By Pat Higgins
We might think of our revolutionary ancestors as tea drinking British immigrants or their descendants, but that is not absolutely so. True, non French or non Native American Mainers at the time were most likely to be English, Irish, or Scotch. There were small enclaves of other nationalities, for example, the Germans of Great Broad Bay (Waldoboro). Furthermore, the tea drinking part is, at least initially, also not totally accurate. Tea first arrived in England around 1652. At first, it was a luxury that only the rich could afford, but, as it became more available, it became wildly popular and universally consumed by all English. In less than ten years, between 1699 and 1708, English importation of tea to the home island rose from an annual 40,000 pounds to 240,000 pounds. Tea became immensely profitable both at home and, soon enough, in the colonies. Tea was not sold until the 1690's in Boston, although it was available in New Netherlands quite some time earlier. By 1720 it was a major item of trade between the American colonies and England, and even more s, against England's will, between Americans and the Dutch. Tea was a huge source of profit to colonial smugglers, particularly after England began to tax tea imports. (Stash )
Despite its popularity, especially with colonial women, tea was not the only drink of choice, and it was not the only lubricant to the American Revolution. Maine chauvinist and writer Kenneth Roberts waxes rhapsodic over popular alcoholic beverages both in his novels and in Trending Into Maine, his treatise on the joys and eccentricities of Maine life. Rum was cheap and available; according to Roberts it sold for a shilling and a half per gallon in the early colonial period. By the 1760's, some 1,260,000 gallons of rum was being manufactured in New England alone (Griswold). Although it was part of the currency of the Triangle Trade, there was plenty available to drink at home. Hot buttered rum, for which Roberts gives a recipe complete with cautions, was a tavern favorite. The main ingredient was, of course, rum, but with the addition of butter, sugar, cinnamon and boiling water and was generally made by the bowl or pitcher full. Roberts recounts that early settlers in northern Maine were known to make hot buttered rum with hard cider instead of hot water which he says should be treated like a "high explosive". Local tradition, he claimed, "says that men have been known, at the beginning of winter, to drink too much hot buttered rum made with a base of hard cider, fall into a stupor and not wake up till spring" (Trending, 163).
Beer was a mainstay of our English ancestors much as it is today with our English allies. Colonial goodwives brewed their own, and it was frequently enjoyed by all with little regard to age. Yankee ingenuity invented another popular tavern drink combining beer with rum. Again according to Roberts, the drink, known as flip, was milder and cheaper than hot buttered rum. He gives recipes for both a high brow and a low brow brew which basically involves a 6:1 mix of beer to rum plus some sweeteners. The important part was mixing the drink up with a red hot poker! Variations included the near lethal use of hard cider instead of beer, or the the omission of any sweeteners in which case the drink became "calibogus" instead of flip.
The 19th century historian Edward Emerson Bourne in his History of Wells and Kennebec gives a little hard data on the use and availability of coffee, tea and even cider in those towns. Cider was not as common as one might think; it first sold in 1741 at a shilling per cup, but the price was soon reduced as it became more commonly available. Bourne also claims that Dr. Sawyer first sold coffee in his store in 1750, and by 1760 Pelatiah Littlefield was selling tea.(Bourne, 414).
Reader beware; the dates seem a little late for the onset of merchandising either drink in Maine, but Bourne might be more accurate than we think. Remember Maine was pretty nearly stripped of English settlers between 1690 and the second decade of the 18th century by continuous and fierce fighting with the French and Indians. Also the selling of goods in a store implies that there is a large enough clientele with some means of purchasing power to support such a merchandising operation; this might be found in larger port towns like Kittery, York and Falmouth earlier than small towns like Wells and Kennebunk. Finally, before the Revolution, Maine was still widely unsettled, and there were only two classes: the rich and the very poor. Wealthy Mainers were frequently engaged in trade and could import their own; the poor could not afford anything.
Bourne actually thought coffee might have first been brewed in Kennebunk before 1750. Accepting this story as fact requires believing that coffee was completely unheard of at the time in Kennebunk. This seems somewhat skeptical but makes a good yarn. He recounts the following story:
A surveyor came up to stay at Kimball's tavern and brought with him "a small quantity of coffee, and as he went out handed a portion to the landlady, with the request that she would make some for dinner. He was to be gone until after twelve and would like to have some hot coffee on his return. She put it in the pot to boil before ten, supposing that being so hard it would take a long while to soften it. The stranger did not return until after two, when the good wife informed him she could do nothing with it. It had been boiling ever since ten o'clock; she had tried it, and it was just as hard as ever." (Bourne, 414)
Cyrus Eaton in his Annals of the Town of Warren told a similar story about tea:
Henry Alexander, upon his election to the post of captain at St. Georges (Thomaston), wished to celebrate his good fortune with a party and purchased a gallon of rum and a pound of tea. "Directing his wife to prepare the latter for the women, he served out the former to the men who were enjoying their rude mirth out of doors. On coming in to see how matters went on within, he found his wife had served up the tea leaves well buttered, as a species of food. On apprising her of her mistake and inquiring for the broth, his wife said, "THAT is good for nothing, for I poured it out, and the very pigs would not drink it." (Eaton, 62)
Bourne's and Eaton's little stories might seem an exaggerated country joke. They could also be used to indicate that coffee and tea were quite unknown commodities in rural Maine in the first half of the 18th century. All this would change rapidly as the colonies, and even Maine, became viewed as marketing opportunities by English merchants. By December 16, 1773, hardly more than a decade after it was first sold in Kennebunk, tea would cause riots, and a tax on tea would cause an irreparable rift between Mother England and her American children.
"The men of Belial arose in boston and took Possession of the 2 ships of tea and hoised all out and turned it into the Dock."
- Jonathan Sayward
After the close of the French and Indian wars, the colonists and Parliament struggled over trade, taxation, war debts and the right of Parliament to pass laws governing the colonies. Americans argued, " if our trade may be taxed, why not our lands and their produce? This annihilates our charter to govern and tax ourselves." (Goold, 332). As the colonies became more bitterly entrenched, Parliament sought to save face by not giving in to demands to roll back a succession of taxes. England was experiencing difficulties in India as well; the John Company and the East India Company were consolidating and restructuring their control of India and the Far East into what would be the world's biggest monopoly ever, furthermore the new East India Company was experiencing financial problems. It did, however, have a large amount of unsold tea, some 17,000,000 pounds. It seemed expedient to allow the East India Company to transport the tea direct to America, bypassing England and its compulsory duties. The tea could then be sold in America at prices that undercut all competitors. This would be a good deal for both the company and the American purchasers. It was not a good deal for the American competitors; the price even undercut the smugglers. Equally a sore point, Parliament insisted that the hated tax on tea, about 3 pence a pound (Griswold, 7), would stay in place. The colonists were incensed; throughout the colonies individuals and committees discussed and argued intensely. Should tea be seized to prevent its sale? Should tea ships be prevented from making port? Finally in an air of near palpable anxiety when all other methods of redress seemed exhausted, the Bostonians rose up in protest against unfair taxation, and, disguised as Indians, boarded the tea ships in Boston harbor to destroy their cargo. Every school child knows the story of the Boston Tea Party!
At least three Mainers claimed to have taken part in the Boston Tea Party, and many others visiting Boston on that fateful night witnessed the event and spread the news upon returning home. One Maine participant was Benjamin Burton who lived on the banks of the Georges River and later served as a major under Peleg Wadsworth in eastern Maine. (See ImagineMaine feature Peleg Wadsworth's Great Escape for the further adventures of Major Burton.) Benjamin Simpson, the seventeen year old son of Capt. Joshua Simpson of York, was a bricklayer's apprentice and tea party Indian. Although undocumented, the third Maine participant was Capt. James Watson of Warren. (See the Griswold book in the sources for a complete list of all involved.) The three joined parties of men dressed as Indians who charged from the Old South Meetinghouse to the docks and boarded the tea ships. Burton jumped into the hold of one of the ships and helped load and operate the sling which was used to hoist 342 tea chests to the deck. Watson was on deck breaking open tea chests preparatory to their being thrown overboard to brew in Boston Harbor. He claimed to have used a "negro hoe" for the purpose and also to have filled his pockets with tea leaves.
News traveled like wildfire throughout the colonies! Falmouth, Gorham, and Kittery were joyous in their response to the Boston Tea Party. Increasingly, Maine communities in all three counties -York, Pownalborough, North Yarmouth, Brunswick and those previously mentioned- met, discussed and corresponded on the issues. As meeting followed meeting in towns across Maine and the country, expressions of support for Boston's "men of Belial" turned to calls to boycott tea. Falmouth, in a town meeting, resolved that "we will not buy nor sell any India tea whatever, after this third day of Feb. until the act that lays a duty on it is repealed." There was considerable capital tied up in the 2,500 pounds of tea held by Falmouth's merchants (Gould, 335). In order to insure that the merchants upheld the boycott a little incentive was circulated by "Thomas Tarbucket, Peter Pitch, Abraham Wildfowl, David Plaister, Benjamin Brush, Oliver Scarecrow and Henry Hand-cart" threatening action in behalf of "the Committee for Tarring and Feathering" (Leamon,54). Falmouth had a reputation for mob violence, but attempted to curb further action. Gorham and Brunswick, with less to loose, had elements that became increasingly more radical and active. York, on the other hand, had more conservative parties with which to contend as shall be seen a little further on in our story.
Distance made news of the Boston Tea Party slower in reaching England but when news of the punishment came back, it was evident that, for Boston, the party was over. On June 1,1774, the busiest port in New England was closed until its inhabitants paid for their indiscretion; estimates run somewhere between 8,000 and 18,000 pounds (Griswold,12). The effects on the city were devastating, but Bostonians are stubborn people. The effects were also immediately felt outside of the city by every merchant and ship captain who provided the city with the materials of daily life. This included the little settlements on the Georges River in Maine who derived much of their income from a brisk trade in firewood with Boston. "So stringent were the regulations, not a stick of wood could be brought from the islands in the harbor, nor could a barrel of flour be brought in a row boat from Cambridge; nor could even a shingle or brick be taken from one wharf to another in a skiff or a scow." (Packard, 39) Boston Harbor was closed up tight and few exceptions were made. Tea partier James Watson, captain of the coaster Sally, soon found himself barred from the port, and his livelihood was seriously diminished until he managed to secure a "Lett Pass" which allowed him to bring in a load of 30 cords of firewood from Salem to Boston on December 14, 1774, a full year after the famous party. Packard (39-40) claims this was the first cargo allowed entry after the passage of the Port Bill. Obviously, the British did not know about Watson's activities with a Negro hoe or his pockets full of tea!
Maine towns were sympathetic to the plight of Boston and not just because their pocketbooks were affected. In many ways Maine could be considered a colony of Massachusetts, but it was just as likely to feel real philosophical and political connections to Massachusetts especially in regard to dealings with Mother England. There was a commonality here. On the day the Boston Port Bill took effect, the bell at the First Parish Church in Falmouth was muffled and tolled from sunrise until 9 o'clock at night. (Willis, 500) Traditional to any wake, the neighbors sent the equivalent of covered dishes; within a month contributions of 8,000 pounds were received by the beleaguered city plus 30,000 bushels of various grains and 4,000 barrels of flour (Gould, 334-4). Agricultural goods (grain, rice, cattle) arrived from colonies to the south. Maine sent what it had- fish and potatoes, but mostly firewood. (Leamon, 55-6) In January 1775, Falmouth gifted Boston with 51 cords of wood and in March another 31. Cape Elizabeth sent 44, Wells & Kennebunk 26. York, North Yarmouth, Kittery, Berwick, Biddeford, Scarborough, and Gorham also sent cash and supplies. (Goold, 335)
Far from putting an end to tax protests in America, the Boston Tea Party and the subsequent Boston Port Act fanned the flames of revolution. Other colonial ports addressed the tea issue seriously. In Charleston, SC, 257 chest were unloaded but nobody dared to claim them. In Philadelphia a crowd of 8,000 turned back the tea ship Polly, and in New York another ship was turned away after several tea chests belonging to the captain were dumped.(Chidsey, 161-2) Another York, the one in southern Maine, staged its own tea party... sort of.
"Chief Soothsayer and Grand Oracle of Infallibility"
- Paul Revere
Jonathan Sayward, a die hard Tory but an admirable diarist, sits at the heart of our story. By all appearances his life demonstrated the possibilities available in the New World to those willing to work hard and pursue opportunity. The son and grandson of less successful York businessmen, Sayward was born in 1713 and rose, through hard work and judicious investment, to a position of respect and power in the community. Between 1735 and 1750 he climbed the ladder referring to himself successively as a laborer, a coaster, a mariner and a trader. Almost at the same time, he served the community in various positions from town clerk and constable to judge and representative to the General Court. Commissioned in 1745 to command a transport, Sayward took part in the successful expedition to attack Louisbourg from which he brought back tableware, candlesticks and andirons as spoils with which to furnish his house (Banks, 337). Not all of his investments were seafaring; he also invested in mortgages and notes, discounted soldiers' wages and bought "Commons" etc. In 1762, he made 2000 pounds in interest alone on his investments. He was a shrewd operator. On the plus side, Sayward was very religious and felt a social obligation to his neighbors; on the other hand, he was manipulative and often looked down upon those around him.
For Sayward things began to sour in 1767 when Parliament passed duties on tea, glass, paint, and other imports. The Massachusetts General Court, in turn, passed a resolve to form a confederation of the thirteen colonies to protest this tax. Parliament condemned this resolution and demanded it be rescinded. The General Court voted 92 to 17 to refuse. One of the 17 was Jonathan Sayward. In fact, according to John Adams, Sayward and one other were the only two to actually raise their hands in the vote to rescind (Rolde, 36); the other fifteen were rescinders by default. One has to applaud him for his determined and public actions. The Anti-Rescinders were honored in the press, in songs and, of course, in numerous toasts. Appropriately, Paul Revere made a silver punch bowl inscribed to the "Immortal 92". The Rescinders were scorned. As Sayward wrote in his diary, "Disorder have Infused and the 17 are treated with all Contempt and the printers are full against us." (Banks, 392). He refers to Paul Revere's political cartoon which depicts the other seventeen being driven into hell for their sin. Sayward is labeled in the print as "His E---y's Chief Soothsayer and Grand Oracle of Infallibility" (Banks 392) The town of York then had its say by voting to "highly approve of the Proceedings of those of the late Hon(ble) House of Representatives who were not for rescinding" (Ernst 75). This was the beginning of a parting of the ways for Jonathan Sayward and his home town. He was never reelected again to the General Court but continued by gubernatorial appointment in judgeships of the Peace, Common Pleas, Quorum and Probate until driven out of the courts during Revolutionary War.
Judge Jonathan Sayward was a very outspoken and persuasive man accustomed to being heard and having his advise followed. One such piece of advise was recorded by John Adams, consummate patriot and future president of the United States, who was at the time riding circuit in southern Maine. At a dinner meeting during the General Court in June 1774, Adams recorded this exchange in his own diary between two outspoken men - Sayward and himself. The judge intended this reference to York spiritual leader Reverend Samuel Moody to be instructional to Adams regarding the younger man's election to the Continental Congress.
Sayward: Mr. Adams, you are going to the (Continental Congress) and great things are in agitation. I recommend to you the doctrine of my former minister, Mr. Moody. Upon the occasion of some gloomy prospects for the country, he preached a sermon from this text- "They know not what they do." After a customary introduction, he raised this doctrine from his text, that in times of great difficulty and danger, when men know not what to do, it is the duty of a person or a people to be very careful that they do not do they know not what.
Adams: But I thought the venerable preacher, when he had beat the drum ecclesiastic to animate the country to undertake the expedition to Louisbourg in 1745 and had gone himself as chaplain, had ventured to do he knew not what, as much as I am likely to do in my expedition to Congress. I must trust to Providence as Mr. Moody has done when he did his duty, though he could not foresee the consequences. (Rolde, 37; Banks, 394)
Surely John Adams was pleased with this exchange and enjoyed every moment of the opportunity to provoke. Adams, at least, was very well read and educated while Sayward did not have the benefit of much education, but certainly both men were extremely well informed and well versed in the techniques of argument from their experiences at law. Adams had some very definite opinions of Judge Sayward's Tory sympathies and had first hand knowledge of his persuasive techniques in the York courts. He wrote his wife "I am told the Deacon (Sayward) insinuates sentiments and principles into the people here in a very subtle manner; a manner so plausible that they scarcely know how they come by them" (Ernst, 76).
Adams was referring to those town meetings that took place after the Boston Tea Party. While most Maine towns were applauding Boston's actions, York returned a rather tepid "thank you" to Boston "so far as they have Constitutionally exerted themselves in the support of their Just Liberties and Priviledges" (Banks, 385, . As Sayward tells the story in his diary: "We had town meetings (Jan. 20 and 21) in order to approve of the conduct of Boston in destroying the tea of the Hon. East India Company, and after a most severe opposition by Samuel Clark and myself, got our resolves so far moderated as to thank only for what they had constitutionally done" (Bourne, 466; Banks, 393). From entries in his diary written during the tea party period, Sayward clearly saw the event itself as illegal destruction of private property and hardly a "constitutional" act. "My own opinion is that the tea should be paid for by Boston" (Ibid). To him the times were foreboding, and "very dark"; he concluded his entry on the January meeting, "The opposition to Parliment will undoe us" (Ibid). Judge Sayward's ability to twist York's intents from unrestrained support of Boston and the tea party to a relatively mild statement was a small and perhaps philosophical concession. It was soon evident that his persuasive abilities had run their course. Town elections brought in a new government that was firmly opposed to the Judge's Tory philosophies; by midsummer he was calling the opposition "madmen and hotheads" and washing his hands of "the common people" (Banks, 396).
"a Number of Pickwacket Indians came into town..."
On September 15, 1774, the sloop Cynthia sailed into York Harbor from Newfoundland and docked at Keatings Wharf. The Cynthia's captain, James Donnell was Sayward's nephew and also in his employ at least some of the time; at others he worked in his own interest. On this trip the cargo was Sayward's and included 150 pounds of tea. Given the events of the last year, one has to wonder just what possessed Sayward to bring this cargo into York. Arrogance? Smuggling was quite a normal activity in York and other Maine ports; John Hancock, a noted smuggler, maintained a warehouse in York probably for just such purposes. Hancock was a patriot, Sayward was not. Was Sayward's cargo just business as usual?
The cargo was seen by the local Sons of Liberty as a challenge to their embargo. On the 23rd a town meeting was held where it was decided to seize the tea in order to prevent its sale. Sayward recorded in his diary that " a number were uneasy and chose a committee who took it out of the Vessel of Donnell and Lock'd it in a store of Capt. Grow's" (Ernst, 76) Capt. Donnell protested, but the tea was forcibly removed to Grow's store for "safe keeping until further Discovery could be made" (Banks, 386). It was important to the local Sons to make a show of strength and control in York. The New Hampshire Gazette described what happened next: "And the Evening following a Number of Pickwacket Indians came into Town and broke open said Store and carried it off: which has not been heard of since" (Banks, 386; Leamon, 53). Sayward preferred to say, "it was all took out by nobody could tell who and Donnel resolving to get satisfaction would not seek after it" (Ernst, 76).
Historian Charles Banks puts a patriotic twist on the affair by writing that "York had its "Tea Party" though it has not been so well advertised as the Boston affair" (Banks, 386). Maybe so, but the two events were not quite the same... after all, the York tea was returned. Banks does not report this, but Sayward was in a position to know. He concluded the same diary entry that describes the whole affair with "two days after the tea was replaced I know not by whome" (Ernst, 76). Who really took the tea? The removal maintained the spirit of a tea party; the Sons of Liberty were able to maintain that sanctions against tea and taxes were upheld in York. Customs officials could not collect taxes on "stolen" tea, but the people of York could make their point and perhaps drink their tea, too.
The York Tea Party, such as it was, led to the further alienation of Judge Sayward. After all, the ship's captain was his nephew, the cargo was his, and the whole thing took place within a block of his house and under his watchful eye. To the locals, it was all very suspicious. By October 25 1774, Sayward was writing in his diary: "I am informed I am to be mob'd this day", and soon after: "Threatened the whole of last week by the mob, and in danger but not yet destroyed". From this event onward, Sayward proceeded under extreme caution; he was a marked man. He escaped sometimes by concealment but more often by toughing it out. He refused to leave, and he refused to submit. It is hard not to admire him.
"Truly professing ourselves liege subjects of His Majesty, King George the 3rd"
-William Laighton, Clerk, York County Congress
Hind sight tells us that the situation in 1773-75 between Mother England and her American children was rapidly reaching an impasse. War and complete dissolution of their relationship was an inevitably, but, at the time, American still held hope. Despite the earnest endeavors of the radicals, the bulk of Americans still swore allegiance to King, held Parliment responsible for the troubles and prayed for a peace they could not have. This was as true in Maine as elsewhere in the colonies despite covert actions and the despair and frustration of people like Jonathan Sayward.
On November 15th and 16th, 1774, twenty six delegates from various county towns assembled at Wells for a York County Congress whose prestated purpose was to strengthen the resolve and patriotism of the inhabitants. After professing to be "His Majesty's loyal subjects", the delegates resolved "that the people have the right to tax themselves, and no other persons, assemblies or Parliments have, and the English acts to tax them are unconstitutional"! Furthermore the little group resolved to ignore Parliament's acts as if they "had not been passed". Then, having ambivalently stated loyalty to the crown while treasonously refusing to follow the acts of the king's government, they recommended "to every individual to use their influence for peace". (Bourne, 470-1). This was radical stuff for the times. It was also thirsty work. In two days Littlefield's Tavern served the delegates 49 dinners, stabled 15 horses and served up 22 "boles of Punch" and "todday" and (presumably) not a drop of tea.
"Its all beyond my Debth, I am lost in Wonder."
- Jonathan Sayward
What became of Sayward? Shortly after the battles at Lexington and Concord, "The Town having been somewhat uneasy and disaffected with conduct of Jonathan Sayward Esq., supposing him to be not hearty & free for the Support & Defence of our Rights, Liberties & Privileges in this Dark & Difficult Day ..." (Ernst 77) called the Judge before them to make an account for himself and of his sympathies in the new war. His situation was escalating from bad to worse; he was often in danger. In his summative diary entry at end of 1775, he noted it as "a year of Extraordinary trials" marked most painfully by the death of his wife of 39 years. Also in 1775, Sayward lost a ship and several cargoes, but this last is minor compared to the problems he brought on himself by his politics. "This ( the business losses) is but small Compared with the Hazzards I have and am still in on account of my political sentiments and Conduct. I have been Confined upon honor not to absent Self from the town... often threatened, afraid to go abroad, have not been out of town these nine months through fear though my business Greatly Required it. The Loss of trade, the Scorn of the Abject, Slight of friends, Continually on my Guard, all my offices as Judge of Probate, Judge of Court of Common Pleas, Justice from my Habbitation so much that I have constantly kept 200 pounds Lawful in Gold and paper currency in my Pocket for fear of Sudainly being removed from my Abode. I have been examined before Committees and obiged to lay open my Letters from Governor Hutchinson, to swear to my private Conversation...." (Ernst 77-8; Banks 396). However disagreeable his sympathies were to his neighbors, Sayward must have maintained some degree of their respect; he was not banished, mobbed or assaulted. None the less, for a proud and stubborn man, it was a difficult time.
In addition to the radical changes in his life caused by his enduring loyalty to Britain, Sayward's incredulity over the whole situation was the most difficult for him to bare. Upon hearing about the Declaration of Independence on July 17,1776, he was dumb struck and wrote in his diary "Its all beyond my Debth, I am lost in Wonder." (Banks 397) For a self-made American, Sayward displays a singular inability to understand his countrymen and the political evolution of his native land. Still he clung stubbornly to his Tory loyalties writing as late as December 28 1780: "Our independence is yet a great uncertainty whether we shall support it. My opinion hath been that we shall not and I am of that sentiment still." (Banks 398). He was unable to understand the political urges of his neighbors and was totally out of step with his country. Sayward stayed on at York throughout the war and until his death but never again held a position of political power.
However, James Donnell, captain of the tea ship Cynthia, was not a diehard Tory like his uncle Sayward. Business might be business, and a lost cargo was a serious problem, but in war Donnell was decisively patriotic. He was a lieutenant in York's first volunteer force enlisted very soon after Lexington and sent to the Siege of Boston. By 1777 he was a captain in the 12th Massachusetts and served with them in every important action of the Northern Army including Ticonderoga, Saratoga and Monmouth as well as spending the winter at Valley Forge. The uncle may have been vilified, but the nephew became a hero of the Revolution.
Not unlike other Tories, Sayward was gradually accepted back into his community after the war and took his place despite his previous opinions and difficulties. Eventually, and this is an indicator of the respect that the people of York held for him, Sayward did regain his position as a social and church leader and was known as a supporter of the arts and letters. His death in 1797 at age 84 was considered a loss; the funeral was well attended, and no mention was made in his obituary of his political leanings. Sayward's gravestone says," In memory of Jonathan Sayward, Esq., Amiable and Social in address; instructive and entertaining in conversation; benevolent, charitable and pious, uniting the Gentlemen and Christian. Various offices, civil, judicial and ecclesiastical with honor and reputation sustained." Perhaps by 1797, enough time had passed to allow Jonathan Sayward to be forgiven by his neighbors and vise versa.
Banks, Charles Edward. The history of York, Maine: Volume I. Boston, MA: Calkins Press, 1931.
Bourne, Edward Emerson. The History of Wells and Kennebunk from the earliest settlement to the year 1820, at which time Kennebunk was set off, and incorporated with biographical sketches. Reprint. Bowie, MD: Heritage Books, 1983.
Chidsey, Donald Barr. The Great Separation. New York: Crown Publishers, 1965.
Eaton, Cyrus. Annals of the Town of Warren in Knox County, Maine with the early history of St George's, Broad Bay, and neighboring settlements on the Waldo Patent. 2nd Edition. Hallowell, ME: Masters & Livermore, 1877.
Ernst, George. New England Miniature: A history of York, Maine. Freeport, ME: Bond Wheelwright Company, 1961.
Goold, William. Portland in the Past with Historical Notes of Old Falmouth. Reprint of 1886 edition. Bowie, MD: Heritage Books, 1997.
Griswold, Wesley S. The night the Revolution began. Brattleboro, VT: Stephen Greene Press, 1972. (Note: contains lists of known participants in the Boston Tea Party.)
Leamon, James S. Revolution Downeast. Amhearst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1993.
Packard, Aubigne Lermond. A town that went to sea. Portland, ME: Falmouth Publishing House, 1950.
Roberts, Kenneth. Trending into Maine. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1938.
Rolde, Neil. York is Living History. Brunswick, ME: Harpswell Press, 1975.
Stash Tea Company. The History of Tea. < http://www.stashtea.com/facts.htm >.
Willis, William. The History of Portland. Somersworth, NH: New Hampshire Publishing Co., 1972.
c2001 Pat Higgins