is a serious consideration here: COVID-19 and the above factors are not a reason to either drop your staffing levels for in-person public events or to have staff members or volunteers working in isolation from one another. A host of issues crops up when you create a situation where a staff member or volunteer might be forced to address an uncomfortable situation by themselves, without back up on hand.
In light of the above discussion, any in-person event that seeks to establish a safe setting for attendees should be outdoors, have attendance limitations built in, and feature a flow of traffic that ensures large groups of people will not be sharing the same space for an extended period of time.
Tours offer an example of an old style of programming that can be adapted to these new parameters. Limiting the number of tours, capping attendance numbers, being clear that tours of individuals from separate households require special arrangements are all part of this re-design process. While I do not encourage tours of interior spaces, I admit that they might be possible if adequate time was allowed between groups and all surfaces clean. The sticking point would be how an organization should handle a group of 5 people from different households who want to take a tour together. Wearing personal protective equipment (both staff/volunteers and visitors) would be an essential element as well.
Sites could offer presentations from inside structures or on porches, where visitors could speak with interpreters while observing social distancing regulations. Even in these circumstances, wearing PPE and limiting visitor numbers would be essential.
Consider these new approaches to in-person programming as “signature experiences:” small, high quality, attendance-capped offerings. In the aftermath of COVID-19, with the old models no longer tenable, these signature experiences offer a framework for continuing visitation in a much safer fashion that focuses on quality over quantity.
Similarly, self-guided tours of sites are still possible, although the sticking points of interior spaces remain. Significant thought would have to be given to what measures would be used to ensure that visitors to an exhibition, for example, would observe social distancing and that cleaning protocols could be followed.
Some in-person events are simply not possible. Annual meetings and galas are among the most painful losses. Many organizations in the History Sector, including a few of our colleagues in the Dutchess History Community, count on galas and annual meetings for fundraising. Both events bring large numbers of people together in relatively small spaces with poor airflow, the perfect setting for a mass-spreader incident.
Consider the care package model as an alternative. Everyone loves receiving mail. Could your organization offer a gala-in-a-box, either through mail delivery or curbside pick-up? This approach would require considering what objects represent your organization and ways in which you can help your members and constituents capture that gala feeling at home. Online auctions offer alternatives to the in-person auctions for fundraising as well.
There is no question that the road ahead is a challenging one for the Dutchess History Community and the History Sector in general. The impracticability of our conventional in-person programming models combined with the shortcomings of digital delivery offer strange new challenges, which will not be easily overcome.
In contrast to many other areas, however, we are a united community that is accustomed to working together. Through our unity, we are prepared to present a united front to these challenges and whatever other ones may arise over the coming years. We have overcome galling challenges and crises for over 300 years in Dutchess County and will continue to do so together for centuries to come.
By Jack Conklin, Rhinebeck Historical Society
Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in the May issue of the Rhinebeck Historical Society Newsletter. Given its focus on Margaret Beekman Livingston’s children, it seems a fitting piece of history to celebrate Mother’s Day. Many thanks to Rhinebeck Historical Society Newsletter Editor and President David Miller and author Jack Conklin for permission to re-publish this essay.
March was Women’s History Month, and according to their web site, its purpose is to “highlight the contributions of women to events in history.” I can think of no better
candidate to celebrate this event than one of the Hudson Valley’s women who contributed to so much to our country’s early history.
The accomplishments of her ten children have filled the history books of this young nation. The contributions of her four sons and six daughters include three Generals of the
Revolutionary War, a Governor of New York State, a distinguished Statesman who helped write the Declaration of Independence, three Foreign Ministers to France, a successful lawyer who wrote the Legal Code for Louisiana, a Secretary of State under President Andrew Jackson, and a businessmen who brought the steam engine to the Hudson Valley, and offspring who built water-powered mills that helped Rhinebeck prosper.
The year was 1775, and Margaret Beekman Livingston’s husband and father died, leaving her in control of a large inheritance, containing thousands of acres of land. She was the wealthiest and most influential person in Colonial America. How she handled her fortune and empowered her children is the reason she should be celebrated.
Margaret was the only offspring of Henry Beekman, who’s grandfather came to New Netherland with Peter Stuyvesant in the employ of the Dutch West India Company.
He prospered when the English took over New York in 1664, and as Judge in Kingston, NY, he acquired large landholdings in Rhinebeck and southern Dutchess County. Margaret’s father married Gertrude Van Cortland after the death of his first wife Janet Livingston and added to his landholdings.
Margaret married Robert R Livingston, the owner of vast estates in Columbia County and the Adirondacks and the so-called “Lord of the Manor” at Clermont. The Livingston was a proud dynasty, tracing its lineage to the early Dutch settlement in Albany. This inheritance, along with the Beekman lands, were the source of Margaret’s wealth in 1775.
Rather than wait for her death to distribute her inheritance, she decided that daughters, as well as sons, should benefit from the distribution. A radical decision in the 1700s as it was the custom that most wealth passed to the eldest son. She divided the properties, had her daughters draw straws for the choice of the pick, and saw that all her children were provided for. This unusual decision influenced the history of the Hudson Valley for generations. Her daughters maneuvered to find property overlooking the Hudson River and, along with their husbands, created estates that would influence the character of the Valley for hundreds of years.
Her oldest daughter, Janet, married an English military officer, who served here in the French and Indian Wars, gave up his commission, and returned to New York. Married to Janet, in 1773, they lived in Rhinebeck, built a grist mill on the Landsman Kill, and started the construction of the Grassmere Estate. When the Revolutionary War broke out, General Washington recruited him to join the Revolution, and promoted him to General. He led the ill-fated American invasion of Canada. General Richard Montgomery died December 31, 1775, storming the fortress at Quebec City. A very accomplished military man he was honored throughout the new United States. Janet never remarried and built an estate she named “Montgomery Place” in Barrytown.
Margaret Livingston married Thomas Tillotson in 1779. They built a river view estate named “Linwood”, on Mill Road, now occupied by the “Sisters of Ursula.” Tillotson was the Surgeon general of Washington’s Northern Army and served in that capacity until the end of the war. He had a successful political career as a member of the New York Senate, was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, and became New York’s Secretary of State.
Alida Livingston married John Armstrong in 1789. He was a General in the Revolutionary War, and like his brother-in-law, he became active in politics. He was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York and appointed Minister to France by President Thomas Jefferson. He was named Secretary of War by President Madison. Their estate was named “Rokeby,” and their only daughter married an Astor, bringing that family to Rhinebeck.
Gertrude Livingston married Morgan Lewis in 1779. He was Quartermaster General for the Northern Army during the Revolutionary War and a Major General in the War of 1812. As a politician, he was a member of the New York State Assembly, Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court and elected the fourth Governor of the State of New York. The Lewis estate was located at the present site of the Mills Mansion. Their only daughter married a Livingston cousin and built “Ellerslie,” the estate that Vice President Levi P Morton occupied.
Catharine Livingston married Freeborn Garrettson, a Methodist preacher, and built an estate called “Wildercliff” south of Rhinecliff. The Garrettsons sold the north pasture to the Suckleys, who made “Wilderstein,” Daisy Suckley’s last home and now a “not -for -profit” Queen Ann restoration. The Garrettsons had one daughter, Mary, who donated land for the Rhinebeck Cemetery and property for the Methodist Church in Rhinecliff.
Joanna Livingston married a cousin, Peter R Livingston, and took over the “Grassmere” estate from her sister Janet. They assumed ownership of the two grist mills on the Landsman Kill and controlled them until Peter’s death in 1847.
Margaret Beekman Livingston had four sons. Robert R., born on November 27, 1746, inherited the Manor at Clermont. He graduated from Kings College – now Columbia – as a lawyer and in 1777 became Chancellor of the State of New York, a position he held for 24 years. As a politician, he was a member of the Second Continental Congress, and along with Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, and Sherman drafted the Declaration of Independence. He administered the oath of office to George Washington in New York City. In 1801 he was appointed by President Jefferson as Minister to France and negotiated the Louisiana
Purchase. While in Paris, he met Robert Fulton, an American inventor, experimenting with steam engines for ships. In 1807, Fulton returned to the United States and, with financial backing by Livingston, built the first commercially successful steamboat. In 1808, Robert Fulton married Harriet Livingston, a niece of Robert.
Henry Beekman Livingston was born on November 9, 1750. He was referred to as Harry and had a difficult personality. He was considered “the black sheep” of the Livingston clan, and in later life was shunned by his siblings. Henry was a good soldier, volunteering to assemble a regiment in Rhinebeck, he participated in the 1776 Battle of Brooklyn, was at Saratoga in 1777, and with Washington at Valley Forge. During the Battle of Monmouth in 1778, Henry commanded a “rearguard action” that allowed Washington to claim a significant victory. His Regiment lost a third of its men but saved the day. He was acquainted with Baron Von Steuben and the Marquis de Lafayette. The Rhinebeck VFW is named in his honor.
John R Livingston was born on Feb 13, 1755. His inherited land was in Barrytown and, in 1796, built the “Massena” mansion. An admirer of Napoleon, he named the estate after one of his Marshals. After his death in 1851, John Aspinwall, a prosperous merchant from New York, purchased the property. Livingston was heavily involved as a merchant during the war years, supplying the army. He took over his father’s gun powder mill and built a second to provide powder for Washington’s army.
Edward Livingston was born on May 28, 1764. He graduated from the College of New Jersey – now Princeton – and studied law in Albany, NY. He was admitted to the bar in 1785. He was elected to Congress in 1795, became a U.S. District Attorney in 1801, and served as Mayor of New York City until 1803. Edward moved to New Orleans, Louisiana, in 1804, and wrote the Legal Code for the city. He was aide-de-camp to Andrew Jackson during the Battle of New Orleans. As a politician, he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1829, served as Secretary of State under President Andrew Jackson and Minister to France in 1833. In 1835, he retired to “Montgomery Place,” which he inherited from his sister Janet, and died there in 1836.
Margaret’s wisdom in allowing her children to get their inheritance early in life, changed the course of history, not only for the Hudson Valley but for the entire country. Her portrait, a copy of Gilbert Stuart’s 1793 original, hangs in the dining room of the Beekman Arms, and a memorial plaque hangs on the wall of the Rhinebeck Dutch Reformed Church. She was a remarkable woman who deserves to be recognized for her contribution to women’s history.
The William G. Pomeroy Foundation offers an annual grant program to underwrite the cost of creating New York State-style historical markers. Details of the marker program can be found here. To assist you in creating a successful applications, the foundation offers several webinars. Topics include locating the proper source materials, writing the application, a guide to the updated criteria for markers, and a special orientation to the Women’s Suffrage marker program. You can access them all by click here.
The deadlines for our region (Region 3) remain as follows:
Now is a great time to prepare your application materials, including assembling your primary sources and drafting your narrative. Remember that the application process is online now, so make an account ahead of time! Please contact the foundation at (315) 913-4060 or email Christy at info@wgpfoundation.org if you need assistance.
If you have any questions about assembling an application for Region 3, contact County Historian Will Tatum at wtatum@dutchessny.org.
by William P. Tatum III, Ph.D., Dutchess County Historian
The latest installment of the Dutchess History Dispatch is now online (click here). One of our featured announcements is for the Poughkeepsie Public Library District’s Local History Blog, which is one of several initiatives launched by the brilliant local history room staff.
In the Dispatch, we feature this photo as the announcement image, both because I love cats and because cats are nature’s #1 attention grabbers:
In the interests of accurate reporting, I must confess that the blog entry from which this image originates, Fun with Family Photo Albums, is not solely dedicated to feline friends.
As the title suggests, the PPLD local history blog post examines one of the family photo albums in deposit at the Local History Room in the Adriance Library on Market Street in Poughkeepsie. A product of the Konsier and Russell Families, who had a Poughkeepsie-Staatsburg connection, the album contains a treasure trove of views. Photographs range in topic from family members and pets to iconic historical structures, some of which have been lost to time. In the blog post, you’ll find interesting views of the 1888 Poughkeepsie Railroad Bridge (now the Walkway Over The Hudson) and the Adriance Library. The post also features shots of St. Margaret’s Church and the long-disappeared Dinsmore Mansion in Staatsburg.
Check out the PPLD local history blog for the shots and schedule a visit for the post-COVID period to see the album in person. The Local History Room at the Adriance Library is a great first-stop for any Dutchess History researcher. A big thanks to Library District Director and City of Poughkeepsie Historian Tom Lawrence, Local History Librarian Kira Thompson, and Local History Staff Member Shannon Butler (who is also the Town of Hyde Park Historian).
by Bill Jeffway, Executive Director, Dutchess County Historical Society
We hope and trust that you, your family, friends and colleagues are all well at this difficult time. History informs us that we do well to keep our eye on the horizon and have a plan for a happy and healthy post-COVID-19 world, equal to a rigorous plan of preparedness for getting through it now. In that spirit, I’d like to offer an update!
No programs April or May. While we are able to operate a good deal remotely (Clinton House is no longer open), we are postponing any programs or events scheduled for April and May, including the Annual Meeting. June is the best-case time frame for a return to such gatherings. But like everyone else, we will be guided by the advice of experts.
For the Immediate Term. We have been quietly building our online capabilities and you are invited to spend time exploring them! Click on any of the images below. The first takes you to the “homepage:”
A Rare Gem! We intended to show this recently discovered 4-minute training film from 1917 at our Annual Meeting. Just as the US was entering WWI and food was becoming scarce, it features three Poughkeepsie women . Courtesy of the Eastman Museum. I have to ask you to not duplicate or take screen grabs out of respect for the Museum’s request. We did pay a fee for its showing, so we encourage you to view it! But, please, with this caveat to avoid any duplication. The password is: Nina
Digital Bookshelf growing. Both Google and DCHS are in the process of digitizing our Yearbooks. Take advantage of the searchable subject index or search the books directly as you would with any online search. This is not yet complete, but has a good portion:
DCHS policy is that the three most recent Yearbooks are password protected for members/donors/supporters. I am able to share the two most recent (Part I & II on WWI) at this link with password: armistice
End of Summer Programming/Exhibition on Track. Progress continues on the development of our major exhibition and talks for the end of summer (September 5 through 27 at Barrett Art Center) which features the restored paintings, and legacy, of one of the country’s best artists, LaGrange’s Caroline Morgan Clowes. Info at:
I plan to reach out by email a bit more frequently than in the past to direct your attention to things that may be of interest. Of course let me know if you are finding them useful or how they could be of more interest.
You will find us on Facebook and an emerging presence on Instagram.
Please feel free to email me with questions: Click Here To Email Bill
By William P. Tatum III, Ph.D., Dutchess County Historian
Since county government announced the first documented case of COVID-19 on March 12th, I have encountered a rising number of people who ask about the 1918 Influenza Epidemic. Specifically, they have encouraged me to look into the county archives and other collections for “answers from the past” for today’s question.
Here’s my response: Do not look to reactions to the 1918 Pandemic to provide answers for the 2020 Pandemic.
Due to COVID-19 restrictions, I am reliant on the online archives of the Poughkeepsie Eagle-News (the Poughkeepsie Journal’s name in 1918) for insights into how local authorities addressed the public health emergency. My commentary is confined to the City of Poughkeepsie and limited in its perspective even within the city. Generally, historians do not rely on a single source of data for any remarks about the past…but generally we don’t look directly to the past for answers to today’s problems, particularly problems that involve technology.
Nevertheless, I found some helpful points in this newspaper data that describe why looking to 1918 for answers is a bad idea.
First, the medical professionals of 1918 disagreed on exactly what sort of disease they were facing. Some authorities claimed (correctly, as it turned out) that the influenza of 1918 was a novel (new) strain of a familiar disease. Others loudly clamored that this flu was no different from the “Grippe of 1889-90” that had afflicted Dutchess County. As a result, there was not a unity of medical opinion and practice moving into this crisis. Even worse, this divide in opinion connected with racist and xenophobic propaganda. The popular name of the disease, the “Spanish Influenza,” insinuated that Spain was responsible for it. In fact, Spain was simply the only country in Europe with a free press providing blunt coverage of the disease. An article in the September 19, 1918, edition of the Poughkeepsie Eagle News reported a theory that German U-Boat crews had brought influenza to America, landing at points along the coast to spread it. The author of this theory, Lieutenant Colonel Philip S. Doane, also proclaimed that the influenza was “nothing more or less than old fashioned grippe” (pg 1).
An article in the October 10, 1918, edition expanded on Doane’s claim, connecting the current influenza with “the old Grip, or La Grippe” that had reached epidemic proportions in 1889-90. The only difference, the article claimed, was that the earlier disease had originated in Russia and arrived via France. Such coverage squarely placed the “blame” for infection on Spanish, Russian, and French sources (pg 9).
October 10, 1918, edition of the Poughkeepsie Eagle-News, pg 2
Second, the city of Poughkeepsie health authorities gave contradictory and ultimately counter-productive advice. City Health Officer Helen K. Palliser, M.D., observed in numerous newspaper articles that transmission occurred when an infected individual sneezed or coughed. Unfortunately, contemporary health officials focused on this behavior rather than on the underlying mechanism of transmission: the particles ejected during the coughing and sneezing. As a result, while they got one part somewhat correct, that did not lead to effective health measures. Instead of advising self-quarantine (today’s “social distancing”), city officials advised residents to seek fresh air and to embrace exercise, either outdoors or in gymnasiums. The YMCA even ran a series of ads about the many benefits of group exercise indoors.
October 8, 1918, edition of the Poughkeepsie Eagle-News, pg 2
Third, while the city did embrace some measures that echo the directives of modern government, the response overall was half-hearted and generally ineffective. The Poughkeepsie Eagle-News published a report of the first confirmed cases of influenza (which doctors judged had infected over 100 people) on September 23rd. On the same day, the city suffered its first documented influenza-related deaths: Ralph Welton and his daughter Mary. The same report included a quote from Frank C. Furlong, MD, who stated that ““unless more precaution is taken the city is likely to have an epidemic” (pg 5).
September 23, 1918, edition of the Poughkeepsie Eagle-News, pg 5
The city nevertheless went forward with the September 28, 1918, Victory Bond Drive parade, which attracted an attendance of thousands. In ignoring the warnings of physicians including Furlong, the paper reported that the board of health “believes it will be better for the public to get out into the fresh air today than to call off the parade” (Sept 28, 1918, edition, pg 6).
September 28, 1918, edition of the Poughkeepsie Eagle-News, pg 6
In the October 4, 1918, edition, Vassar Brothers Hospital became the first medical establishment to close its doors to healthy visitors seeking access to the influenza patients. The same issue saw several other important developments: the Hyde Park Home Defense Society cancelled a fundraising dance, the Red Cross called for individuals to make masks, and City Health Officer Palliser stated that closing movie theatres and schools was “of little use unless every manufacturing and commercial establishment was closed as well” (pg 7).
October 4, 1918, edition of the Poughkeepsie Eagle-News, pg 7. Note that the masks were for military camps, not local hospitals.
The October 7, 1918, edition announced the closure of schools and movie theatres following a contentious meeting of the city board of health the preceding day. Over 50 people attended the meeting, including many of the doctors in the city. After two hours of fierce debate, the proposed closure passed in a vote of 6:3. Dr. Furlong and Health officer Palliser both voted against the closure. The board further resolved that “public gathers where large numbers of people congregate are a menace to public health and should not be held.” Nevertheless, the board chose to delay any closure of local churches for later discussion. By October 12th, city officials were asking churches not to hold services. Despite these closures, residents continued to mingle. As Dutchess County Historical Society Executive Director Bill Jeffway observed to me, the DCHS of 1918 was at this time continuing with planning its annual “pilgrimage” field trip, which departed for Red Hook in October.
October 7, 1918, edition of the Poughkeepsie Eagle-News, pg 1
The Poughkeepsie Eagle-News offered a running record of the results of medical disagreements, contradictory advise, and half-measures. While contemporary reports did not create graphs or lists of figures charting the spread of disease and mortality, each edition of the paper from this period listed numerous people who were ill or had passed on. The paper also documented the creation of three emergency hospitals, which testified to the increase in cases well beyond what St. Francis and Vassar Brothers could handle. City officials announced the first two emergency hospitals on October 7, 1918: one at the city infirmary, the other at St. Margaret’s Chapel in the Congregational Church. In the October 10th edition, city officials placed an ad for volunteers nurses to reinforce these facilities. By October 12th, Health Officer Palliser reported that both emergency hospitals were filled to capacity and a third could only open if additional volunteer nurses could be found. They were and the third hospital opened at the Masonic Hall on Cannon Street opened by October 14th. On the same day, Mayor Butts and Palliser reported that attempted connections at the Poughkeepsie telephone switchboard were 50% over capacity and urged residents to use the phone only in medical emergencies.
October 14, 1918, edition of the Poughkeepsie Eagle-News, pg 4
By October 21, 1918, the infection rate was on the decline. The emergency hospitals began to close in early November, though sporadic outbreaks of influenza continued through the end of the year. The cost in time, resources, and lives was substantial and included Nina McCullough Mattern, a pioneering Dutchess County suffragist and director of the Masonic Hall emergency hospital. She succumbed to a secondary infection of pneumonia (a major cause of death with the 1918 influenza) on October 31st. You can read more about her story at the Dutchess County Historical Society’s webpage here.
Just as Dutchess County overcame the health and economic challenges of 1918, we will inevitably move beyond what faces us now. With improved medical understanding and technology, a unified medical establishment, and local governments that are implementing effective public health measures, our situation in 2020 is much better than what our forebearers faced 102 years ago.
