 |
The Daily Constitution, 1876
click/tap to enlarge |
First, thank you to University of Connecticut students Miles Wrann and Jack Weitz for finding the above newspaper articles on this incident, suggesting it may be Kearns, and sharing it with me. Its little bits of information like this that humanize the more mundane genealogical data that is found on this site, so it’s much appreciated!
Above is a series of small articles that appeared in the Middletown newspaper, The Daily Constitution, of 1876. According to the first article of March 13, 1876, the incident took place in the Maromas section of Middletown. Chauncey B. Whitmore (of the Whitmore Bro. quarry fame in Maromas) owned an unoccupied home in the area. That home was burned to the ground by “James Kearns,” who was also living in the neighborhood. The article says that it was “the work of an incendiary,” which is a device designed to cause fire. So it seems as if the fire was intentional. Kearns was arrested as the “fire bug.”
I wondered if Kearns worked for Whitmore at the quarry, and felt cheated or slighted by something Whitmore did to him. I think Kearns knew he was burning an “unoccupied” home, so in reality it seems as if he didn’t want to hurt anyone—he just wanted to make a statement?
But here is where it gets strange for me. Is the “fire bug” indeed Civil War Veteran, James Kearns?
Not only do the next three articles (if you want to call them that) give scant information, but the surname of the “fire bug” changes! The name changes from James Kearns to James Currans--with an "s" at the end of Currans. This is not a minor mistake in spelling, but an entirely new surname!
Something to consider: I have no idea how James Kearns pronounced his surname. Did Kearns SOUND LIKE Currans? Did the newspaper (in the last three articles) spell the surname like it sounded, hence Kearns became Currans. Obviously the same author didn't write all four articles or else one would think they'd keep the spelling consistent!
Let’s dive into this a bit and try to sort it out, because it’s not really my style to slander the dead. Remember, this is tentatively Private James Kearns. Nothing is rock-solid here.
Okay, research mode: First, there were zero census reports available for James Kearns and the various spellings of his surname. I thought I might be able to find a back door to James by researching, Cornelius Kearns Jr, the person that James is buried next to, and lived with. But there was also zero census reports for Cornelius. Could Cornelius Jr. have been an older brother? If there was a Cornelius junior, that means there was a Cornelius senior, which was another potential back door to James. This too yielded not much of anything. Side note: Cornelius Jr was in Co. H, 1st Reg. Heavy Artillery. Cornelius Sr (born abt. 1819 in Ireland and married) was in Co. F, 24th Reg. Infantry.
 |
Final resting place of James Kearns (left) and Cornelius Kearns, Jr (right)
St. John's Cemetery (Johnson St), Middletown
photo by Marie Bonafonte |
With no census reports available, I was left to track James Kearns via the Middletown City Directories. Before I did that, I wanted to see if there was anyone by the name of James Currans living in Middletown.
This is where it gets interesting.
Both the 1860 Census and 1870 Census show James Curran (born abt. 1822 in Ireland) living in Middletown, working as a mechanic (1860). He is married with three children. In 1870 he is working as a gardener and living on Liberty Street with his family. There is no "s" at the end of his name.
Now to the Middletown City Directories.
1874 (let’s start with this date):
>James Kearns is not listed
>James Curran, house Baldwin near the creek
1875
>James Kearns is not listed
>James Curran, gardener, house head of Liberty
1876 (the year the “Fire Bug” struck)
>James Kearns, laborer, house 3 South (the first appearance of James—and Cornelius—in the City Directory)
>James Curran, gardener, house head of Liberty
Clip view from the 1876 Middletown City Directory for “Kearns.”
Notice there are FIVE Kearns men all living together at “house 3 South.” Two of them are James Kearns and Cornelius Kearns Jr. Currently, there is no South Street, or South anything in Middletown; so I don’t know where this address was. South Farms section? South Main St?
1877 (A second “James Curran” shows up in the City Directory, a year after the fire incident)
>James Kearns, laborer, house 3 South
>James Curran, gardener, house head of Liberty
>James Curran, attendant at hospital (I found more info for this
James Curran. Census reports, etc. He was born 1858, and ended up marrying and having several children, one of who was a Reverend in Middletown).
By 1881, James Kearns permanently disappears from the Middletown City Directories, with Cornelius Kearns Jr. puttering along until the early 1890s.
So, who set Whitmore’s house ablaze? Now this is where one has to read between the lines and go with what is more likely than not.
1) The 54 year-old married gardener (former mechanic) with three children, living at a house on Liberty Street?
2) The 18 year-old hospital attendant, who later married, had children, and mortgaged his own home?
3) The 32 year-old unmarried laborer, former Civil War Veteran, who was perhaps dealing with a case a shell shock, and living with four other men in a home at “3 South.”
Whose path would more likely have crossed with Whitmore? A gardener, a young hospital attendant, or a laborer? Who seems the more likely candidate for the blaze?
Would a married man, who held stable occupations (and whose family depended on him for sustenance and covering), have risked it all by burning down a man’s house? Sure it’s possible, as married jerks (with children) do crazy things all the time. But in this case, I don’t think so. Would some young hospital worker be angry enough to burn Whitmore’s house? Why? How would he even know Whitmore?
Remember the article said that the fire was “the work of an incendiary,” which is a device designed to cause fire (though the charges were amended to "burning a building," whatever that means–-as arson is arson). Let me just share a bit about incendiary devices. While often mistakenly called "bombs," incendiary devices are actually designed to create fire rather than cause an explosion. Historically, incendiary devices have been used in warfare. They would NOT be used in quarrying, but instead, explosives would be used in quarrying for blasting rock, which is a different process than using incendiary devices. I found it most interesting that incendiary devices are connected to warfare. Out of the three, who do you think would have the most knowledge of an "incendiary" device? A middle-aged gardener, a kid working in a hospital, or a combat Veteran? A more likely candidate seems to be James Kearns, doesn’t it?
Sorry James! I’m not saying it was DEFINATLEY you, but it doesn’t look too good. You know?
What I do find note-worthy is that James Curran #2 only showed up in the City Directory in 1877. Where was Curran #2 in 1876, the year of the fire incident? Jail? I do find it interesting that James Kearns only fades from the Directory in 1881. If Kearns ended up with a jail sentence as the “fire bug,” surely his name would have been missing from the directory in key years—and it wasn’t.
I seem to give these City Directories a lot of weight, don’t I? That’s because they are important. I’ve looked at thousands of pages of Directories. Many of the working class rented and didn’t own their own home, so they moved around a lot. In order to have a current address in the directory, each year one needed to physically sign up for the directory and supply their information—themselves. It wasn’t something that happened automatically on a computer, like an auto-renewal. So for a person to consistently be (or not be) in the City Directory—carries a lot of weight when it comes to research. At least that is MY experience.
If the newspapers (above) didn’t botch the surname to the extent that they did (going from Kearns to Currans), we might be able to say who the “fire bug” was with a little more confidence. Is there a chance that there was another "James Kearns," or a third "James Curran(s)" living in Middletown (who wasn't listed in the Directory or census report) who caused the blaze? Sure, as more and more Irish immigrants were coming to the country and living in Middletown. So anything is possible, but is it probable?
This is where I leave it up to the reader to decide....
