The Early Preservation of Duxbury Beach: Evidence from 17th, 18th, and early 19th century Town Meetings

A Look at Historical Evidence in Light of the Present Avian-Automobile Controversy

[The following is adapted from my own doctoral dissertation on the preservation of common natural resources in the Towns of early Plymouth County. I offer it in light of a controversy current in Duxbury, concerning the diminishing number of days on which over-sand vehicle access to the beach is allowed, due to the increasing numbers of reproducing piping plovers and least terns on Duxbury Beach. The restrictions, as a recent public meeting made clear, do not extend from the individual or collective volition of either the owners of the Beach, the non-profit Duxbury Beach Reservation, or the Town of Duxbury, which leases the Beach from the DBR; rather, the restrictions lie at the level of statute — especially the U.S. and Massachusetts Endangered Species Acts — and regulations, and indeed, as some research indicates, case law.

I do intend to write an article quite soon on those statutes, regulations, and jurisprudence, but in the meantime, I wanted to offer a picture of the governing and preservation of the Beach in the earliest days of the Town. The sources, when not cited in the text, are cited via footnote; all of the 17th and the great majority of the 18th century records come from George Etheridge’s Copy of the Old Records of Duxbury; the late 18th and 19th century records are from the relevant Town Books in the Duxbury Town Clerk’s office. The records all pre-date 1815 because historians use this roughly as a marker for the beginning of the industrial revolution in New England (as well as the end of the War of 1812), and it forms a natural stopping point.]

In light of the present controversy regarding our Beach, I wanted to offer some historical evidence, showing that the preservation of the beach occupied the mind of the Town from an early date.

(Des Barres, Joseph F. W. (Joseph Frederick Wallet). "Chart of Plymouth Bay." Map. London: J.F.W. Des Barres, [1770–1779]. Norman B. Leventhal Map & Education Center, Boston Public Library.)

      The earliest reference I can find to the Beach in the Town Records occurs at a May 14th, 1688, Town Meeting, but it refers to events that occurred decades earlier. The records for that Town Meeting note that the previous Town records had been destroyed in a fire, but that in 1640 “the Bounds of Duxborrough was set by the Court of New Plymouth,” including the saltmeadow around Gurnet Creek.

At the same meeting, reference is made to “a stake along the beach to a place where the salt pan stood….” What this indicates is that the beach was being used for, among other uses, salt production, in the 17th century (we also know from other sources that cattle were kept at an early date over the summer at The Gurnet). Indeed, we have seen in the last decade or so the return of salteries to our shores, a reminder of William Faulkner’s famous dictum that “the past is never dead — it’s not even past.”

   At a February 28th, 1704, Town Meeting, the preservation of the Beach came up again: “the town gave liberty to Mr. Southworth to fence the beach for dence of his meadow adjacent thereto.” The fact that Mr. Southworth had to ask permission from the Town suggests that the Town was the controlling authority over the Beach at this date.

    At a March 14th, 1737, Town Meeting — and this is coincidental, given the current avian controversy, the Town — the Town voted to exclude the Beach and its adjacent saltmarsh from the bounties that had been placed on agricultural pests, including birds: “At this town meeting the said town voted, that there shall be paid out of said town’s treasury to any and all persons, Three pence for each and every Crow-bill Black bird that shall be killed at any place or places, within the said town (except the salt house marsh or Beach,)....”

    So again, the Town exercised its jurisdiction over the beach, in this instance to exclude it from being included in lands where agricultural pests could be killed for bounties (possibly because the Beach was not agricultural land, though the records do not explain the reasoning behind this decision).

    At two Town Meetings in the middle of the 18th century, the Town made efforts to preserve the physical integrity of the beach, and to protect its anchoring vegetation from over-grazing by livestock. On February 5th, 1753, the Town chose a committee to negotiate with Col. John Winslow of Marshfield, “relating to his cattle and sheep feeding on Duxborrough beach.”

Likewise, at a March 31st, 1766, Town Meeting, the Town – after voting that half the Town’s gunpowder be used to celebrate the repeal of the Stamp Act — voted that Col. Bradford would “should present a petition to the General Court in order to prevent he cattle from feeding on the beach in order to secure or save the harbor….”

    The next year, at the March 24th, 1767, Town Meeting, the Town voted a Committee to examine claims by the Winslows of Marshfield to ownership of the beach. At that same meeting, the Committee, consisting of Briggs Alden, Ezra Arnold, and Wait Wadsworth, reported back to the Town: “at said meeting, the Committee appointed to … examine the claims that General and Edward Winslow have to the beach commonly called Duxborrough beach, have attended that service and are of the opinion that the said Winslows have no legal claim or title to said beach.”

Here the Town explicitly asserted its own claims to the Beach, and the rights of the Town of Duxbury over the aristocratic (and later Tory) Winslows, of Marshfield.

( Duxbury Beach looking south; photo credit — Nelson Pavlosky; via Wikimedia Commons. )

Despite the vast changes of the Revolutionary period, the management of the beach remained a story of long continuity: “Chose the Hono[rable] George Partridge For to Consult With M.r Thomas at Kingston Conserning Duxborough Beach about Feeding of S.d Beach.  And Consult With the other owners at Kingston and at Plymouth Conserning duxbury Beach Being Feed.”¹

Then, as now, the maintenance of the physical integrity of the barrier beach, and its critical role in protecting the harbors of not only Duxbury, but of Kingston and Plymouth, as well, were of the utmost general concern.

It was in the period of the long economic boom of the Federalist period when the care and regulation of what had come to be called Salthouse Beach, sometimes shortened to Salters' Beach, grew to hitherto unknown levels of intensity. Overgrazing of cattle, likely brought on by general demographic pressures, led to dune-erosion and serious breaches in the beach by fierce North Atlantic storms. The responses were quite similar to that undertaken in the late 20th century in response to breaches made by the 'No-Name Storm' or 'Perfect Storm' of October, 1991.

During the two decades following the 1785 Town Meeting vote, damage must have been severe, for the Town was called "To see if the town will take any method to prevent salters Beach from washing a way & what method &c."²

In addition, it was "also to see if the town will petition to the General Court to enact a law to prevent any one's Cattle from feeding [on] said beach, as the Beach-grass is the best preservative by growing & stoping [ sic] the sand & raises the same."³ A committee was evidently formed, for it is referenced  a month later in a Town Meeting Warrant of March, 1806:  "To see if the Town will accept of the report of their Committee respecting Salthouse-beach so called....."⁴ The Town acceded to the committee's recommendations two weeks later -- a celerity suggesting the severity of the ecological and economic crisis threatened by the destruction of the beach. "Voted to accept of the report of their committee respecting hedging the gaps or breaches on Salters Beach with the addition of one other gap or breach near cut Island [Cut Island, an island of saltmarsh peat in the northern end of Duxbury Bay, north of Powder Point Bridge] so called which is as follows, Viz. .... That we aught to make a hedge, Beginning Paint-point so called one hundred & seventy four rods [1 rod = 16.5 feet; 174 rods = 2,871 feet, or a little over half a mile] in the Gaps the present year which extend from said point-point to the high Pines so called."⁵

The appearance of two breaks -- one near Cut Island, and one near High Pines, a small forest of Atlantic white cedars about halfway down the beach -- must have particularly concerned the townspeople of Duxbury.

Nor would it be inexpensive. Indeed, "the cost to compleat the work aforesaid will amount to agreeable to our [ estimate], which may be done under the care of a Suitable foreman by men at fourteen dollars per month which will amount to three hundred &  fifteen Dollars & sixty cents."⁶

But the best solution seemed abundantly clear. "Also wee give it as [o]ur opinion that the Cattle being kept off said Beach is the greatest preservative, as the Beach-grass Stops the sand & raises the beach at such a rate that we can produce to the town (if our veracity may be relied on [ ) ] that the Beach in some places is risen from one to seven Groths of said grass where sum grass's are broke through Six feet parpend[i]cular. _ and that Sea-weed is stoped in the sand and groon over there in consequences of said grass's growing."

And:  "Also, it is our opinion that the said Town petition the General Court that will enact a Law to prevent any one's feeding said Beach, also that all the drift stuff, stones or ballast of any Kind shall not be taken off by any as it will be a large proportion of stuff to compleat the hedge aforesaid."

The Town argued that those whose cattle-grazing rights were thereby extinguished should seek recompense from the state government: -"also, if the proprietors of said Beach should demand any consideration on account of being debared of the harbage [herbage] of said Beach, that the commonwealth be responsable for the same, as said town is at a large expence in presenting said Beach &c."⁷

Precisely the same methods were used as when the effort was made in the 1990s to preserve the beach -- the use of conifers as dune anchors. In the case of the  late 20th century, thousands of old Christmas trees were used en masse to fill gaps in the beach. In the early 1800s, it was pine trees connected with an even greater cultural lodestone for that day's Duxbury, the meetinghouse. "Voted that the Pine trees & brush growing on the Meeting house lot, may be appropriated for the use of hedging Salters Beach, at the discretion of s..d town's agent for that purpose."⁸

The “expence” was a concern.  "Voted to raise a committee of three to take a view of Salt-house beach so called, to see what a sum of money is necessary for its repairs: also to see on what conditions the proprietors of said beach will give up, or relinquish their right of improvement, by feeding, or turning Cattle on said beach for; and to report their doings at May meeting next."⁹

By 1808, the committee had changed to a single agent:  "Voted to chuse an agent in behalf of s..d town for the purpose of carrying into effect the law's respecting Salters Beach."¹⁰ A year-and-a-half later the Town was still zealous in its protection of these sandy commons. It "voted not to act on the Eight Clause in the warrant Respecting Excusing Elisha Foord from paying for his Cattle being taken up on Salters beach___"¹¹

In 1811, the beach agent was reinforced by five "beach Watchers."¹² The severity of the breaching crisis in the middle years of the decade past seems to have abated during the Teens. In 1814, the town met and "Chose Simson Saule beach Agent who is to sell drift stuff if he things proper";¹³ the fact that Saule was permitted to sell driftwood, rather than use it to shore up dangerously expanding breaches, is a good indication of the renewed stability and physical integrity of the beach by the middle 1810s.

Taken as a whole, it is clear that in this pre-industrial period of New England history, concerns that seem very contemporary, whether regarding the preservation or the use of the beach — extensively occupied the Town of Duxbury.

Despite the vast changes over the centuries, there are some things, it seems, that remain constant, and in seaside New England Towns, the common management, regulation, and use of oceanic common remains one.

1. Duxbury Town Meeting, May 9th, 1785.

2. Warrant for Duxbury Town Meeting, Feb. 19th 1806.

3. Ibid.

4. Warrant for Duxbury Town Meeting, March 19th, 1806.

5. Duxbury Town Meeting, April 7th, 1806. 

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid.

8. Duxbury Town Meeting, July 14th, 1806.

9. Duxbury Town Meeting, April 6th, 1807.

10. Duxbury Town Meeting, April 14th, 1808.

11. Duxbury Town Meeting, August 21st, 1809.

12. Duxbury Town Meeting, March 18th, 1811.

13. Duxbury Town Meeting, March 21st, 1814.