Historic Resource Study of Laborers at 

Weir Farm National Historical Park, 

1882–1957

Rachel Boyle, PhD

Hope Shannon, PhD

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Interior Region 1, North Atlantic—Appalachian
Historic Resource Study of Laborers at Weir Farm 

National Historical Park, 1882–1957

Rachel Boyle, PhD

Hope Shannon, PhD

Presented to Weir Farm National Historical Park

Interior Region 1, North Atlantic—Appalachian

Prepared under a cooperative agreement between

The Organization of American Historians and The National Park Service

March 2023

Cover Image:

Mahonri M. Young, Apple Picking at Branchville, ink, 8 15⁄16 × 11 11⁄16 in.

Brigham Young University Museum of Art, purchase/gift of Mahonri M. Young Estate, 1959.

Disclaimer: The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of this author and should not 

be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government. Mention of trade names or 

commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Historic Resource Study of Laborers at 

Weir Farm National Historical Park, 

1882–1957

Rachel Boyle, PhD

Hope Shannon, PhD

Prepared for 

the National Park Service 

in cooperation with 

the Organization of American Historians

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

March 2023
Date

Date

Historic Resource Study of Laborers at Weir Farm 

National Historical Park, 1882–1957

Rachel Boyle, PhD

Hope Shannon, PhD

Presented to Weir Farm National Historical Park

Interior Region 1, North Atlantic—Appalachian

Prepared under cooperative agreement P19AC01126 between

The Organization of American Historians and The National Park Service

March 2023

Recommended by:

MARY EYRING Digitally signed by MARY EYRING 

Date: 2023.03.08 14:40:11 -05'00' 

Manager, Cultural Resources Division, Interior Region 1: North Atlantic—Appalachian Region

Recommended by:

Linda A. Cook Date: 2023.01.30 12:25:44 -05'00' 

Digitally signed by Linda A. Cook 

Superintendent, Weir Farm National Historical Park
v

Contents

List of Acronyms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CHAPTER ONE

Creating a New England Farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Building Improvements and Tradespeople. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Outdoor Improvements and Tenant Farmers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

C H A P T E R T W O 

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

The Remy Family before Weir Farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

The Remys’ Agricultural Labor on Weir Farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Johanna Remy’s Domestic and Agricultural Labor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

The Remys after Weir Farm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Weir Farm after the Remys: High Turnover and Transition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

CHAPTER THREE

Domestic Workers for the Weir Family, 1880s–1920s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Domestic Servants, 1884–1900. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Change and Continuity in the 1900s–1920s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

CHAPTER FOUR

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

Dorothy Weir Young as Property Manager. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

The Bass Family as Caretakers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Additional Labor and Income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80

Domestic Labor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

Cross-Class Relationships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90

Lifestyle and Leisure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

From the Great Depression to World War II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99
vi

Contents

CHAPTER FIVE

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

Domestic Workers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

Knoches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115

Other Tradespeople Hired by the Youngs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123

Studio Assistants for This Is the Place. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128

End of an Era and the Gully Family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139

FIGURES

1. Sketch map of the Weir estate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141

2. Mike McGlynn’s signature behind toilet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142

3. Julian Alden Weir, Mending the Stone Wall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143

4. Julian Alden Weir, New England Barnyard, 1904. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144

5. Tommy and Carl. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145

6. Cora Weir and Willie Remy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146

7. Willie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146

8. Julian Alden Weir, Driving the Cows Home. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147

9. Julian Alden Weir, Feeding the Chickens at Branchville. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .148

10. Julian Alden Weir, Ploughing for Buckwheat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149

11. Julian Alden Weir, Connecticut Grainfield. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .150

12. The Remys and Mary Hanratty Harvest Honey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151

13. Julian Alden Weir, The Ice Cutters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152

14. Archival photograph of Julian Alden Weir, Portrait of Paul Remy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153

15. Julian Alden Weir. Midday Rest in New England. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154

16. Dorothy, Cora, Carl, Tommy, Gip and Five Turtles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155

17. Louisa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

18. Cora Weir and Mrs. Reemy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156

19. Julian Alden Weir, Cora and Mary Kane or Child and Nurse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157

20. Unidentified Domestic Staff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .158

21. Julian Alden Weir. The Laundry, Branchville. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159

22. Mary Hanratty in Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160

23. Mary Hanratty in Nursery in Weir Residence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161

24. Mary Hanratty with Cora Weir and Minere Wardwell at the Pond in Branchville. . . . 162

25. Dorothy Weir, Woman in Windsor Chair Sewing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163

26. Dorothy Weir Young, Ladies at Dinner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164
vii

Contents

27. Mr. and Mrs. Bass on 30th Anniversary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165

28. Mervin Bass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166

29. Eddie and Georgie Bass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166

30. Bessie, Betty, Mary and Bobby Bass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .167

31. Russell, Charles, and Orin Bass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .167

32. Mr. and Mrs. Bass, Clifford, Kenneth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .168

33. Mahonri M. Young, Bass Digging Parsnips. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169

34. Mahonri M. Young, Bringing in the Hay.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .170

35. Mahonri M. Young, Branchville. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171

36. Mahonri M. Young, Mowing in the Orchard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172

37. Mahonri M. Young, Rowen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173

38. Mahonri M. Young, Scythe Cutters at Branchville. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174

39. Mahonri M. Young, Mowing at Branchville. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175

40. Mahonri M. Young, Haywagon in Barn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176

41. Dottie, the dog, on the porch of the caretaker’s house. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177

42. Mahonri M. Young, Apple Picking at Branchville. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178

43. Mahonri M. Young, Cutting Tree at Branchville. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179

44. Mahonri M. Young, Man Sawing with a Woodsaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .180

45. Mahonri M. Young, Branchville Garden. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181

46. Dorothy Weir Young, Untitled. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182

47. Dorothy Weir Young, Seated Girl Reading Newspaper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183

48. Mahonri Young, Right to the Jaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184

49. Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, 

“Art—Sculpture—Agriculture (Mahonri Young)”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185

50. Kenneth and Ronnie Bass on sled. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .186

51. Mary Hickey and Joseph Knoche’s wedding portrait. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187

52. Cora Holding Elizabeth Knoche. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188

53. Great Wall of Cora. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189

54. Great Wall of Cora Detail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190

55. Joseph Knoche’s tools sitting on the stone patio he and his sons built 

for Cora Weir Burlingham. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .191

56. Mahonri M. Young, Joe Knoche Builds a New Stone Wall II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192

57. Dorothy Weir Young, Theresa and Tommy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193

58. Johanna Knoche, great-granddaughter of Joe Knoche, recreates the etching 

“Joe Knoche Builds a Stone Wall” by Mahonri Mackintosh Young. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194

59. Mahonri M. Young, Blacksmith Shoeing a Horse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195

60. Hugo Ricardi, “Smitty,” Mahonri Young, Alex Ettle, and Spero Anargyros 

in front of full-size plaster casting of “Trappers and Fur Traders Group” 

for the “This Is the Place” Monument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
viii

Recommendations for Further Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197

Appendix: Family Trees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199

Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203
ix

Acronyms

ABB Anna Bartlett Baker

ABW Anna Baker Weir 

ADB Anna Dwight Baker

BYU Brigham Young University

CAW Caroline Alden Weir

CW Cora Weir

DW Dorothy Weir

DWY Dorothy Weir Young

EB Ella Baker

EBW Ella Baker Weir

JAW Julian Alden Weir

JFW John Ferguson Weir

MMY Mahroni Mackintosh Young

WEFA Weir Farm National Historical Park Archival Collections

xi

Acknowledgments

This project began in the fall of 2019, just before the outbreak of the global 

COVID-19 pandemic. The patience, flexibility, and dedication of many people 

helped ensure that the study came to fruition under unprecedented circumstances. 

Director of Public History Programs for the Organization of American Historians, Paul 

Zwirecki, shepherded the project and managed logistics with efficiency and compassion. 

The staff of the National Park Service provided foundational vision and knowledge, 

especially Superintendent Linda Cook, Historians Bethany Serafine and Amanda Casper, 

Management Specialist and Visitor Experience Program Manager Kristin Lessard, and 

Cultural Resource Program Manager and Preservation Specialist Tara Mills. I am especially 

grateful to Museum Technician Jessica Kuhnen, whose extensive understanding of the Weir 

Farm National Historical Park Archival Collections proved invaluable. Amid unexpected 

travel restrictions and canceled research trips, Kuhnen was particularly gracious in finding 

and sharing archival material online. In some of the most rewarding moments of the 

project, we were able to work together to find names and images of previously unidentified 

workers at Weir Farm. Ben Harry at Brigham Young University Special Collections and 

Tiffany Wixom at Brigham Young University Museum of Art also showed thoughtfulness 

and flexibility in assisting with virtual research requests.

This study benefits greatly from the generosity of the descendants of the Bass and 

Knoche families. Dr. Darla Shaw, in her capacity as a volunteer with Weir Farm National 

Historical Park, coordinated closely with Bass family members to collect rich information 

on their family’s life and labor. Joseph and Mary Ann Sheehy enthusiastically shared 

Knoche family history and confirmed details through phone interviews. For laborers 

without local, living descendants, DePaul University provided crucial access to genealogical 

and secondary resources.

As a key project collaborator and partner in Omnia History, Hope Shannon offered 

insightful feedback, constructive scholarly discussions, and meaningful connection during 

an isolating pandemic. I am also grateful to my husband, sounding board, and unofficial 

copy editor, Benton Sartore. Finally, thank you to my daughter Agnes, who miraculously 

arrived in the middle of the project and kindly slept soundly enough to let me catch up on 

research and writing. 

Rachel Boyle, PhD

1

Introduction

A wide range of workers shaped the built, social, and cultural environments of 

Weir Farm from 1882 to 1957, from tenant farmers and tradespeople to domestic 

servants and studio assistants. This study documents and analyzes the lives of 

workers hired by the Weir, Young, and Burlingham families to manage and improve the 

property and serve its proprietors. It aims to expand the documentary record of the site, 

link the estate to broader historical currents, and contribute to resource stewardship and 

interpretive strategies and goals at the national historical park.

In 1882, American Impressionist artist Julian Alden Weir acquired land for a weekend retreat in Branchville, a hamlet situated on the border between Ridgefield and Wilton, 

Connecticut. The following year, he married Anna Baker and together they had three 

daughters: Caroline, Dorothy, and Cora. Anna passed away in 1892, and Julian later married her sister, Ella, in 1893. When the family was not living in their main New York City 

residence or visiting the Baker family home in Windham, Connecticut, they retreated at the 

Branchville estate. From 1882 to 1919, Julian Weir made improvements to the site, found 

inspiration for his artwork, and spent time with family and friends at his farm.

This study begins by contextualizing the Weir estate as a New England farm, shaped 

by regional historical trajectories in the 19th century as well as the intersecting identities 

and personal idiosyncrasies of Julian Weir. His approach to property ownership set the 

conditions under which laborers like tradespeople and tenant farmers came to the farm 

and the kind of work they performed. Then, Chapter 2 focuses on the first long-term 

caretakers at the site: the Remy family. It details the daily and seasonal rhythms of agricultural labor on Weir Farm, the unpaid domestic work undertaken by Johanna Remy, and the 

cross-class relationships that developed between the Weir and Remy families. Chapter 3 

goes on to discuss the domestic servants that Anna and Ella Weir hired to care for their 

children, cook, clean, serve, and launder clothing. It assesses the contours of their daily 

work in Branchville and New York City, the lives of known women, and connects to 

broader trends of Irish women working as domestic servants in the United States.

After Julian Weir died in 1919, Ella and Dorothy Weir managed the Branchville 

farm until Ella passed in 1930. Dorothy married sculptor Mahonri Mackintosh Young in 

1931, and the two spent increasing amounts of time at the estate, even moving there fulltime during World War II. Around the same time, Cora Weir Burlingham and her family 

also spent weekends and summer vacations on the adjoining Webb property acquired by 

Julian Weir in 1907. The two families spent much of the 1930s and 1940s at Branchville, 

employing people throughout the Great Depression and World War II. Mahonri Young 
Introduction

2

also completed two major projects of his career on the site: the This Is the Place monument 

and the statue of Brigham Young that represents Utah in the United States Capitol. Dorothy 

Weir Young passed away in 1947 and Mahonri Young a decade later. 

The last two chapters follow the laborers who worked at the Weir family estate from 

1929 to 1957. Chapter 4 examines how Dorothy Weir Young and, to a certain extent, Cora 

Weir Burlingham approached property management, noting how they both continued and 

departed from their father’s legacy. The chapter also centers on another long-term caretaker 

family, the Basses, to revisit how agricultural practices changed or not on the site since the 

turn of the 20th century. The chapter makes use of rich oral histories shared by the Bass 

children who grew up on the Branchville farm, highlighting their mother’s unpaid domestic 

labor while also describing the family’s lifestyle and leisure activities. The final chapter 

discusses other workers who shaped Weir Farm during the Young and Burlingham years, 

from domestic workers and tradespeople to studio assistants and tenants after the Basses. 

The neighboring Knoche family in particular conducted a wide range of work on the site, 

from masonry and carpentry to laundry and agricultural labor. The Knoches exemplify how 

interconnected social and familial networks characterized life and labor in Branchville in 

the mid-20th century. The chapter also features other familiar faces on the property during 

that time, including longtime maid Mollie Gleason, devoted studio assistant Spero 

Anargyros, and the Gully family, who lived on the site as its final long-term tenants.

Previous reports from the National Park Service provide a strong foundation for 

this study. The 2009 Historic Resource Study, An Artists’ Retreat, by Deborah S. Gardner 

and Christine G. McKay, provides a rich and thorough overview of the life and work of 

Julian Weir as well as his immediate and extended family. Historic Structure Reports on the 

Weir residence and outbuildings, the caretaker’s house, and the Webb/Burlingham complex establish key facts on how the property changed over time, which proved particularly 

useful in visualizing the spaces that workers navigated. The agricultural component of the 

Cultural Landscape Report written by Jack Larkin delves into the particulars of agricultural practices on the site, yielding valuable context for understanding the labor undertaken by the Remys, Basses, and other tenant farmers. Other reports that provided critical 

background included the 1996 Cultural Landscape Report and the National Register of 

Historic Places documentation. 

Due to their scopes, many previous studies prioritized the perspective of the Weir 

family over the workers they hired. For example, many of the reports utilized correspondence written by Julian Weir to better understand him as an artist and the changes he made 

to the property. This study also analyzes Weir’s letters, but primarily frames him and his 

descendants as employers. It further mines the letters for passing references to workers and 

builds out their personal stories. This report also aims to put people in the spaces so clearly 

defined by the Historic Structures Reports to better understand how workers moved 

around the property, how they interacted with the land and buildings, and how access to 
Introduction

3

utilities like water or heat impacted their daily life. Additionally, the study makes generous 

use of oral histories conducted in the late 20th and early 21st centuries by early National 

Park Service staff and volunteers, prioritizing workers’ own voices where possible. 

Altogether, this research combines a top-down approach that acknowledges the 

power of property owners with a bottom-up perspective that centers laborers as significant 

historical subjects. A top-down analysis places the Weir family in their historical context, 

understanding their participation in capitalism and settler colonialism alongside their 

personal and artistic motivations. The Weirs’ perspective is well-documented thanks to 

archival collections at Weir Farm National Historical Park and Brigham Young University. 

People with more privilege and power tend to be overrepresented in the historical written 

record, so unearthing the stories of workers for a bottom-up perspective required creativity. Sometimes this study utilizes genealogical sources and oral histories to reconstruct 

laborers’ personal timelines and connect the individual’s life—including their migration 

patterns, ethnic and racial identities, and economic choices—to broader historical trends. 

In doing so, the study has revealed the names and lives of workers previously hidden in the 

historical record. Silences persist in other instances due to a lack of information. In those 

cases, the study makes use of existing secondary literature on agricultural, domestic, and 

trade labor to envision what life looked like for workers.

Combining top-down and bottom-up perspectives seriously considers both workers and employers as historical subjects and provides opportunities to interrogate crossclass relationships. By further rooting the analysis in the physical landscape of Weir Farm, 

the study explores how different people moved about the site in different ways, and how 

they would or would not interact with each other. Gender profoundly impacted interactions at Branchville, determining the differences between men’s and women’s work, where 

they performed their labor, and whether or not they received wages. Class and gender also 

informed the intimate domestic relationships between the Weirs and long-term servants 

like Mary Hanratty and Mollie Gleason, as well as the transactional wage interactions that 

contributed to high turnover among both domestic and agricultural workers. The inherently unequal power differential between employer and employee did not preclude the 

emergence of mutually beneficial, congenial, or even affectionate relationships. Other 

times, workers resented or resisted the interpersonal power dynamics at play.

In addition to exploring cross-class relationships at Weir Farm, this historical 

resource study reflects numerous accounts of family connection and pride. An attachment 

to family legacy profoundly informed Dorothy Weir Young’s approach to managing the 

Branchville estate. Workers’ families expressed pride in oral histories as they related their 

ancestors’ hard manual labor. Even Irish maids maintained familial networks despite the 

disruption of migration and the isolation of live-in domestic service. The study reveals the 
Introduction

4

impacts of both transience and rootedness, from the workers who traveled great distances 

and moved through jobs quickly, to the families who stayed in Ridgefield for multiple 

generations, building businesses and shaping town life. 

Studying the laborers of Weir Farm connects a hyperlocal narrative to regional, 

national, and global trends. The people who passed through the modest farm site in rural 

Connecticut share links to the Great Famine in Ireland, German unification, Italian immigration, early American colonization, and later Mormon settlement in the American West. 

The stories of labor at Weir Farm are manifestations of sweeping historical forces like 

settler colonialism and industrial capitalism, but are also about the quiet, daily, physical, 

rote work of wringing laundry, plowing a field, or laying stones.
5

CHAPTER ONE

Creating a New England Farm

The Weir Farm National Historical Park sits on Nod Hill Road, a rural Connecticut 

road that constitutes a border between the towns of Wilton and Ridgefield, 

Connecticut. Understanding the history of the area surrounding the farm 

contextualizes Julian Weir’s decision to purchase the property and transform it into a 

family and artistic retreat. In turn, Weir’s class, racial, and gender identities, along with his 

participation in the emerging American Impressionist community, defined his vision of the 

site, how he chose to change or maintain the site, the tradespeople and farmers he hired, 

and his expectations of them. His approach to ownership and management set the 

conditions under which laborers lived and worked at the Branchville farm. Weir’s New 

England farm was not an inevitable setting, but a specific product of broader social forces, 

Weir’s individual identity and vision, and the work of laborers he hired to realize his vision.

Weir Farm is located on Indigenous land. Long before the arrival of Europeans, 

Indigenous peoples lived on the land that is currently called Connecticut. Many nations in 

eastern North America were devastated by diseases brought by Europeans in the 15th and 

16th centuries, and subsequent warfare between Indigenous nations and colonial settlers 

further depleted and displaced tribes.1

 By the mid-17th century, the Siwanog tribe lived 

near current-day Wilton, and the Ramapough lived on the land that would become 

Ridgefield.2

 In fact, English settlers from Norwalk and Milford purchased a tract directly 

1 Two notable examples of warfare include the Pequot War (1636–38) and King Philip’s War (1675–78). See 

“America’s Most Devastating Conflict: King Philip’s War,” Connecticut History | a CTHumanities Project, 

August 12, 2019, https://connecticuthistory.org/americas-most-devastating-conflict-king-philips-war; “Pequot 

War,” Connecticut History | a CTHumanities Project, November 20, 2012, https://connecticuthistory.org/

topics-page/pequot-war. For other examples of warfare specifically involving the Ramapough, see “Ramapough 

Timeline,” Ramapough Lenape Nation, accessed April 30, 2021, https://ramapoughlenapenation.org/wp-content/

uploads/2019/04/Timeline2013.pdf.

2 George Lounsbury Rockwell, The History of Ridgefield, Connecticut (Ridgefield, CN: Privately printed by the 

author, 1927); Hayden L. Griswold, Map of Connecticut, circa 1625, Indian Trails, Villages, Sachemdoms

(Connecticut: National Society of the Colonial Dames of America in the State of Connecticut, 1930), Norman B. 

Leventhal Map Center Collection, Boston Public Library; “History Is Here: Episode 10, Wilton: Siwanog Tribe, 

English Parish, American Town,” Wilton Historical Society, June 3, 2020, http://wiltonhistorical.org/2020/06/

history-is-here-episode-10-wilton-siwanog-tribe-english-parish-american-town; “Ramapough Timeline,” 

Ramapough Lenape Nation, accessed April 30, 2021, https://ramapoughlenapenation.org/wp-content/

uploads/2019/04/Timeline2013.pdf; Ridgefield Archives Committee, Ridgefield (Portsmouth, NH: Arcadia 

Publishing, 2004), 7; Robert H. Russell, Wilton, Connecticut: Three Centuries Of People, Places, and Progress

(Wilton, CN: Wilton Historical Society, 2004), 4; “Wilton: Siwanog Tribe, English Parish, American Town,” 

Wilton Historical Society (exhibition), https://wiltonhistorical.org/current-exhibitions/wilton-siwanog-tribeenglish-parish-american-town.
6

Creating a New England Farm

from the Ramapough in 1708 to establish Ridgefield. These “Proprietors of Ridgefield” 

granted the land that would become Weir Farm to Matthew Arnold in 1745.3

 After changing hands a few times, Anthony Beers purchased the property in 1789 and became its first 

long-term Euro-American resident. Beers, and later his son and daughter-in-law, would 

live there until 1880.4

 The Beers’ ancestors fought in early colonial wars like the Pequot 

War, contributing to the forced displacement of Indigenous nations and making way for a 

Euro-American settler society on Indigenous land.5

Indigenous and settler history is acknowledged today in local place names like 

Catoonah Street in the center of Ridgefield, which references the Ramapough leader who 

sold the land to the Proprietors of Ridgefield.6

 The colonization of Indigenous land by 

Euro-American settlers continues into the present day, as does the survival of the descendants of the Ramapough and the Siwanog. The Ramapough-Munsee Lenape Nation is 

currently headquartered in New Jersey, and descendants of the Siwanog tribe live today as 

part of the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation in Kent, Connecticut.7

 Weir Farm’s very existence as 

a Euro-American residence is rooted in a deeper history and continued reality of settler 

colonialism.8

 Euro-American assumptions pervaded most decisions related to property 

ownership and labor on the site since the 18th century, usually without regard to the first 

stewards of the land who continued to survive in the region and beyond. Identifying 

property owners and workers as settlers acknowledges that they were operating within a 

colonial mindset and residing on Indigenous land.

3 Deborah S. Gardner and Christine G. McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat: J. Alden Weir’s Farm in Connecticut,” 

Weir Farm National Historic Site Historic Resource Study, National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, 

2009, 3; Ridgefield Archives Committee, Ridgefield, 7; Rockwell, The History of Ridgefield, Connecticut.

4 Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat,” 3.

5 Anthony Beers’ great-grandfather, also named Anthony Beers (ca. 1620–79) may have fought in unnamed 

“Indian Wars,” rising to the rank of sergeant. The elder Anthony Beers’ relative Richard Beers (possibly his 

father, uncle, or cousin depending on the source) fought and died in the Pequot War. Donald Lines Jacobus and 

Connecticut Daughters of the American Revolution, History and Genealogy of the Families of Old Fairfield

(New Haven, CN: Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor, 1930), 55–56; Keith Marshall Jones III, The Farms of 

Farmingville: A Two-Century Story of Twenty-Three Ridgefield, Connecticut Farmhouses and the People Who 

Gave Them Life (Ridgefield, CT: Connecticut Colonel Pub Co, 2001), 64.

6 Also known as Sachem Katonah. “Ramapough Timeline”; Rockwell, The History of Ridgefield, Connecticut.

7 “History Is Here: Episode 10, Wilton: Siwanog Tribe, English Parish, American Town,” Wilton Historical 

Society, June 3, 2020, http://wiltonhistorical.org/2020/06/history-is-here-episode-10-wilton-siwanog-tribeenglish-parish-american-town; “History,” Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, accessed April 30, 2021, https://

schaghticoke.com/history; “Ramapough Lenape Nation—Keepers of the Pass,” accessed April 30, 2021, https://

ramapoughlenapenation.org.

8 Settler colonialism refers to colonizer attempts to replace Indigenous people and culture with settler society. 

For an introduction to the concept and how it can be applied in early American history, see Jeffrey Ostler and 

Nancy Shoemaker, “Settler Colonialism in Early American History: Introduction,” The William and Mary 

Quarterly 76, no. 3 (2019): 361–68, https://doi.org/10.5309/willmaryquar.76.3.0361.
7

Creating a New England Farm

The development of Weir’s future retreat as a settler farm mirrored the evolution of 

the region in the 18th and 19th centuries. For example, the farmhouse that would become 

Weir’s residence resembled other colonial homes of the period. It was likely built as a 

two-story building with an attic, cellar, and central chimney sometime between 1765 and 

1781, before the Beers’ occupancy.9

 In the 1830s, Lewis Beers joined a local and national 

trend by altering the home in the Greek Revival style.10 During the same era, the Beers 

family oversaw the construction of the barn, caretaker’s house, and picket fences.11 The 

building on the site speaks to how New England agriculture grew beyond the subsistence 

farming of the 18th century, though it remained small-scale compared to the market-driven 

agriculture that developed further west in the mid-19th century.12 Like many rural towns, 

Ridgefield and Wilton met local needs through service and craft industries. In the second 

half of the 19th century, both towns experienced population decline as people sought 

richer farmland out West or found jobs in industrializing cities. Factories attracted workers 

in nearby cities like Bridgeport or Danbury; one of the closest factories, the Gilbert and 

Bennett Manufacturing Company in Georgetown, Connecticut, opened its doors in the 

late 19th century and specialized in producing wire cloth and netting well into the 20th 

century.13 By and large, however, the transformative forces of industrialization bypassed 

Ridgefield and Wilton. What was left behind was, by all accounts, sleepy small towns and 

farming communities with a few longstanding Euro-American families and stores.14

Then, the opening of the Ridgefield branch of the Danbury and Norfolk Railroad in 

1870 connected Branchville to New York City and brought urban dwellers seeking rural 

retreats, among them Julian Weir.15 As industrialization made cities like New York more 

populous and polluted, the idea of escaping to the countryside for fresh air in a more bucolic 

9 Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat,” 23–24; Jones, The Farms of Farmingville, 151–54.

10 Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat,” 27; Jones, The Farms of Farmingville, 155–57. In Ridgefield’s 

Farmingville district alone, Jones notes three farmhouses that were similarly remodeled in the Greek Revival 

style in the mid-19th century.

11 Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat,” xlix.

12 Jones, The Farms of Farmingville, 118–32. For sweeping overviews on the market revolution and industrial 

agriculture, see William Cronon, Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West (New York: W. W. Norton & 

Company, 1992); Charles Sellers, The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815–1846 (New York: Oxford 

University Press, 1994); Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 

1815–1848 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).

13 Many workers discussed in this report worked at the wire mill during their lives. Jan Cunningham, 

Georgetown Historic District, National Register of Historic Places Nomination, 1987; “History of Gilbert and 

Bennett in Georgetown, Connecticut,” accessed April 30, 2021, http://historyofredding.net/HGgilbertbennett.

htm; “Trade Catalogs from Gilbert & Bennett Mfg. Co.,” National Museum of American History, accessed April 

30, https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/SILNMAHTL_17253.

14 Hal S. Barron, Those Who Stayed Behind: Rural Society in Nineteenth-Century New England (Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press, 1988); Ridgefield Archives Committee, Ridgefield, 7-8; Russell, Wilton, 

Connecticut, 262.

15 Ronald Dale Karr, The Rail Lines of Southern New England: A Handbook of Railroad History (Pepperell, 

MA: Branch Line Press, 1994).
8

Creating a New England Farm

setting became particularly appealing to those with means to purchase property. The ensuing 

country house movement was fueled by nostalgia for an idealized version of pre-industrial, 

pre–Civil War life. Rural communities like Ridgefield and Wilton shifted from operating as 

primarily agricultural communities to hosting well-to-do families who built their summer 

homes there. Wealthy businessmen like George M. Olcott, B. Ogden Chisholm, George 

Griswold Haven, and Frederic E. Lewis developed grand estates in Ridgefield, and plenty of 

city dwellers established less extravagant country homes in Wilton, as well.16

Julian Weir’s background positioned him to be among the first wave of city folks to 

buy land in the area. He was born into a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant settler family; his 

paternal grandfather migrated from Scotland to New Rochelle, New York, around 1790, 

and his father made a living as an artist and professor at West Point U.S. Military Academy.17

His mother, Susan Martha Bayard, descended from Europeans who settled in New York 

and New Jersey colonies well before the American Revolutionary War.18 Weir was not 

independently wealthy and pursued an art career subsidized by various women in his life.

Anne Caroline Alden, for example, was a wealthy descendant of Pennsylvania industrialist 

Robert Coleman and the wife of Weir’s godfather, a military captain who fought in the 

Rogue River Wars in Oregon and made a fortune drilling for oil in Pennsylvania. Alden 

paid for Weir’s art education in Europe, and he honored her sponsorship by emphasizing 

his middle name in his professional signature, “J. Alden Weir.”19 Weir later married into the 

Baker family; his wives’ grandfather also served in the United States military and was a 

16 The phenomenon of escaping cities to bucolic country estates did not begin with industrialization, but did 

accelerate with industrialization in the late 19th and early 20th century. George M. Olcott was the head of a drug 

and chemical importing company, B. Ogden Chisholm was secretary-treasurer of the Greenwich Savings Bank in 

New York City, George Griswold Haven made money in railroads, and Frederic E. Lewis was a banker and the 

grandson of Moses Taylor, one of the wealthiest men of the 19th century. Clive Aslet, The American Country 

Home (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990); Barron, Those Who Stayed Behind; Ridgefield Archives 

Committee, Ridgefield, 8; Russell, Wilton, Connecticut, 310; Mark Alan Hewitt, The Architect and the American 

Country House, 1890–1940 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990), 155.

17 Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat,” 9; Rossiter Johnson, ed. Twentieth Century Biographical 

Dictionary of Notable Americans, vol. I–X (Boston: The Biographical Society), 1904.

18 For example, Susan Martha Bayard’s great-great-great-great grandfather, Petrus Bayard (1635–99), was the 

brother of the Nicholas Bayard, the 16th mayor of New York City. Another ancestor, her great-great-great 

grandfather, Richard “The Builder” Stockton (1654–1709), purchased land that would become the town of 

Princeton, New Jersey. For more, see “Public Member Trees,” database, Ancestry.com, “Bowman Family Tree,” 

profile for Susan Martha Bayard (b. August 6, 1817, New Jersey, USA, d. September 5, 1900, Garrison, Putnam 

County, New York, USA), https://www.ancestrylibrary.com/family-tree/person/tree/25522159/

person/26098123919//facts (accessed July 5, 2022).

19 George W. Cullum, Biographical Register of the Officers and Graduates of the U.S. Military Academy at West 

Point, N.Y.: From Its Establishment, In 1802, to 1890, With the Early History of the United States Military 

Academy (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1891), 488–91; Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat,” 11; Joshua 

Growh, “Union Center: How a 520-acre Coleman Estate Was Converted into a “Worker’s Paradise” for 20,000 

Union Members,” LebTown, June 28, 2021, accessed December 21, 2021, https://lebtown.com/2021/06/28/unioncenter-how-a-520-acre-coleman-estate-was-converted-into-a-workers-paradise-for-20000-union-members;

Roberta Strickler, “Regal Millwood,” LancasterOnline, August 20, 2004, accessed December 21, 2021, https://

lancasteronline.com/news/regal-millwood/article_ca78318c-c589-56f8-900d-802a55d50176.html; Dorothy Weir 

Young, Life and Letters, xxi, 17.
9

Creating a New England Farm

successful businessman. Their great-grandfather was a prosperous merchant who had built 

a paper mill and provided American troops with clothing and other provisions during the 

War of 1812.20 Like the Aldens, the Baker family’s generational wealth directly resulted 

from the United States’ wars of expansion into Indigenous land and subsequent military 

and economic activities. The Baker family home in Windham, Connecticut served as a 

retreat for Weir and his family, but access to the family’s wealth also enabled him to own his 

own second home that he may not have been able to maintain based on his family background and income as an artist and teacher. Weir originally planned to build a summer 

retreat in the Adirondacks, but for unspecified reasons and possibly a good deal, he chose 

the Branchville spot instead.21 Certainly the convenient location a train ride from his life in 

New York City combined with the money from his wives’ family and their distinctly settler 

legacy set the stage for him to buy property in the area. 

Owning property reaffirmed Weir’s identity as an upper-class white man in 

19th-century America.22 Not only was individually possessing land rooted in EuroAmerican colonization of Indigenous land, but it also constituted the foundation of 

American citizenship, as only white male property owners could vote until the 1820s. Even 

later into the 19th century, nativist sentiments upheld the imagined supremacy of “nativeborn” Americans. In reality, established white Anglo-Saxon Protestant families like the 

Weirs or Bakers had access to more resources than groups like recent white ethnic immigrants who often worked low-wage jobs. White Americans of all classes also benefitted 

from and often upheld barriers to prevent Black Americans from securing employment, 

owning property, and exercising full citizenship. Meanwhile, women of all races enjoyed 

very limited property and voting rights. In this way, race, class, and gender intersected to 

ensure that the group with the most access to wealth and property in the United States were 

white men—which at the time meant “native-born” white Anglo-Saxon Protestant men like 

Julian Weir.23

Compared to nearby Ridgefield estates and within the broader country house 

movement, Weir’s Branchville home proved rather modest. The main residence was not, as 

Barr Ferre wrote of country houses in American Estates and Gardens in 1904, “a 

20 Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat,” 35; “Baker-Taintor Papers 1808–1869,” Philip Heslip Manuscripts 

Division, William L. Clements Library, University of Michigan, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/f/findaid/

findaid-idx?cc=clementsead;c=clementsead;idno=umich-wcl-M-1981bak;didno=umich-wcl-M1981bak;view=text.

21 Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat,” 56–59.

22 “Upper class” here is used as an antonym to working class and encompasses Weir with his middle-class 

background and access to the Baker family wealth.

23 Irish, Italian, German, and other white ethnic groups became white later into the 20th century. See Noel 

Ignatiev, How the Irish Became White (New York: Routledge, 1995); Thomas A. Guglielmo, White on Arrival: 

Italians, Race, Color, and Power in Chicago, 1890–1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); David R. 

Roediger, Working Toward Whiteness: How America’s Immigrants Became White: The Strange Journey from 

Ellis Island to the Suburbs (New York: Basic Books, 2018).
10

Creating a New England Farm

sumptuous house, built at large expense, often palatial in its dimensions, furnished in the 

richest manner.”24 However, Weir would hire premier country house architects for alterations to the home: Charles Platt and, later, the firm of McKim, Mead and White. Beyond 

the main residence, Clive Aslet argues that “an essential element of the American country 

house was the estate on which it stood” and elaborates with a description that neatly fits 

Weir’s Branchville property: “The American country house stands on its own land, beyond 

the suburbs and other planned developments, out of sight of other houses, possessing at 

least the appearance of an independent, possibly self-sufficient, landed life, even though 

the money that supported it never came from the land.”25

In another nod to English gentility and in an effort to recreate an imagined agrarian 

past, many country house owners like Weir ran farming operations on their estates.26 Weir 

frequently corresponded about farming matters with Percy Alden, his lifelong friend and 

son of his art school benefactor. Alden managed a farm on the large Coleman family estate 

he inherited in Pennsylvania and referred to himself and Weir as “us farmers.”27 Neither 

Alden nor Weir tended the land themselves nor did they rely on crops as a significant 

source of income; rather, they recreationally managed agricultural activities as gentleman 

farmers. Alden once wrote to Weir wishing that his friend could see his field of millet, 

“both as an artist and farmer.”28 For Weir, owning and managing the farm was part of a 

broader range of activities that included his main passion and income source: painting.

In fact, Weir’s farm and estate directly served his artistic pursuits. Like other 

American Impressionist painters, he sought inspiration from a rural landscape that offered 

an escape from the bewildering effects of industrialization that dominated life in cities like 

New York.29 Their perception of rural life and environment did not often reflect the challenging historical realities of agriculture in New England that led to depopulation of towns 

like Wilton and Ridgefield; rather, they sought and created an imagined rural past with 

their brush strokes. The wistfulness of American impressionism mirrored the nostalgia of 

the country home movement, and those sentiments profoundly informed Weir’s management of the Branchville estate.

24 Aslet, The American Country Home, v–vi. 

25 Aslet, The American Country Home, vi.

26 Aslet, The American Country Home; Hewitt, The Architect and the American Country House, 1890–1940.

27 Percy Alden to Julian Alden Weir, June 6, 1903; Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat,” 28; Joshua 

Growh, “Union Center,” LebTown, June 28, 2021; Roberta Strickler, “Regal Millwood,” LancasterOnline, 

August 20, 2004.

28 Percy Alden to Julian Alden Weir, August 11, 1903.

29 For more on J. Alden Weir’s position among American Impressionist painters, see Doreen Bolger Burke, J. 

Alden Weir, An American Impressionist (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1983); Gardner and McKay, “An 

Artists’ Retreat”; “Hauling and Harrowing: Edward Volkert and the Connecticut Farm,” Florence Griswold 

Museum, https://florencegriswoldmuseum.org/exhibitions/hauling-and-harrowing-edward-volkert-and-theconnecticut-farm.
11

Creating a New England Farm

As gentleman farmer and proprietor of a country estate, Weir was expected to 

“improve” the land by hiring workers to change the buildings and landscape according to 

his vision. Nineteenth-century essayist Donald G. Mitchell ruefully observed, 

“Unfortunately, almost every city gentleman who comes into possession—whether by 

purchase or otherwise—of a plain country house, from which some honest well-to-dofarmer has just decamped, puzzles his brain first of all, to know how he shall make a ‘fine 

thing’ of it.”30

The emphasis on elevating the value and aesthetic of property emanated from 

settler ideas of land ownership and was also shaped by the owner’s idiosyncratic taste. In 

Weir’s case, his occupation as an artist informed how he pictured improvement. By 

“improving” the farm, Weir could shape the land and buildings to fit his aesthetic vision in 

addition to meeting the practical needs of hosting his family and friends.

Building Improvements and Tradespeople

In order to improve the buildings on his site, Weir hired skilled trade workers like carpenters, masons, and painters from nearby towns.31 The pool of available laborers reflected 

both the continuation of craft and service industries from the area’s agricultural past and a 

growing demand from commuters and summer residents like Weir. Although Wilton and 

Ridgefield became home to Scandinavian, Irish, and Italian immigrants seeking work in the 

late 19th and early 20th centuries, the towns did not experience a large influx of new arrivals 

like more industrial cities.32 Furthermore, trade labor proved less transient than industrial 

wage work or even hired agricultural help. Apprenticeship models and the strength of trade 

unions resulted in a relatively stable workforce of white and white ethnic tradespeople that 

continued across generations in towns like Wilton and Ridgefield.33 In male-dominated 

trades like carpentry and masonry, men often brought their sons on as apprentices and, 

30 Quoted in Hewitt, The Architect and the American Country House, 1890–1940, 1.

31 Although this chapter provides several examples of Weir hiring local workers, further confirmation exists in 

JA to EB, June 26, 1886, WEFA 192: “on the top of a lone hill we stopped at the house of a man who has 

occasionally worked for us, + found that he had married + bought the little place + was just as happy + contented 

as could be, his wife was quite pretty + and thrifty + neat as possible.”

32 In the late 19th century, Gilbert & Bennett Manufacturing actively recruited Scandinavian immigrants who 

settled in and near Wilton, Connecticut. See Russell, Wilton, Connecticut, 262. The Ridgefield Knights of 

Columbus, established in 1897, includes numerous members with Irish surnames. See Rockwell, The History of 

Ridgefield, Connecticut, 346. In the early 20th century, Ridgefield became home to a flourishing Italian 

immigrant community. See Aldo P. Biagiotti, Impact: The Historical Account of the Italian Immigrants of 

Ridgefield, Connecticut (Ridgefield, CT: Romald, 1990); Ridgefield Archives Committee, Ridgefield, 60–61.

33 As stated earlier, “white” in late-19th-century Connecticut usually meant white Anglo-Saxon Protestant, in 

contrast to white ethnics who were more recent immigrants and frequently practicing Catholics. Notably, white 

trade unions often discriminated against Black workers. See Philip Sheldon Foner, Organized Labor and the 

Black Worker, 1619–1973 (New York: Praeger, 1974).
12

Creating a New England Farm

beginning in the late 19th century, organized with fellow craftsmen in unions that they 

called “brotherhoods.” Although many trade unions formed to combat exploitation in the 

face of increasing industrialization, they still had a presence in towns like Ridgefield.34

Weir frequently turned to local tradespeople to implement his renovations, but 

little historical documentation exists that specifically names the men he hired. Unlike 

domestic workers or tenant farmers, tradespeople did not reside in the homes where they 

conducted their work, and so were not connected to Weir through census records or city 

directories. Weir’s correspondence and inconsistent financial records did not include 

thorough notes on who he brought on to make improvements, either. In lieu of specific 

biographical information, this section will examine each type of laborer Weir required and 

what they accomplished on the site, before considering how different workers’ labor 

intersected during major construction projects. 

For any significant undertaking that involved building additions, repairs, or new 

construction, Weir needed carpenters. He likely hired independent carpenters from local 

towns; in fact, when jotting down a list of potential carpenters during a project in the early 

20th century, several lived in the village of Georgetown, just northeast of Wilton.35 Local 

carpenters may have been members of early, growing trade unions like the United 

Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America that aimed to protect craftsmen from 

the proliferation of contractors and subcontractors in an era of industrialization and 

urbanization.36 In the late 19th century, carpenters in Connecticut worked an average of 60 

hours a week and earned around 2 dollars and 50 cents per day.37 In comparison, a lower-skilled wage job in manufacturing paid closer to 2 dollars per day.38 The difference in 

wages reflected the specialized skills required for craftwork like carpentry, as well as union 

efforts to protect wages.

Whether or not he hired union carpenters, Weir’s records suggest that he did not 

utilize contractors or subcontractors but preferred to manage construction projects himself or by proxy. For example, shortly after purchasing the farm, Weir wrote to his motherin-law that he “shall try and send up a couple of carpenters to put everything in good 

34 Ronald Mendel, “Craft Labour and the Development of Trade Unionism among Building Tradesmen in Late 

Nineteenth Century New York,” Construction History 14 (January 1998): 3–19; Rockwell, The History of 

Ridgefield, Connecticut, 348.

35 WEFA 448; Box 1, Envelope 11.

36 “History,” United Brotherhood of Carpenters, accessed April 30, 2021, https://www.carpenters.org/aboutubc/21st-century-union/history; Ronald Mendel, “Craft Labour and the Development of Trade Unionism among 

Building Tradesmen in Late Nineteenth Century New York,” Construction History 14 (January 1998): 3–19. 

37 US Bureau of Labor Statistics, History of Wages in the United States from Colonial Times to 1928

(Washington, DC: US Government, 1934), 162–65.

38 United States Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, 

Bicentennial ed. (Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975), 168.
13

Creating a New England Farm

order” at the residence and mentioned his desire to be on site to supervise.39 The following 

year, while on honeymoon in Europe, Weir’s brother John Ferguson Weir oversaw 

improvements to the property on both the main building and the caretaker’s house (see 

Figure 1). John reported paying for building material, drawing sand, and paying “Powell’s 

bill” from South Norwalk for fixing the stove.40 John’s activity confirms that he—and, by 

extension, Julian—managed their own contracts with local businesses and workers. In the 

same correspondence, John mentioned paying a worker named Benton 86 dollars, most 

likely for his carpentry work.41 Assuming that John paid Benton an average price in an 

effort to “reduce expenditure to a minimum,” Benton would have probably been accompanied by an apprentice or additional carpenter, or else the project would have lasted a 

month and a half.42

After the initial improvements to his newly acquired property, Julian Weir continued to hire carpenters to carry out periodic construction projects in the following three 

decades. For example, carpenters likely constructed Weir’s artist studio under his supervision in 1885.43 By 1888, as Weir’s family was growing, he hired carpenters to expand the 

first story of the main house westward, as well as adding new windows and doors. In 

correspondence he complained that “as usual the bills are twice what we expected and the 

bank broken” and ultimately received financial assistance from his wife’s mother.44

The main home underwent two more major renovations in 1900 and 1911. Friend, 

artist, and architect Charles Platt designed the first set of alterations, which included 

expanding the house westward and adding a colonnaded veranda on the south façade. 

Weir then hired the firm of McKim, Mead and White in 1911 to add a bathroom and 

dressing room on the first floor of the house, as well as enlarging the dining room. Another 

friend, Stanford White, had died by 1911 when his former apprentice at the firm, Frederick 

J. Adams, designed the additions to the Weir estate. Both Platt and the architects at McKim, 

39 Marie L. Carden and Richard C. Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir 

Complex,” Weir Farm National Historic Site, Wilton, CT [draft], US Department of the Interior, NPS, Northeast 

Region, Northeast Cultural Resources Center, Building Conservation Branch, 1998, 33; JAW to ADB, October 

22, 1882, WEFA 191.

40 JFW to JAW, August 2, 1883, WEFA 190.

41 JFW to JAW, August 2, 1883, WEFA 190.

42 Lance Kasparian and Maureen K. Phillips, “Historic Structures Report, Vol II-B: Caretaker’s House and 

Caretaker’s Garage,” National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, 2008; JFW to JAW, August 2, 1883, 

as transcribed in Wallace, “WEIRBLDG” (research notes, typescript, 6/24/1992), p. 2.

43 Carden and Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir Complex.”

44 Carden and Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir Complex,” 34, 39.
14

Creating a New England Farm

Mead and White were notable contributors to the country house movement and tended to 

hold the same social status as their patrons. They collaborated as peers with Weir, who in 

turn hired carpenters and other tradespeople to carry out the designs.45

Outside of major overhauls, Weir also needed to hire carpenters for small projects 

like repairs after a lightning strike, installing new windows and siding, enlarging the east 

wing, and making alterations to his studio.46 Weir may have been discussing carpenters 

when he wrote to his wife, Ella, in 1914: “I am sorry to hear Snyders did not complete his 

job; I am afraid he is more of an experimenter than an expert...hoping that the men will get 

through the work in good shape.”47 Weir’s comment speaks to the craftsmanship required of 

the tradespeople he hired to execute both minor and grand construction projects.

Apart from carpentry, Weir needed to hire masons for any foundation work or 

interior stonework like fireplaces and chimneys in the main home, caretaker’s home, or 

studio. During the initial 1883 improvements, Weir wrote that he “received a letter from 

home about three days ago, saying the masons had not yet terminated their work at 

Branchville.”48 The bill totaled $61.75.49 At the time, masons in Connecticut worked anywhere from 48 to 59 hours per week and earned an average of $3.35 per day—a significantly better wage than unskilled factory workers and even higher than carpenters due to 

their specialized skill set.50 If Weir’s masons charged him an average rate, then he could 

have hired one mason for three weeks or three masons for one week.51 The two major 

alterations in 1900 and 1911 certainly required masons to lay new foundations, fireplaces, 

and chimneys. In 1911, Weir referenced masons that were referred to him by neighbor and 

craftsman Joseph Knoche, further confirming that Weir drew on a local network of tradespeople for his improvement projects.52

Like carpenters, local masons may have participated in unions like the Bricklayers 

and Masons International Union, a group that encompassed another category of worker 

that Weir needed to hire: plasterers. Overlaying plaster on interior walls elicited wages 

45 Aslet, The American Country Home; Carden and Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The 

Site and Weir Complex”; “Frederick J. Adams,” New York Times, May 4, 1945; Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ 

Retreat”; Hewitt, The Architect and the American Country House, 1890–1940; Keith N. Morgan, Charles A. 

Platt: The Artist as Architect (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985).

46 Carden and Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir Complex.”

47 Carden and Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir Complex,” 67.

48 Carden and Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir Complex,” 33; JAW to 

JFW, July 1, 1883, WEFA 197.

49 JFW to JAW, August 2, 1883, WEFA 190.

50 US Bureau of Labor Statistics, History of Wages in the United States from Colonial Times to 1928

(Washington, DC: US government, 1934), 190.

51 Assuming a standard 19th-century six-day work week.

52 WEFA 448; Box 1, Envelope 11.
15

Creating a New England Farm

comparable to masons.53 Then, painters would be brought in to cover both interior and 

exterior walls. For example, during the 1882 initial improvements Weir reportedly painted 

some of the interior walls himself, indirectly confirming that he hired workers to finish the 

rest. Painters applied black paint to interior woodwork, red on the exterior walls, green to 

the doors, and white finishing on the porch, window sashes, and surrounds.54 Painters 

drew lower wages than more specialized craftsmen; in fact, they averaged two dollars per 

day in Connecticut, comparable to unskilled laborers in manufacturing.55 Nevertheless, 

even painters could join their own union after 1887: the Brotherhood of Painters and 

Decorators of America.56

Finally, Weir hired plumbers as early as the 1888 addition to install a limited plumbing system.57 By the 1900 Platt alterations, plumbers were working on an indoor system that 

circulated water to the tubs and toilet in the basement, sinks in the kitchen and pantry, and 

a second-floor bathroom.58 Plumbers also installed running water to a new bathroom on 

the first floor in 1911.59 Weir desired water in his studio, as well, and hired plumbers to 

install a water tank there sometime between 1889 and 1901.60 Plumbers had their own 

union like other craftsmen, but due to their highly specialized and in-demand skills, they 

earned higher wages averaging $3.50 per day in Connecticut.61 Weir even complained about 

the cost of “the d—n plumbers bill that is out of all proportion” in a 1911 letter to his 

friend, Charles E.S. Wood.62

Thanks to his inscription behind the toilet on the main floor, we know that local 

Ridgefield plumber Mike McGlynn worked on the 1911 alterations (see Figure 2).63 The 

Weirs hired McGlynn again seven years later to fix their water tank after a previous plumber 

named Fuller “did not clean and dry out the tank as he said he would.” They needed to put 

53 United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, History of Wages in the United States from Colonial Times to 1928 

(Washington, DC: US Government, 1934), 202–3. No data exists for this occupation in the state of Connecticut. 

However, average wages in other Atlantic and New England states range from $2.17 to $4.00 per day, averaging 

around $3.40 per day. 

54 Carden and Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir Complex,” 33–34.

55 United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, History of Wages in the United States from Colonial Times to 1928

(Washington, DC: US Government, 1934), 197–99.

56 “Our History,” IUPAT, accessed August 7, 2021, https://www.iupat.org/about-us/our-history.

57 Carden and Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir Complex,” 39.

58 Carden and Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir Complex,” 48–54, 82.

59 Carden and Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir Complex,” 57, 82.

60 Carden and Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir Complex,” 82.

61 US Bureau of Labor Statistics, History of Wages in the United States from Colonial Times to 1928

(Washington, DC: US Government, 1934), 207.

62 JAW to C.E.S. Wood, August 5, 1911, C.E.S. Wood Papers, Collection of The Huntington Library, San 

Marino, California.

63 WEFA 448; Box 1, Envelope 11.
16

Creating a New England Farm

in a zinc bottom in the tank and Weir was glad that Ella “told McGlynn to do it.”64 Mike 

McGlynn was a well-established community member in Ridgefield. He was a founding 

member of the Ridgefield Knights of Columbus, served as volunteer fire chief, and acted as 

town selectman from 1918 to 1925.65 His son often accompanied him to work as his apprentice, including the 1911 project at Weir’s home.66 McGlynn’s cousin, also named Mike and 

also a resident of Ridgefield, worked as a painter.67 This glimpse into the life of just one 

worker that Weir hired confirms that tradespeople lived in local towns as members of 

established families and participated in local social and political organizations. Specific 

details about individual workers remain challenging to unearth because Weir did not refer 

to them using full names in correspondence, nor did he keep detailed financial records. 

McGlynn, however, literally left his mark on Weir’s home—a reminder that buildings are 

not just the result of owners or designers, but of the workers whose hands built them.

The most detailed notes that exist among Weir’s account books demonstrate how 

hired laborers worked together on the major McKim, Mead and White renovations in 

1911.68 The entries began on May 17th and continued through June 8th, showing that the 

bulk of construction took place in the spring before the Weir family arrived for the summer 

season. On May 17th, the “man & boy plumber” arrived, almost certainly Mike McGlynn 

and his apprentice son. They continued to show up most days through the duration of the 

project to complete their work. Then, carpenters began arriving on May 22nd and also 

made daily appearances, usually in a group of three. The masons were set to arrive on May 

22nd as well, “but disappointed” Weir by not showing up. The following day, “mason & 

plasterer Mr. Beern & man did not turn up” but the mason recommended by Joseph 

Knoche did arrive and proved to be “an excellent man” who “started a stone pier to hold 

the chimney.” After that, at least one mason worked most days for the duration of the 

project, though it is unclear which one. Finally, by May 25th, the plasterers joined the crew 

as needed, only failing to appear one day in June. 

The account book made clear that, once again, Weir supervised the project rather 

than a contractor. In addition to keeping track of workers’ attendance, he routinely listed 

supplies that he purchased—brick, lime, metal lath, and sand—and sent hired help to 

retrieve them. Under his watch, the plumbers, carpenters, and masons usually worked six 

64 Carden and Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir Complex,” 67.

65 Rockwell, The History of Ridgefield, Connecticut, 346, 348, 541–42.

66 WEFA 448; Box 1, Envelope 11. 

67 Painter Pete McGlynn owned a home in Ridgefield that was destroyed in a town fire, according to Rockwell, 

The History of Ridgefield, Connecticut. Local historian Jack Sanders mentions cousins “Painter Mike” and 

“Plumber Mike” in “Who’s Who in Ridgefield, CT,” accessed April 30, 2021, https://jackfsanders.tripod.

com/M-R.htm.

68 WEFA 448; Box 1, Envelope 11. The notebook is dated by Dorothy Weir Young as 1900 but is more likely 

from 1911 because it lists Mr. Boughton, caretaker from about 1910 to 1916, and all of the calendar dates match 

the year 1911, not 1900 (except for Sunday, May 17th, which could be JAW’s error).
17

Creating a New England Farm

days per week, presumably for 10 hours each day as was standard among both skilled and 

unskilled workers at the turn of the century. However, the account book suggests that they 

did not work on Decoration Day—a holiday and precursor to Memorial Day—on Tuesday, 

May 30th, of that year.69 The different craftsmen frequently worked concurrently, only 

coming into conflict in one documented case. When Weir arrived at Branchville on June 

6th, he found that the “carpenter and mason could not agree and so [the] hearth was not 

laid.” The final entry was dated June 8th, though presumably some work still remained to 

be completed, as indicated by the June 10th inscription behind the toilet serviced by Mike 

McGlynn. A few weeks of work by a handful of skilled craftsmen profoundly shaped both 

the aesthetic and functionality of the Weir residence, leaving a lasting impact on the spaces 

where Weir lived and worked with his family and friends.

Outdoor Improvements and Tenant Farmers

The tradespeople discussed above primarily worked on inhabited buildings like the main 

residence, studio, and caretaker’s house. In 1907, Weir purchased the Webb farm adjacent 

to his property but did not appear to undertake any construction projects there. Beyond 

the buildings where Weir lived, worked, and entertained, he also valued the property for its 

landscape. He used the land for recreational activities like fishing, sought to maintain a 

working farm, and found inspiration for his paintings in his surroundings. To these ends, 

he hired people to build a dam, construct stone walls, and farm the land.

In 1896, Weir used $2,500 in prize money from the Boston Art Club to pay for the 

construction of a dam that created a fishing pond on his property. Weir may have hired an 

engineer or someone similar to oversee the logistics of successfully damming the wetland 

area. Then, Weir could pay unskilled manual laborers to clear the area, dig the 3.7 acre 

pond, and use the excavated earth to create a 200-foot-long embankment along the northeast side of the pond. They also moved stones to construct a channel that could fill the pond 

with additional water as needed. Finally, laborers likely assisted in building various 

69 Decoration Day was acknowledged as an official holiday in all Northern states by the end of the 19th century.
18

Creating a New England Farm

attendant structures over the years like a boathouse, dock, and a summerhouse on an island 

in the pond.70 Although the identities of the workers who built the pond remain obscured in 

the historical record, Weir immortalized the product of their labor in multiple paintings.71

Weir also depicted the property’s distinctive stone walls in several of his paintings, 

even capturing the labor behind the landscape feature. For example, in Mending the Stone 

Wall, painted in the early 1890s, Weir shows a man with rolled-up sleeves and a straw hat 

laying stone in a wall formation (see Figure 3).72 Stone walls were a fairly common sight in 

New England, thanks to early settler farmers who unearthed numerous rocks while 

attempting to clear and till the soil.73 Bill DeForest, who grew up in Branchville in the early 

20th century, recalled that his great-great-grandfather “killed himself building the stone 

walls around here...this land all had to be ‘processed.’”74 The perceived need to “process” 

land—often at great physical cost to the farmer—exemplifies how settler ideas of agriculture and land ownership profoundly shaped New England’s physical landscape. Stone 

walls already existed on the land when Weir bought it. As part of the 1900 Platt alterations, 

however, Weir hired a stonecutter to construct a more sophisticated “laid” wall on the 

eastern side of Nod Hill Road. Stonemasons or stonecutters who worked on outdoor 

structures earned wages similar to those who completed interior stonework.75 As discussed 

in Chapter 4, Joseph Knoche would later construct another iconic stone wall on the property in the 1930s for Weir’s daughter Cora Weir Burlingham.76

70 According to the T. Thornberry-Ehrlich, Weir Farm National Historic Site: Geologic Resources. Inventory 

Report, Natural Resource Report (Fort Collins, Colorado: National Park Service, 2012), the pond was created 

from “damming a small seasonal stream, some springs, and a wetland area.” The Knoche family believes the pond 

was hand dug. Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, 

interview by Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions. See also J. 

Alden Weir Farm/Weir Farm Historic District, National Register of Historic Places Nomination, 1983; Peter M. 

Molloy, “Nineteenth-Century Hydropower: Design and Construction of Lawrence Dam, 1845–1848,” Winterthur 

Portfolio 15, no. 4 (1980): 315–43, accessed February 5, 2021, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1180701; “Weir Pond,” 

Weir Pond—Weir Farm National Historical Park (US National Park Service), accessed August 6, 2021, 

https://www.nps.gov/wefa/learn/historyculture/places-weirpond.htm; National Park Service, Weir Farm: SelfGuided Walking Tour (brochure). Some sources claim that Weir purchased the 10 acres of land that contains the 

pond with his prize money; however, the bill of sale from the land is dated 1895, a year before he won the prize.

71 Examples include Afternoon by the Pond; Pasture by the Pond; On the Shore; Rabbits by a Pond; The Pond 

at Branchville; The Ice Cutters, Branchville Pond; Workers at Branchville; Untitled (Weir Pond).

72 Weir captured a similar scene in Man, Stone Wall and Dog.

73 National Park Service, Weir Farm: The Stone Walls, http://npshistory.com/brochures/wefa/stone-walls.pdf.

74 Bill and Myrtle DeForest, interview with Doug DeNatale, August 7, 1989, Branchville, CT, WEFA Oral 

History Transcriptions.

75 United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, History of Wages in the United States from Colonial Times to 1928 

(Washington, DC: US Government, 1934), 212.

76 It seems unlikely that Joseph Knoche constructed the 1900 walls; his descendants shared that he did not begin 

building stone walls until the Great Depression. Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe 

Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007, WEFA Oral 

History Transcriptions.
19

Creating a New England Farm

As part of his effort to cultivate an artistic and recreational retreat, Weir purposefully maintained a working farm. He did not rely on crops for his livelihood like earlier 

settler farmers in the area, but rather hired tenant farmers to keep the farm operational, 

provide some produce for family consumption, and perhaps sell any surplus for a minor 

profit. Weir was not unique in his approach; other seasonal residents from the city similarly 

hired agricultural workers to run small-scale farms on their country estates.77 Whereas 

tradespeople were hired on a project basis, Weir sought long-term tenants to live full-time 

on the site and farm the land under his direction. Completing the image of a gentleman 

farmer running his country estate, Weir’s wife took on the responsibility of benevolently 

giving gifts to tenants at Christmas. Ella Weir’s diary records her giving clothes, candy, and 

other presents for resident employees and their families at both Windham and Branchville.78

In a society increasingly dependent on wage labor, the employer-employee relationship on 

country estates instead mimicked the dynamic between landed gentry and tenant farmers.

Finding workers willing to fulfill that vision, however, proved challenging for 

landowners like Julian Weir.79 Unlike the local and often-unionized craftsmen hired for 

construction projects, agricultural workers proved more transient and, as unskilled laborers, could easily find jobs with similar or better wages in manufacturing. Additionally, the 

backbreaking labor and lack of independence associated with tenant farming did not often 

compare favorably to the promise of homesteading further west. For the first eight years 

that he owned the Branchville property, Weir struggled to find long-term tenants to maintain his working farm.

When Weir first purchased the site, the Josephs lived in the main house as tenants. 

He considered them “bad” tenants and promptly evicted them before beginning repairs on 

the home.80 Renovations to the caretaker’s house started in earnest in the summer of 1883 

and ensured that the tenant farmer would live separately in the caretaker’s house yearround. John Ferguson Weir advised his brother that “it is certainly more roomy and convenient” for tenants in the caretaker’s house compared to sharing space in the main house, 

“unless you allowed them to occupy the whole premises—your bedrooms and sitting 

77 Ridgefield Archives Committee, Ridgefield, 84, 87. See also Aslet, The American Country Home and Hewitt,

The Architect and the American Country House, 1890–1940.

78 Ella Baker Weir Diary, WEFA 499. Despite plenty of literature on the phenomenon of gentleman farmers in 

the United States, few historians have considered the role that the gentleman farmer’s wife played in shaping 

class dynamics on country estates.

79 Richard D. Brown, “Farm Labor in Southern New England during the Agricultural-Industrial Transition,” 

Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 99 (1) 1989.

80 JAW to ADB, October 11, 1882, WEFA 191; JAW to ADB, August 11, 1882, WEFA 191; JAW to ADB, 

October 22, 1882, WEFA 191.
20

Creating a New England Farm

rooms—which would not be advisable.”81 John’s letter conveys distaste at the idea of 

farmers occupying the same living space as the upper-class Weirs; the caretaker’s house 

provided a desired segregation between the proprietors and those who tended the land. 

By the July of 1883, the Holsten family lived and worked on the site as tenant 

farmers.82 In a letter to his brother John that September, Julian Weir transcribed a letter he 

received from Holsten: “I gets oats on hear in Potatos best corn lookt good un de cous our 

well your brother en famile ol well. I my wife en children adelstright I am very glad to hear 

something of you an I hope you are poody soon back. Your very about olliet, Holsten.”83

Holsten’s letter provides a report on the farm’s crops and confirms that he lived 

and worked on the farm with his wife and children. Weir remarked that the letter was 

“more valuable as manuscript than any letter I ever thought writing,” possibly making a 

joke at Holsten’s expense. As an immigrant, Holsten demonstrated limited English writing 

skills, and John and Julian both referred to him as “the Dutchman” to note his immigrant 

status and ethnic difference.84

Holsten did not stay longer than two years. In March 1885, Weir wrote to his 

brother that he let go of his gardener—presumably not still Holsten—after he let 500 

heads of celery freeze.85 Additionally, the farmer’s wife sent Weir a 40-dollar bill for her 

work washing laundry, milking the cows, and making butter. Weir exclaimed that “for 

impudence this (takes the cake) to me a vulgar experience.”86 Weir was insulted that the 

woman charged for her labor on top of her husband’s agricultural work, or perhaps he 

considered the price too high, or both. By labeling her behavior “impudent” and “vulgar,” 

he conveyed his expectation that a woman working for him should be more respectful and 

refined. By asserting the value of her labor, the woman tenant offended Weir’s class and 

gender sensibilities.

81 JFW writes further: “You could have made no better move than fitting up that house for him and his family. It 

is now very comfortable and I advise you to keep him there all the year round.” JFW to JAW, August 2, 1883, as 

transcribed in Wallace, “WEIRBLDG” (research notes, typescript, 6/24/1992) for Phillips, “Historic Structures 

Report, Vol II-B: Caretaker’s House and Caretaker’s Garage.”

82 Susan Weir to JAW, July 22, 1883. Susan also writes a letter to JAW on June 14, 1883 that references a Mr. 

Benedict who picked them up from the station and to whom they paid money for manure. They also mention a 

Mrs. Holland and friends at the house, and say that “the poor little children had the whooping cough which 

prevented their mother from doing all she would wish to.” Not clear if any of these people are caretakers or 

tenant farmers. Previous park reports refer to Holsten as William Holsten and believe he was responsible for the 

celery freezing incident, but neither his first name or his responsibility for the celery incident is confirmed by 

primary sources.

83 JAW to JFW, September 6, 1883, WEFA 197.

84 JFW to JAW, August 2, 1883 as transcribed in Wallace, “WEIRBLDG” (research notes, typescript, 6/24/1992) 

for Phillips, “Historic Structures Report, Vol II-B: Caretaker’s House and Caretaker’s Garage”; JAW to ABB, 

October 21, 1883, WEFA 198; Phillips, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. II- A: Outbuildings.”

85 Other reports speculate this was the Dutchman; seems unlikely because he’s not referred to as Holsten or the 

Dutchman in correspondence.

86 JAW to JFW, March 22, 1885, WEFA 197.
21

Creating a New England Farm

In the same letter, Weir wrote that he hired “a good man this time, an old soldier 

from West Point who is glad to take the place for $20 + his wife to make butter + help with 

the washing. An earning of fifteen dollars a month.” Weir clearly learned from his previous 

tenants to specify payment for the farmer’s wife. He continued, “However I suppose I will 

have to train the monkey + the pursuit had in getting rid of the extinguished William! So 

much for farming!”87 Weir communicated contempt for workers who did not meet his 

expectations, as well as exasperation with what he considered the work of farming: 

managing tenants.

The high turnover in tenant farmers continued in the following years. In 1886 a 

tenant named Reisinger “occupied the house and took in boarders,” and in June of that 

year Weir brought on a 14-year-old boy to help with farm work.88 By August, the Weirs had 

trouble with John—possibly Reisinger—and didn’t feel comfortable leaving Branchville 

under his care. He resisted eviction efforts, and Anna Weir wrote to her sister that “we have 

not been able to get rid of him, and today had to go up to Danbury to see another lawyer, 

he tells us, John has not any business to stay, and I hope before long the thing will be 

settled.”89 Finally in 1888 Julian Weir expressed delight with a new tenant farmer and his 

wife, calling them “by far the best we ever had...they are Scotch and thrifty, tidy people.”90

Even when praising those in his employ, Weir noted their ethnic difference. 

Weir’s luck did not last long; by April of 1889, he reported to his brother that he 

needed to change gardeners again.91 In December 1889, Weir wrote to his mother-in-law: 

The farm is still at Branchville, held down to terra firma by the rocks + boulders 

+ the man well he is there too not half as black as he has been painted yet not 

exactly the kind I want. He has done all in his power since we came to do all he 

could, amiable respectful but lazy I do not think he will do much now that we 

are away but he did all he could while we were there so we are willing to forgive 

any little discrepancy that might occur while we are away however I will go up 

there once a month + have an eye on things.

Once again, Weir expressed frustration with his inability to depend on his hired help. 

When he wrote that the farmer was “not half as black as he has been painted,” he may have 

been suggesting that others exaggerated the worker’s dishonest or dishonorable traits. Or, 

he may have been referencing the farmer’s race, claiming that he was not as dark-skinned 

as suggested by others but still “not exactly the kind I want.” If so, Weir went on to deploy 

negative stereotypes of African American workers as “amiable, respectful, but lazy.” 

87 JAW to JFW, March 22, 1885, WEFA 197.

88 JAW to JFW, May 24, 1886, as transcribed in Wallace, “WEIRTENA,” for Phillips, “Historic Structures 

Report, Vol II-B: Caretaker’s House and Caretaker’s Garage”; JAW to EB, June 26, 1886, WEFA 192.

89 ABW to EB, August 6, 1886, WEFA 192.

90 JAW to JFW, July 1888, WEFA 197.

91 JAW to JFW, April 18, 1889, WEFA 197.
22

Creating a New England Farm

Although the connotation in the letter is not entirely clear, Weir did hire Black workers on 

other occasions, and for him to comment negatively on a worker based on their race would 

fit broader evidence of his racial and ethnic prejudice.92 Regardless, Weir described a 

laborer that “did all he could while we were there,” but slacked on the work when unsupervised, prompting Weir to plan on returning to Branchville periodically to oversee his work.

By June 1891, Weir dismissed another gardener named John and claimed to have 

hired another man who was “doing well.” In a letter to his sister-in-law, Weir asserted that 

“I find it is important to make a change as they become slack in the work.”93 By August he 

reported that “Nermeyer is settled here with his wife and is hard at work he seems to like 

this summer’s work pretty well.”94 By September, however, Paul Remy replaced Nermeyer 

as Weir’s tenant farmer. Remy, along with his wife Johanna, two sons, and eventually a 

daughter, would become the first long-term tenant family employed by Weir. The next 

chapter will focus on the Remy family and examine the intricacies of agricultural labor on 

Weir’s farm.

Weir’s struggle to keep tenant farmers reveals both the challenges of finding agricultural help in late 19th century New England as well as Weir’s own management style that 

emphasized frequent supervision, impatience with unmet expectations, and recurring 

ethnic and racial prejudice. Weir’s identity as an upper-class white man not only set the 

conditions for him to purchase and improve the property, but also informed his interactions with the people he paid to work the land. Whether hiring tenants or tradespeople, 

Weir positioned himself as manager and supervisor, considering it to be the labor required 

of him as property owner and “farmer.” The tradespeople he needed for construction 

projects were usually local craftsmen who could negotiate standard wages for their temporary jobs. Agricultural workers, on the other hand, were expected to live and work on the 

premises long-term, and Weir found few men or families that were able or willing to fulfill 

those expectations. Nevertheless, all of the short-term workers who labored on Weir’s farm 

impacted the evolution of the property. Weir could not realize his vision of an artistic and 

family retreat and working settler farm without them. 

92 Bill DeForest discusses a Black worker in Weir’s employ in Bill and Myrtle DeForest, interview with Doug 

DeNatale, August 7, 1989, Branchville, CT, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions. In addition to examples of 

deploying ethnic stereotypes and emphasizing ethnic difference as documented in this chapter, Weir wrote to his 

daughter, Caro, from the Bahamas describing how he “never saw so many fine darkies they are so different from 

the make believe ones at the north. You get to be very fond of them as they are very modest and gentle.” JAW to 

CAW, February 1, 1888, WEFA 193.

93 JAW to EB, June 8, 1891, WEFA 192. 

94 JAW to JFW, August 23, 1891, WEFA 197.
23

C H A P T E R T W O 

The Remy Family and Agricultural 

Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

The high turnover of tenant farmers at the Branchville farm ended in 1891 when 

Julian Weir hired Paul Remy.1

 Along with his wife, Johanna, and three children, 

William, Carl, and Louise, Paul Remy would live and work at Weir’s farm for at 

least 13 years. The Remy family served as the longest-term tenant farmers and caretakers 

during Weir’s tenure. This chapter centers the lives of the Remy family, contextualizing 

their lives within broader immigration patterns to understand how they came to work for 

Weir. From there, the chapter will detail the agricultural and domestic labor undertaken by 

the Remys, while also considering the cross-class relationships between the Remy family 

and Julian Weir, his family, and visiting friends. Following the Remys after their time on 

Weir’s farm will reveal changing labor trends in New England and New York that would, in 

part, make it challenging for Weir to find a long-term replacement for the Remys. Finally, 

the chapter will conclude by tracking the succession of agricultural laborers at the 

Branchville farm through the first decades of the 20th century. Focusing on the lives of the 

Remys and the agricultural and domestic labor they undertook on the Branchville farm will 

highlight the humanity behind the labor that cultivated an aesthetically pleasing property 

in the eyes of Julian Weir.

The Remy Family before Weir Farm

In 1847, Paul Remy was born in Germany to Sebastian Remy and Maria Magdalena Von 

Baschung. He came into the world on the eve of a series of revolutions in 1848 and 1849 

that advocated for a unified German identity, liberal ideals, and better living conditions for 

1 The 1996 Cultural Landscape Report suggests that Paul Remy arrived earlier in 1889; however, the 1890 

Bridgeport City Directory lists Paul Remy as a gardener, and then in 1891 lists him as “removed to Branchville.” 

The year coincides with correspondence from JAW to EB, June 8, 1891, WEFA 192, and JAW to JFW, August 

1891, WEFA 197. The correspondence cited by the Cultural Landscape Report references a Black worker, not 

Paul Remy. Child Associates and Cynthia Zaitzevsky, “Cultural Landscape Report for Weir Farm National 

Historic Site,” Brookline, MA: Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, National Park Service, US 

Department of the Interior, 1996, 35; JAW to ABB, December 12, 1889, WEFA 198.
24

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

the working class.2 The revolutions were ultimately unsuccessful, and when Remy was 

around 17 years old, Otto Von Bismarck waged a series of wars to again attempt to unify 

Germany, this time under Prussian leadership.3

 Remy likely fought in one of these wars, 

having served in the German Infantry for three years and reaching the rank of corporal.4

By 1871, a newly unified Germany was suffering the pains of transitioning from an agrarian 

to industrial society, resulting in mass emigration out of Germany. Population growth, 

improved travel methods, and lack of economic opportunities for farmers and workers 

resulted in 5.5 million Germans immigrating to the United States between 1816 and 1914. 

In fact, Germans constituted the largest group of immigrants to the United States between 

1861 and 1890.5

 Remy joined the exodus around the age of 30, immigrating to the United 

States in 1877 from the region of Alsace, which at the time was part of unified Germany but 

would later return to French rule in the aftermath of World War I.

6

 Dorothy Weir Young 

later noted that Remy trained as a priest before he “ran away” to the United States.7

Nine years after arriving in the United States, Paul Remy married Johanna Bauer in 

Manhattan, New York City, on July 1, 1886. He was 40 and she was 24.8

 Bauer and her 

family were also part of mass German immigration to the United States in the late 19th 

century. Bauer was born in Hanover, Germany, in 1862 to William and Louise Bauer and 

immigrated with her family in 1872 at the age of 10. She lived on Chrystie Street in the 

2 Paul Remy and Johanna Bauer Marriage License, July 1, 1886, Manhattan, New York, New York, United 

States, New York City Municipal Archives, New York; FHL microfilm 1,671,683. Paul Remy’s birth date is 

confirmed by: 1920 United States Census, Fairfield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: T625_177; Page: 24B; 

Enumeration District: 495; 1930 United States Census, Manhattan, New York, New York; Page: 9A; Enumeration 

District: 0495; FHL microfilm: 2341295; Connecticut Military Census of 1917. Hartford, Connecticut: 

Connecticut State Library.

3 Martin Kitchen, A History of Modern Germany: 1800 to the Present (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2011), 

66–113.

4 Military Census of 1917, Hartford, Connecticut: Connecticut State Library.

5 Klaus J. Bade, “From Emigration to Immigration: The German Experience in the Nineteenth and Twentieth 

Centuries,” Central European History (Brill Academic Publishers) 28 (4) 1995: 511–13.

6 Kitchen, A History of Modern Germany: 1800 to the Present, 198. Dorothy Weir Young refers to Remy as 

Alsatian in The Life and Letters of J. Alden Weir (Yale University Press, 1960), 173. All of Paul Remy’s federal 

records list his birthplace as Germany. In the 1920 Federal Census, Carl Remy reports his father’s birthplace as 

France, which reflects the area’s changing borders after World War I. 1920 United States Census, Manhattan 

Assembly District 11, New York, New York; Roll: T625_1204, Page: 1A, Enumeration District: 814. Although 

Alsace is a borderland area home to people of both French and German identities, Remy’s ethnicity and identity 

was likely German, not French. In census records he always listed his and his parents’ birthplace as Germany, he 

fought in the German army, and he married a German woman. Furthermore, John Weir characterized Remy’s 

speech patterns as German by substituting the “W” in “Weir” to a “V” in JFW to JAW, September 26, 1891, 

WEFA 190.

7 Dorothy Weir Young’s notes on the back of her father’s portrait of Paul Remy. Weir Farm National Historical 

Park Archives, Scrapbooks, Blue, 3A, 249B.

8 Paul Remy and Johanna Bauer Marriage License, July 1, 1886, Manhattan, New York, New York, United 

States, New York City Municipal Archives, New York; FHL microfilm 1,671,683; Confirmed by Index to New 

York City Marriages, 1866–1937, prepared by the Italian Genealogical Group and the German Genealogy Group, 

and used with permission of the New York City Department of Records/Municipal Archives. In general, some 

records list Johanna as “Johana” or “Johannah.”
25

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

Lower East Side with her father, mother, grandmother, and two younger brothers.9 They 

resided in the heart of the Lower East Side, a dense neighborhood home to many German 

immigrants in the 1870s and 1880s who often lived in overcrowded apartments known as 

tenements.10 As a saloonkeeper, Bauer’s father managed an important social gathering 

place for the growing German community in New York.11

After their wedding, Paul and Johanna Remy lived in Westport, Connecticut, about 

50 miles up the Atlantic coast from Manhattan. There, Johanna gave birth to the couple’s 

first son, William, on July 17, 1887.12 At the time, Westport was enjoying the final years of a 

booming onion farming industry, which employed Irish and German immigrants like Paul 

Remy.13 Two years later the family lived in nearby Bridgeport, Connecticut, where they 

welcomed their second son, Carl, on November 18, 1889.14 Unlike Westport but similar to 

many other cities in New England, Bridgeport was being transformed by industrialization, 

with the explosion of new factories producing mass commodities like lamps, guns, brass, 

sewing machines, and corsets.15 Despite the availability of industrial jobs, Remy listed his 

occupation as “gardener” in the 1890 city directory.16

Historical records contain little information about Paul Remy’s labor before 1890. 

He may have gained agricultural experience as a young man in Germany, during his time 

as a bachelor in the United States, or as a possible worker in the onion industry in 

Westport. Regardless, by the time Julian Weir hired him in the summer of 1891 at the age 

of 44, Remy brought a strong set of agricultural skills to work the farm at Branchville. Weir 

had recently dismissed a gardener named John who had “become slack in the work.” 

9 1880 United States Census, New York City, New York, Roll: 878; Page: 161D, Enumeration District: 248.

10 1880 United States Census, New York City, New York, Roll: 878; Page: 161D, Enumeration District: 248; 

Kenneth T. Jackson, The Encyclopedia of New York City (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995).

11 Kathleen Neils Conzen, “The Germans,” Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups (Cambridge, 

MA: Belknap Press, 1980), 417; Jackson, The Encyclopedia of New York City, 97. 

12 William Remy, Connecticut, New Haven, Roll: 1562003; Draft Board 5, United States, Selective Service 

System, World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, 1917–1918, Washington, DC, National 

Archives and Records Administration, M1509, 4582 rolls.

13 Gregg Mangan, “The Many Layers to Onion Farming in Westport,” ConnecticutHistory.org, August 4, 2019, 

https://connecticuthistory.org/the-many-layers-to-onion-farming-in-westport; Diana Ross McCain, Connecticut 

Coast: A Town-By-Town Illustrated History (Guilford, CT: Globe Pequot, 2009), 41–49.

14 Carl L. Remy, Connecticut, Fairfield, Roll: 1570492, Draft Board 13, United States, Selective Service System, 

World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, 1917–1918, Washington, DC, National Archives 

and Records Administration, M1509, 4582 rolls.

15 McCain, Connecticut Coast: A Town-by-Town Illustrated History, 70–81. See also David A Hounshell, From 

the American System to Mass Production, 1800–1932: The Development of Manufacturing Technology in the 

United States (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984); New Haven Preservation Trust, Carriages and 

Clocks, Corsets and Locks: The Rise and Fall of an Industrial City-New Haven (Hanover, NH: University Press 

of New England, 2004); Peter Temin, Engines of Enterprise: An Economic History of New England (Cambridge: 

Harvard University Press, 2002); Francois Weil, “Capitalism and Industrialization in New England, 1815–1845,” 

The Journal of American History 84, no. 4 (1998): 1334–54.

16 Bridgeport, CT, 1890 (Bridgeport, CT: Price, Lee & Co., 1890).
26

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

Upon hiring Remy, Weir happily reported in letters to family members that “I have 

another man who is doing well” and “we have good hands on the farm and so we have 

peace.”17 Remy would end up living in the caretaker’s house at Branchville for at least 13 

years with his wife and children. Paul became naturalized as an American citizen in 1892, 

and in 1899 he and Johanna welcomed their third and final child: a daughter, Louise.18

The rhythms and demands of farm life defined the Remys’ time working for Weir; they 

managed animals, fields, gardens, orchards, firewood, ice, and maintenance projects all 

while providing for their own growing family.

The Remys’ Agricultural Labor on Weir Farm

Previous studies on agricultural practices at Weir Farm rely heavily on correspondence by 

Julian Weir, his brother John Ferguson Weir, and other friends and family that reference 

the Branchville site.19 Additionally, a particularly useful manuscript by historian Jack 

Larkin creatively analyzes inventories of farm implements alongside 19th century sources 

on farm life such as reports from the Connecticut Board of Agriculture.20 However, none of 

these primary sources are written or assessed from the perspective of the primary person 

engaged in agricultural labor on the Branchville farm under Weir: Paul Remy. Although 

Remy and Weir presumably corresponded frequently about farming, only one letter written by Remy survives from October 5, 1892.21 Remy sent the letter from Branchville to Weir 

in Chicago, where he was painting a mural at the Manufacturers and Liberal Arts Building 

for the 1893 World’s Fair. The letter provides an excellent snapshot into the life of Remy 

and his family, outlining their primary agricultural tasks. Centering Remy’s perspective and 

connecting his report to other known information about farming practices on Weir’s Farm 

and in New England will provide a greater understanding of the Remy family’s daily, 

17 JAW to EB, June 8, 1891, WEFA 192; JAW to JFW, August 1891, WEFA 197.

18 Paul Remy Naturalization Record, National Archives at Boston, Waltham, Massachusetts, Naturalization 

Record Books, 12/1893–9/1906, NAI Number 2838938, Records of District Courts of the United States, 

1685–2009, Record Group RG 21; Certificate and Record of Birth of Louise Remy, No. 24000, June 20, 1899, 

New York City Department of Records & Information Services, New York City, New York.

19 See Child Associates and Cynthia Zaitzevsky, “Cultural Landscape Report for Weir Farm National Historic 

Site,” Brookline, MA: Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, National Park Service, US Department of the 

Interior, 1996; Deborah S. Gardner and Christine G. McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat: J. Alden Weir’s Farm in 

Connecticut,” Weir Farm National Historic Site Historic Resource Study, National Park Service, US Department 

of the Interior, 2009; Lance Kasparian and Maureen K. Phillips, “Historic Structures Report, Vol II-B: 

Caretaker’s House and Caretaker’s Garage,” National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, 2008.

20 Jack Larkin, “The Weir Farm: Working Agriculture and the Vision of Rural Life in New England 1860–1940,” 

An essay prepared as the agricultural history component of the Cultural Landscape Report for the Weir Farm 

National Historic Site. Draft, 1996.

21 Paul Remy to JAW, October 5, 1892, WEFA 190.
27

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

seasonal, and yearly work. Additionally, detailing Remy’s responsibilities around the farm 

offers a template for understanding the labor of subsequent tenant farmers, as well as a 

sense of the standard of work that Weir expected of the gardeners and farmers he hired.

The letter began by explaining that Remy did not write sooner because he was busy 

working and knew that Weir was receiving updates from his brother, John Ferguson Weir, 

who had recently stayed at the property with his family.22 Then, Remy started discussing 

farm business by first confirming the status of animals at Branchville: “The stock horses, 

cows, calves, pigs, oxen, chicken, dogs and cats are all well and I did not sell any yet.”23

Managing livestock constituted a significant portion of Remy’s work, with each animal 

serving a unique function and requiring a distinct routine of care. For example, Remy first 

mentioned the stock horses, important animals required to drive both farming implements 

and carriages.24 The horses lived in the stalls of the U-shaped barn across the road from the 

caretaker’s house, where Remy would provide clean bedding, feed them a bushel of oats 

per day, and let them out to exercise (see Figure 4).25 Several photographs in Weir family 

albums show Remy’s sons Carl and Willie with the horses, suggesting that they also took 

care of the animals (see Figures 5 and 6). When necessary, Remy took the horses to the 

blacksmith.26 In addition to using them to drive farm implements, Remy would harness 

horses to carriages for the Weir family and visiting friends to use for transportation.27 The 

carriages may have been kept in a carriage house next to the caretaker’s house.28 When the 

Weirs took the train from New York to the nearby Branchville station, Remy frequently met 

them there with horse and carriage to transport them home.29

The barn also housed cattle: cows, calves, and oxen, according to Remy’s letter.30

Remy used oxen primarily as beasts of burden to pull plows, carts, and other farm equipment. 

Jack Larkin notes that using oxen in the late 19th century was a “remarkably traditionalist, 

22 Confirmed in correspondence from JFW to JAW, September 12, 1892, WEFA 190.

23 Paul Remy to JAW, October 5, 1892, WEFA 190.

24 Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 24, 41.

25 “Paul says he never saw the horses in finer condition. Fact is Paul has been feeding them a bushel of oats a 

week at my charge to keep them so.” JFW to JAW, September 26, 1891, WEFA 190. Maureen K. Phillips, “Weir 

Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. II- A: Outbuildings,” Weir Farm National Historic Site, Wilton, CT [draft]. 

Lowell, MA: US Department of the Interior, NPS, Northeast Cultural Resources Center, Building Conservation 

Branch, 1998.

26 JFW to JAW, August/September 1892, WEFA 190.

27 JFW to JAW, August 21, 1892, WEFA 190. See also Ella Baker Weir diary, ca. 1894, WEFA 2518; JAW to 

Dorothy and Cora Weir, October 11, 1898; JAW to Dorothy and Cora Weir, September 29, 1902.

28 Lance Kasparian and Maureen K. Phillips, “Historic Structures Report, Vol II-B: Caretaker’s House and 

Caretaker’s Garage,” National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, 2008, 5.

29 Ella Baker Weir Diary, ca. 1894, WEFA 2518; JAW to DW and CW, October 11, 1898, WEFA 195; JAW to 

DW and CW, September 29, 1902 WEFA.

30 Paul Remy to JAW, October 5, 1892, WEFA 190.
28

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

even romantic farm practice, continuing thirty years after the Federal Agricultural Census had 

ceased even recording oxen on farms.”31 While reliance on oxen aligned with Weir’s pastoral 

vision of the Branchville farm, it precluded Remy from utilizing modern machinery that 

would have made his work less physically arduous. As with the horses, Remy needed to 

keep the oxen, cows, and calves fed and well-bedded. According to Weir’s paintings, Remy 

also routinely let the cattle out to graze and later drove them home (see Figure 8).32

Johanna Remy most likely managed the cows’ dairy production. Gendered division 

of labor on New England farms in the 19th century usually resulted in women milking 

cows, skimming the milk, churning the cream, working, and preserving the butter.33

Churning in particular proved to be repetitive and laborious work.34 Though the cows 

resided in the barn, Larkin suggests that dairying processes may have taken place in a 

lean-to or shed adjacent to the caretaker’s house.35 The layout would have helped Johanna 

Remy more efficiently tend to her dairy work in close proximity to her already-sizable 

domestic labor. The resulting milk and butter would be consumed by both the Remy and 

Weir families, with the refuse fed to the pigs. 

Meanwhile, calves could have been raised into new dairy cows or sold at market. 

Paul Remy mentioned in his 1892 letter that he had not sold any animals yet, adding that he 

would wait for Weir to return before selling.36 Though some excess livestock and crops 

were sold at a profit, the Branchville farm did not primarily exist to maximize income. 

Rather, the Remys worked to keep the farm functional and well-tended to provide food for 

themselves, the Weirs, and their guests.

To that end, the Remys raised the pigs and chickens mentioned in Paul’s letter for 

food. The Remys kept the pigs in a pen behind the barn, feeding them dairy refuse in 

anticipation of their eventual slaughter.37 Johanna likely fed both the pigs and poultry daily 

31 Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 22. He goes on to say, “Weir’s faming was far from the practice of the great 

majority of his ‘gentleman farmer’ contemporaries, who normally wanted only the most ‘progressive’ equipment 

and stock.”

32 See also Cattle Grazing in Summer Field.

33 Linda J. Borish, ‘Another Domestic Beast of Burden’: New England Farm Women’s Work and Well-Being in 

the 19th Century” Journal of American Culture 18 (3) 1995: 96–97; Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 41. Contracts 

between JAW and tenant farmers in the 1910s confirm that dairying fell under the purview of tenant farmers. 

Julian Alden Weir Legal and Financial Records, 1887–1919, WEFA 190, Box 7, Folder 3. Additionally, the wife 

of one of JAW’s tenant farmers in 1885 charged him “$40 for washing + milking + making butter”; he then hired 

a new farmer for $20 whose wife would help with the butter and the washing. JAW to JFW, March 22, 1885, 

WEFA 197.

34 Borish, “Another Domestic Beast of Burden,” 96–97.

35 Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 32. Before 1883, the caretaker’s house had a lean-to that was removed at some 

point during the Weir era. By the time the Bass family occupied the premises in the 1930s, a multipurpose shed 

sat directly adjacent to the home for dairying (see Figures 1 and 41). See Kasparian and Phillips, “Historic 

Structures Report, Vol II-B: Caretaker’s House and Caretaker’s Garage.” 

36 Paul Remy to JAW, October 5, 1892, WEFA 190.

37 Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 33; Phillips, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. II- A: Outbuildings,” 3.
29

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

(see Figure 9).38 While laying hens produced eggs for consumption, other chickens could 

also be butchered for the dinner table. A chicken coop sat behind Weir’s studio, and Ella 

Weir reported around 1894 that “Paul has built a fine chicken yard and rabbit pen north of 

the studio, where the animals have abundant room and look as comfortable and happy as 

possible.”39 Clearly by this time, rabbits had joined the catalog of animals at Branchville. 

Other years, turkeys and ducks also joined the retinue.40 The remaining animals that Remy 

mentioned in his letter—dogs and cats—worked on the farm killing mice and rats and were 

also valued as pets.

Caring for the livestock of Weir Farm required a significant amount of feed, which 

included small grains like rye, oats, and buckwheat. Immediately after discussing the 

animals, Remy wrote that “the rye field is plowed thank God, that was the meanest job of 

plowing I ever shackled. I am going to sow the rye tomorrow or Friday.”41 To plow the fields 

before sowing, Remy hitched the oxen to a hand plow and broke up the dirt, often removing the stones that emerged from the rocky New England soil (see Figure 10).42 Remy 

plowed many fields this way during his time at Branchville, beginning in the fall of 1892 

when he plowed a field overgrown with sumac accompanied by his two-year-old son 

William.43 Each time, the endeavor demanded hard physical labor.

After plowing, harrowing took place with horses or oxen dragging implements 

with spikes or discs to further break up the soil. After Remy planted the seeds, another 

round of harrowing took place to cover the seeds with soil.44 Winter rye was planted in the 

fall and then harvested around May or June the following year. Oats and buckwheat, on 

the other hand, followed a schedule of manuring and planting in the spring and harvesting 

in the early fall.45 Harvesting small grains on Weir Farm likely involved cutting crops by 

hand with a cradle scythe (see Figure 11).46 Using a handheld scythe represented a distinctly old-fashioned farming technique during a time when horse-drawn reapers were 

38 Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 41. Weir also depicts a woman feeding chickens in Connecticut Farm (1886), 

though the painting predates the Remys’ time in Branchville.

39 Ella Baker Weir diary, ca. 1894; Phillips, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. II- A: Outbuildings,” 

179.

40 Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 29, 36.

41 Paul Remy to JAW, October 5, 1892, WEFA 190.

42 Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 22–23. See Ploughing for Buckwheat for a depiction of plowing with oxen, possibly 

featuring Paul Remy and one of his children.

43 JFW to JAW, September 26, 1891, WEFA 190. 

44 For a more thorough description of harrowing, see Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 23.

45 Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 20, 28–29.

46 Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 28–29 hypothesizes the use of a cradle scythe; Weir’s painting, Connecticut 

Grainfield, depicts the use of a cradle scythe.
30

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

revolutionizing grain harvesting.47 Similarly, without access to a threshing machine on 

Weir’s farm, Remy separated the seeds from the stalk by hitting a pile of grain with a 

wooden flail on the barn’s threshing floor and then running it through a winnowing 

machine.48 The grain could then be used for livestock feed, with the husks and stalks 

becoming straw for bedding. From oxen-drawn implements to the use of scythes, flails, 

and winnowing machines, cultivating grain for feed on Weir’s farm demanded more 

physical labor from Remy than might have been required on more modern, progressive 

farms nearby. 

In addition to planting rye in the early fall, Remy also grew and cut hay for livestock 

feed. In his 1892 letter, Remy wrote: “The grass in the other field has taken in places and in 

others it looks like only clover had taken, we cannot tell much about yet. The millet will be 

fit to cut in another week or so in places it is very nice over 2 feet high and in others only 6 

inches. The clover also in the new field where the oats have been is in places very tall about 

2 feet and I think when I mow the millet I will cut that clover also where it is high.”49

Hay was one of the most important crops for New England farms in the late 19th 

century, and included the grass, millet, and clover that Remy mentioned.50 Remy aimed to 

produce enough hay to feed livestock through the winter and avoid purchasing extra hay 

from others.51 Spring planting followed a similar pattern as small grains: manuring, plowing, harrowing, seeding, and harrowing. Grass and grains could be planted in the same 

field; the grains would start growing earlier as a cover crop and after harvest the grass 

would grow. This may be what Remy meant when he reported cutting clover “in the new 

field where the oats have been.” Whether utilizing cover crops or not, Remy likely cut hay 

at least twice in the late summer and early fall with a third cutting as late as October, as 

indicated by the 1892 letter. If haying followed the traditional farming methods that dominated the rest of Weir’s farm, then Remy cut the hay with a handheld scythe, raked up the 

dry hay with a horse-drawn implement, pitched it into a cart or wagon, and stored it in the 

hayloft in the barn or in a haystack.52

47 David A Hounshell, From the American System to Mass Production, 1800–1932: The Development of 

Manufacturing Technology in the United States (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984); Larkin, 28; 

Charles Post, “The ‘Agricultural Revolution’ in the United States: The Development of Capitalism and the 

Adoption of the Reaper in the Antebellum U. S. North,” Science & Society 61, no. 2 (1997): 216–28.

48 Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 29.

49 Paul Remy to JAW, October 5, 1892, WEFA 190.

50 Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 24.

51 JFW stated that Paul “says he won’t have to buy hay next winter.” JFW to JAW, July 26, 1904, WEFA 190.

52 Larkin calls the horse rake the “one concession to modern farming.” Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 24–26. See 

also Figure 1.8 in Kasparian and Phillips, “Historic Structures Report, Vol II-B: Caretaker’s House and 

Caretaker’s Garage,” 31.
31

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

Remy went on in his 1892 letter to discuss his plans to harvest potatoes, which were 

likely in their own field and followed the familiar yearly rhythm of planting in the spring 

and harvesting in the fall.53 Whereas Remy grew grains and grasses primarily for animal 

feed, potatoes could be consumed by either pigs or humans.54 Remy then detailed garden 

crops by reporting a “nice lot of” onions that he brought in and how a recent frost 

“scorch[ed] the tops of the lima beans.”55 He later mentioned that Johanna prepared 10 

cans of tomatoes. Garden crops over the years also included peas, radishes, asparagus, 

lettuce, summer squash, cucumbers, sweet corn, and beets. After plowing and planting in 

the spring, the garden required constant manuring and weeding through the spring and 

summer, and often yielded a varied and robust set of crops that could feed the Remy family, 

the Weir family, and also possibly sell or trade.56 Managing the garden crops was a family 

affair for the Remys; in addition to Paul’s documented harvesting and Johanna’s canning 

(and likely additional gardening), in later years the eldest son William would take the lead 

on the garden to great success.57

The substantial garden likely sat in one fixed location close to the farmstead. Then, 

about 10 acres of oats, small grains, and potatoes were located nearby, followed by about 20 

acres of hay fields. Larkin notes that “precise field uses would change significantly every 

year,” meaning that “no crop would find a permanent location” due to crop rotation 

practices.58 Permanent pastures were located further away behind the hay fields before 

turning into woodland. Most of the land was already cleared for farming before Weir 

purchased the property, but Paul Remy and John Ferguson Weir did work on clearing a 

recently purchased “$25 lot” in the fall of 1899.59 

Remy did not mention corn in his letter, although evidence suggests that it was an 

important crop grown at Branchville for livestock feed.60 (Perhaps the corn harvest had 

been completed by October in 1892.) After planting the corn by hand in widely separated 

rows, Remy would have used a one-horse cultivator to remove weeds and hill up the 

growing stalks. The fields required intensive weeding through the summer until the ears 

were cut from the stalks in the fall and brought back to the barn in wagons. The corn then 

53 Paul Remy to JAW, October 5, 1892, WEFA 190; Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 40.

54 Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 33.

55 Paul Remy to JAW, October 5, 1892, WEFA 190.

56 Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 43–44. When visiting Branchville in 1897, Albert Pinkham Ryder wrote that he 

enjoyed observing the Remys’ “busy planning of the garden which comes on apace.” Young, Life and Letters, 

188.

57 JFW to JAW, August 11, 1904, WEFA 190.

58 Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 43.

59 JFW to JAW, September 11, 1899, WEFA 190; JFW to JAW, September 15, 1899, WEFA 190.

60 Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 26–28.
32

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

needed to dry out, either before or after the husks were removed by hand.61 In September 

1899, the barn became too hot and risked spoiling the corn, so Paul, William, Carl, and 

John Ferguson Weir spent three hours removing all of the corn into the field.62 Shortly 

thereafter, a corn crib was built—possibly by Remy—to the north of the ice house to 

prevent a similar crisis.63

Clearly, maintaining the livestock and crops constituted the core parts of Paul 

Remy’s job, with frequent contributions from Johanna and their sons. Aside from daily 

routines of dairying, feeding and otherwise caring for animals, the Remys followed a seasonal rhythm of manuring, plowing, planting, and weeding in the spring and early summer 

to harvesting, haying, and plowing again through the late summer and fall. The Remys also 

harvested apples from the Weir orchard in the fall, brought them to a local cider mill, and 

then stored barrels in the cellar to ferment.64 Photographic evidence suggests that Paul Remy 

and his sons participated in honey harvests on the property, too (see Figure 12). Seasonal 

labor included chopping a steady supply of wood to keep inhabited buildings warm in the 

cooler months.65 Remy mentioned in his letter that “I must get some wood as it is all gone.”66

Similarly, in the winter he cut ice and stored it in the icehouse (see Figure 13).67

Remy likely used time in the late fall and early spring to repair fences and work on 

other small construction projects.68 Dorothy Weir Young later wrote that Remy helped 

Julian Weir build a portable studio called the “palace car” that could be pulled by oxen 

around the property.69 Remy may have also been responsible for building the corn crib and 

for replacing the farm’s picket fence with a distinctive rustic fence.70 Whereas Weir hired 

craftsmen to work on the main residence, caretaker’s house, and studio, construction 

related to the farm and its outbuildings seemed to fall under the farmer’s purview. On the 

final page of his 1892 letter, Remy wrote that “Phillippe has not show up yet nor did I hear 

from him, so I think when you come back we see that I can fix things myself before the 

61 Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 26–28.

62 JFW to JAW, September 11, 1899, WEFA 190.

63 Phillips, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. II- A: Outbuildings,” xxxiv, 163.

64 Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 49–50.

65 Borish, “Another Domestic Beast of Burden,” 89; Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 50.

66 Paul Remy to JAW, October 5, 1892, WEFA 190.

67 JFW to JAW, September 26, 1891, WEFA 190; Phillips, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. II-A: 

Outbuildings,” 125–26.

68 Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 17.

69 Dorothy Weir Young, The Life and Letters of J. Alden Weir, 173. However, JAW wrote to EB that he was 

using the mobile studio as early as November 1890, before Paul’s arrival. See JAW to EB, November 24, 1890, 

WEFA 192.

70 Phillips dates the construction of the fence around 1890–1900, which largely took place during Remy’s tenure. 

“Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. II- A: Outbuildings,” 107.
33

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

winter sets in.”71 Remy clearly intended to wrap up outstanding tasks himself, despite the 

absence of another worker meant to assist him.72 No other correspondence during the 

Remy era ever mentioned additional farm hands hired specifically to help at Branchville, 

suggesting that the Remys completed most—if not all—of the agricultural labor on Weir’s 

Farm. Occasionally, Remy may have even traveled to Windham to assist with work there.73

At the end of the letter, Remy noted that John Ferguson Weir paid his wages 

through October 5th. In a letter sent to Julian Weir four days later, John confirmed that he 

paid Remy for August and September and through October 6th, “so that for this month you 

will owe him $25.”74 The letters suggest that Julian Weir paid Remy a competitive monthly 

income of about 30 dollars, in addition to the use of the caretaker’s house and a portion of 

the dairy and produce. Just seven years earlier, Weir paid a former tenant 20 dollars per 

month for a similar arrangement, which reflected the average earnings of local farm laborers in the county.75 Remy’s increased income assumed or erased Johanna’s significant 

agricultural labor while reflecting Paul’s strong agricultural skillset and his good relationship with Julian Weir. Remy reaffirmed this relationship in the conclusion of his letter by 

wishing Weir good luck with his work and sending best regards from Johanna, William, 

and Carl. Though seemingly positive, the 13-year relationship between the Remys and their 

employers contained nuanced dynamics that demand further consideration. 

Cross-Class Relationships at Weir Farm

For a good portion of the year, the Remys did not see their employer while his family lived 

in New York City or visited the family home in Windham, Connecticut.76 The Weir family 

most frequently visited in the summer and early fall and occasionally in the winter. Though 

Julian Weir embraced the role of gentleman farmer by nature of his ownership and management of Branchville, Paul Remy clearly conducted the daily labor and practical management of the property. All accounts point to Weir trusting Remy and appreciating his hard 

work ethic. In correspondence, Weir almost always referred to Remy by his first name 

71 Paul Remy to JAW, October 5, 1892, WEFA 190.

72 “Phillipe” was likely a reference to Philip Vogelgasang, who worked for the Weirs in New York City. He is 

also referenced in: JAW to EBW, December 1, [no year listed], WEFA 192; JAW to EB August 5, 1892, WEFA 

192; JAW to EB, August 28, 1893, WEFA 192. 

73 JAW to EBW, November 7, 1902, WEFA 192; Ella Baker Weir Diary, WEFA 499.

74 JFW to JAW, October 9, 1892, WEFA 190.

75 Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 37; JAW to JFW, March 22, 1885, WEFA 197. Contracts from the 1910s confirm 

that Weir’s tenant farmers usually received a portion of produce and dairy, in addition to the use of the caretaker’s 

house. See Julian Alden Weir Legal and Financial Records, 1887–1919, WEFA 190, Box 7, Folder 3.

76 Deborah S. Gardner and Christine G. McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat: J. Alden Weir’s Farm in Connecticut,” 

Weir Farm National Historic Site Historic Resource Study, National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, 

2009, 66, 85; Jack Larkin, “The Weir Farm: Working Agriculture and the Vision of Rural Life in New England 

1860–1940,” An essay prepared as the agricultural history component of the Cultural Landscape Report for the 

Weir Farm National Historic Site. Draft, 1996, 17.
34

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

rather than by the ethnic and racial signifiers that he so often used for previous employees.77

He trusted Remy in business matters, relying on him to submit his taxes one year, and in 

1895 Remy’s signature appeared next to Weir’s on a bill of sale for 10 acres of land.78 Later 

that year, Weir expressed empathy when Remy fell ill with chest pain and a sore throat.79

Weir’s friends and family—many of whom spent time at Branchville as a private retreat—

praised Remy in correspondence, saying: “I think you have an excellent man. He seemed so 

interested in his work and so intelligent” and “it must be a pleasure to you to be at 

Branchville again with the worthy Paul!”80 Weir even painted a formal portrait of Paul Remy 

in which he depicts a dignified, aging man in his suit and tie, with gray hair, trimmed beard, 

and spectacles (see Figure 14). In contrast to the many times that Weir included Remy and 

other farm workers in his countryside landscapes, the portrait demonstrated how Weir 

perceived and represented Remy as a fully dimensional individual apart from his labor.

Julian Weir’s identity as a painter far outweighed his perceived role as “farmer,” and 

he valued his estate for its artistic inspiration as a pastoral landscape. One of Weir’s students emphasized that Weir “gave much thought, time, and energy” to the image of the 

farm for the purpose of his paintings, adding that “the things made by the faithful Paul 

found a place in [Weir’s] pictures: sapling fences, rustic arbors and bridges as well and hen 

runs, and informal gardens.”81 Weir clearly valued Remy for how his stewardship of the 

farm fulfilled Weir’s distinct vision. Members of the Remy family frequently appear in 

Weir’s landscape paintings with their labor—often using arduous, outdated farming methods—completing Weir’s nostalgic images of the Connecticut countryside (see Figures 8–11, 

13, 15).82 Weir’s insistence on creating an idyllic “traditional” farm in his paintings and in 

reality constituted a reaction against the industrialization and modern agriculture that was 

transforming New England, New York, and the entire United States in the late 19th century 

and early 20th centuries. While his resistance to modern agricultural methods created the 

landscapes that appealed to Weir’s artistic sensibilities, it most certainly resulted in more 

backbreaking labor for Paul Remy and his family.

77 See Chapter 1 references to the Dutchman and the Scotch, among others.

78 WEFA 1895. This land would include the site of Weir Pond.

79 JAW to EBW, August 14, 1895, WEFA 192.

80 Charles Weir to JAW, June 2, 1902; Percy Alden to JAW, August 21, 1902.

81 Child Associates and Cynthia Zaitzevsky, “Cultural Landscape Report for Weir Farm National Historic 

Site,” 58.

82 Midday Rest in New England clearly depicts Paul Remy and his son resting alongside oxen. Weir was not 

alone in this nostalgic depiction of the New England countryside; see discussion in Chapter 1 and “Hauling and 

Harrowing: Edward Volkert and the Connecticut Farm,” Florence Griswold Museum, https://

florencegriswoldmuseum.org/exhibitions/hauling-and-harrowing-edward-volkert-and-the-connecticut-farm.
35

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

There is no way to know exactly how Remy and his family viewed Weir’s romantic 

approach to agriculture. Perhaps traditional farming methods neatly fit the skillset and 

experience that the aging Remy brought to Branchville, or represented a better alternative 

than abandoning agricultural work altogether for an industrial job in Bridgeport. Paul and 

Johanna possibly valued a sense of stability and extra farm produce while raising their 

children. Or maybe Remy resented the lack of modernization and knew that he could not 

sustain the required level of labor forever. He may have been aware of agrarian activism in 

the late 19th century that embraced cooperation and modern farming practices, from the 

Grange movement with an active chapter in nearby Ridgefield to the sharecroppers and 

tenant farmers across the country joining the Knights of Labor or the Farmers’ Alliance.83

Whatever the Remys thought of Weir, their opinions did not reach the pages of existing 

correspondence.

Letters from John Ferguson Weir, however, reveal a good deal about the nuances of 

cross-class interactions on Weir’s farm. John spent a significant time at Branchville, often 

writing Julian with updates and advice, particularly in 1892 as Julian mourned the death of 

his wife and again in 1901 while the Weirs traveled Europe. The Weir brothers shared 

similar backgrounds as artists from the same family, so their views on class were likely 

somewhat similar. A close reading of an excerpt from one of John’s letters in 1891 reveals 

how class and ethnic biases shaped his perception of Paul and Johanna Remy:

This afternoon we all walked down to the field where Paul is plowing to watch 

him. Paul’s grin as he shied over the rocks with the plow was worth seeing. He 

says, “Py George Misser Vere, these roots is tough.”... Paul works faithfully, 

you have a good man in him, and he is very clever.... I think Paul wants to have 

my stay here profitable for you: he says “Py George Misser Vere a man can do 

more working with another man.”... He never forgets his place, however, and I 

have found no fault whatever throughout the whole time we have been here: 

and also his wife. You are lucky in having them here.84

In his report to Julian, John emphasized Remy’s ethnicity and difference by transcribing his 

German accent. The letter that Remy wrote himself the following year demonstrated a 

strong proficiency in the English language; nevertheless, John used the flourish to complete 

his picture of a jolly, ethnic worker who “works faithfully” with a “grin” and “never forgets 

his place.” John kept distance between his family and the Remys, observing Paul while he 

worked and applauding both Paul and Johanna for never crossing the line of familiarity. 

Remy commented on John’s observation of his labor, observing in return that Remy could 

get more done if John stopped looking and started helping. He delivered the feedback in 

83 Lawrence Goodwyn, Democratic Promise: The Populist Moment in America (New York: Oxford University 

Press, 1976); Charles Postel, The Populist Vision (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); George Lounsbury 

Rockwell, The History of Ridgefield, Connecticut (Ridgefield, CT: Privately printed by the author, 1927), 348.

84 JFW to JAW, September 26, 1891, WEFA 190.
36

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

such a way, however, that John interpreted him as “clever” and not insubordinate. In later 

letters, John consistently praised Remy’s industriousness while often noting their proper 

distance, insisting that John and his family “do not interfere with Paul’s work.”85 When 

John did infrequently assist Remy in agricultural labor—such as clearing the $25 lot or 

throwing corn out of a hot barn—he expressed pride in his physical exercise as an aberration from his normal leisurely time at Branchville.86

The class distance maintained by John Ferguson Weir mirrored the ways in which 

Julian Weir observed and painted Remy’s labor rather than consistently participate in 

grueling agricultural labor himself. When Julian was painting the mural for the 

Manufacturers and Liberal Arts Building at the Chicago World’s Fair, John even encouraged Julian to “shy over the rocks like Paul at his plow drawn by two mighty oxen, who 

upturn huge boulders in the furrows.”87 From John and Julian’s perspective, Paul Remy 

represented a model worker and his labor served as the subject of observation, part of the 

countryside landscape, and a metaphor for Julian Weir’s own artistic labor. 

While Paul Remy represented the most visible laborer in the fields, the other 

members of the Remy family also interacted with Weir’s family and guests but appear less 

frequently in the historical record.88 While convalescing at the Weir estate in the spring of 

1897, artist Albert Pinkham Ryder wrote to his friend Weir that “my little guide Carl Remy 

waits in the morning to see what I would do; and is altogether a sweet and aimable little lad 

and his brother also.”89 As children, the Remy brothers also crossed the road to play with 

Weir’s daughters who were roughly their same age.90 In 1898, Julian Weir wrote to eightyear-old Dorothy Weir that “Carl and Willie have each a tricycle and wanted you and Cora 

to see them.”91 After a visit to Branchville as a toddler, Dorothy enthusiastically “enumerated all the dogs and horses and then Paul, Mrs. ‘Amey,’ [Remy] ‘Carl and Willie.’”92 The 

Weir family photographs even include an image of Carl, Dorothy, and Cora on a porch 

together playing with animals. The girls wore white frilly dresses and styled hair while Carl 

sat barefoot in overalls and a straw hat (see Figure 16). While class did not prevent the 

85 JFW to JAW, August 21, 1892, WEFA 190; JFW to JAW, September 11, 1899, WEFA 190; JFW to JAW, 

October 8, 1903, WEFA 190; JFW to JAW, July 26, 1904, WEFA 190.

86 JFW to JAW, September 11, 1899, WEFA 190; JFW to JAW, September 15, 1899, WEFA 190.

87 JFW to JAW, September 21, 1892, WEFA 190. Weir’s mural depicted the “allegorical figures of Decorative 

Art, The Art of Painting, The Goldsmith’s Art, and the Art of Pottery,” according to Doreen Bolger Burke, J. 

Alden Weir: An American Impressionist (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1983), 200.

88 Previous reports suggested that Alsatian Boy could have been a Remy son, but the dates (1880–89) do not line 

up.

89 Young, Life and Letters, 188.

90 Both Carl and Willie were younger than CAW and older than DW.

91 JAW to DW and CW, October 11, 1898, WEFA 195.

92 EB to JAW, October 10, 1892, WEFA 190.
37

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

Remy and Weir children from playing together, their lives as young adults would diverge 

drastically. William and Carl attended the nearby public school on Old Branchville Road 

until eighth or ninth grade, when they likely left to help with farm work full-time.93

Meanwhile, the Weir girls attended the Brearley School for Girls in New York City and 

became educated ladies of leisure.94

At least a decade younger than her brothers, Louise Remy did not enjoy seasonal 

playmates on the Branchville farm. The Weirs never mentioned Louise in correspondence, 

but the Weir girls did take at least three photographs of the youngest Remy outdoors, 

suggesting at least some familiarity between the daughters of the two families (see Figure 

17).95 Meanwhile, the few references to Johanna Remy in the Weirs’ correspondence 

include Dorothy’s toddler mispronunciation of “Mrs. ‘Amey,’” and John Ferguson Weir’s 

approval of Paul Remy’s wife.96 Albert Ryder similarly relayed that “Mr. and Mrs. Remy are 

as kind as possible.”97 The Weir family photographs include an image of Johanna holding 

Cora Weir’s hand as a toddler, again implying some familiarity between Johanna and her 

landlord’s daughters, at least in the outdoor liminal space between the households 

(see Figure 18).

Aside from an infrequent presence in photographs, brief mentions in correspondence, and possibly an appearance in Feeding the Chickens (Figure 9), Johanna Remy’s 

agricultural and domestic labor remained largely invisible to the Weirs.98 Class barriers 

included a gendered dimension that meant the lives of Julian or John Weir rarely intersected with Remy’s, especially as much of her work took place in or near the caretaker’s 

house. Meanwhile, the women in Weir’s family relied on their own domestic servants and 

had little reason to interact with Remy in her home or their own. Despite silences in the 

Weir archive surrounding Johanna Remy, her domestic and agricultural labor proved 

critical to the Remys’ successful tenancy and merits additional interrogation.

93 Souvenir Student List for Branchville Schoolhouse, 1899–1900 school year, 1900, Private Collection; 1940 

United States Census, Meriden, New Haven, Connecticut, Roll: m-t0627–00517, Page: 4A, Enumeration District: 

5–104A; 1940 United States Census, New York, New York, Roll: m-t0627–02647, Page: 2A, Enumeration 

District: 31–982.

94 Deborah S. Gardner and Christine G. McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat: J. Alden Weir’s Farm in Connecticut,” 

144–45.

95 No previous NPS reports mention Louise Remy; however, her birth certificate is very clear that Louise was 

born to Paul and Johanna Remy who lived in Branchville, Connecticut. Certificate and Record of Birth of Louise 

Remy, No. 24000, June 20, 1899, New York City Department of Records & Information Services, New York 

City, New York. Furthermore, Carl Remy’s obituary states that he was survived by his brother, William, and 

sister, Louise. “Carl L. Remy” Obituary, Bennington Banner, May 3, 1972.

96 No Weir Family correspondence or previous NPS reports identify Johanna Remy’s first name.

97 Young, Life and Letters, 188.

98 Some sources suggest that Weir’s painting of An Alsatian Girl depict Johanna Remy, but the image does not 

resemble Johanna Remy as captured in photographs. 
38

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

Johanna Remy’s Domestic and Agricultural Labor

Like many farm women in the late 19th century, Johanna Remy engaged in a wide range of 

overlapping agricultural and domestic tasks.99 For the majority of her time at the 

Branchville farm, Remy raised, fed, and managed young children. Her two sons were two 

and four years old when they arrived at Branchville in 1891, and by the time they were over 

the age of 10, Remy began caring for a new infant: her daughter, Louise. The boys attended 

school and helped with more and more farm duties as they grew older. Julian Weir noted 

times when Paul Remy or one of their sons fell ill, which meant that Johanna would need to 

care for them while also taking on additional chores to keep the farm running.100 Even with 

a healthy family, Johanna Remy likely participated in plenty of farm work, including feeding pigs and poultry daily, working in the garden, processing produce, and managing the 

constant tasks of dairying. She probably helped with harvesting and haying duties during 

particularly busy seasons, as well.101 The 19th-century concept of separate spheres—in 

which women managed the household and men worked outside the home—rarely reflected 

farm women’s reality in which they took on the burden of the majority of domestic work 

plus a hefty share of agricultural labor.102

Johanna Remy’s domestic responsibilities also likely included managing and 

cleaning the caretaker’s house and washing laundry for her household. For laundry day 

each week, she would need to retrieve 20 to 25 pails of water from the well and pour them 

into a laundry tub or barrel. From there, according to historian Linda Borish, farm women 

like Remy would spend hours “rubbing, pounding and wringing garments expending 

enormous amounts of time and labor.”103 Then, after line-drying the laundry, Remy undertook ironing which involved repeatedly heating up a heavy handheld iron on the stove. 

99 Given the traditional labor and equipment on Weir’s farm, this report draws on histories of 19th century New 

England farm women, even though Johanna Remy worked on Weir Farm into the early 20th century. See Borish, 

“Another Domestic Beast of Burden,” 38–87; Joan M. Jensen, With These Hands: Women Working on the Land 

(Old Westbury, NY: The Feminist Press at CUNY, 1993); Nancy Grey Osterud, Bonds of Community: The Lives 

of Farm Women in Nineteenth-century New York (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991).

100 JAW to JFW, “I fear Paul’s boy has some sickness,” undated, WEFA 197; JAW to EBW, August 14, 1895, 

WEFA 192.

101 Borish, “Another Domestic Beast of Burden.”

102 For more on separate sphere ideology, see Linda K. Kerber, “Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Woman’s 

Place: The Rhetoric of Women’s History,” Journal of American History 75, no. 1 (1988): 9–39; Barbara Welter, 

“The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820–1860,” American Quarterly 18 (1966): 151–74. See also Grey Osterud, 

Bonds of Community and Putting the Barn Before the House: Women and Family Farming in Early TwentiethCentury New York (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2012).

103 Borish, “Another Domestic Beast of Burden,” 92.
39

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

Finally, Remy would likely undertake any necessary sewing or mending.104 If arrangements 

with previous tenant farmers are any indication, Remy may have also completed additional 

washing for the Weir family and their guests.105

Cooking and feeding herself and her family also proved to be arduous work. 

Because the caretaker’s house did not have its own cellar, Remy had to cross the road to 

access Weir’s cellar anytime she needed to retrieve stored produce.106 Cooking also 

required 6 to 10 pails of water, which again needed to be hauled from the closest well.107

Finally, stoves needed to be well stocked with firewood or coal before the actual cooking 

could begin.108 Keeping two working adults and three growing children fed required an 

unending repetition of this process.

Women’s constant, physically exhausting labor on farms in 19th-century New 

England—often with a child on their hip—led some to complain that they felt like another 

“beast of burden.”109 After all, women did not generally receive wages for their labor. As 

documented in Chapter 1, Julian Weir responded negatively when a previous tenant farmer’s wife submitted him with charges for her work.110 Weir likely appreciated Paul Remy as 

a tenant farmer precisely because Johanna’s unpaid labor was not brought to his attention. 

After all, according to John Ferguson Weir, the Remys knew their place. Julian Weir’s 

ignorance of Johanna Remy’s substantial labor would make it challenging for him to be 

satisfied with future tenant farmers. No one—or even two—tenant farmers would be able 

to uphold the same level of work of that the Remys accomplished as a family.

The Remys after Weir Farm

In 1904, John Ferguson Weir wrote to his brother praising William Remy’s work on the 

garden and grounds, suggesting that “Willie would eventually fill Paul’s place here, while 

Carl would grow into a similar office at Windham.”111 After all, at age 17 William was 

104 Borish, “Another Domestic Beast of Burden,” 96.

105 JAW to JFW, March 22, 1885, WEFA 197.

106 The lack of cellar at the caretaker’s house is documented in Lance Kasparian and Maureen K. Phillips, 

“Historic Structures Report, Vol II-B: Caretaker’s House and Caretaker’s Garage,” 5, 56. The cellar at the main 

house was expanded in 1900 into a full basement. Marie L. Carden and Richard C. Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic 

Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir Complex,” Weir Farm National Historic Site, Wilton, CT [draft], US 

Department of the Interior, NPS, Northeast Region, Northeast Cultural Resources Center, Building Conservation 

Branch, 1998.

107 The caretaker’s house did not have running water or electricity until the 1930s. In Lance Kasparian and 

Maureen K. Phillips, “Historic Structures Report, Vol II-B: Caretaker’s House and Caretaker’s Garage,” 5.

108 Borish, “Another Domestic Beast of Burden,” 90; Larkin, “The Weir Farm,” 50.

109 Borish, “Another Domestic Beast of Burden,” 83.

110 He was outraged by the woman’s “impudence.” JAW to JFW, March 22, 1885, WEFA 197.

111 JFW to JAW, August 11, 1904, WEFA 190.
40

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

almost grown while Paul Remy neared 60 years old. The Weirs seemed to hope the Remys 

could stay forever, but that would be the last mention of the family in existing correspondence. The Remys left Branchville sometime between the summer of 1904 and spring of 

1907.112 William and Carl Remy both ended up in New York City, where they likely found 

more economic opportunities than they could have expected as tenants for Weir. By 1910, 

William was working as a chauffeur for a private family, living in the same residence as his 

future wife, Mary O’Boyle, who worked as a servant.113 They married two years later and by 

1920 lived in Meriden, Connecticut, where they raised their three children.114 Carl also 

worked as a chauffeur for many years in New York City, marrying Emily Rubsan in 1910. 

He later found work as a mechanic for the Packard Automobile Company on Long Island.115

In 1916, Louise Remy married Harry Naylor of Bridgeport and moved to New York City, 

where he worked in a factory and she raised two daughters.116 Harry died in 1925 and 

Louise worked factory jobs to support her family until marrying Joseph Herold in 1934.117

Meanwhile, Paul and Johanna Remy spent most of their remaining years after 

Branchville in the Fairfield and Westport areas, where Paul took on odd jobs including 

gardener, running an elevator at a factory, janitor, laborer, and carpenter.118 The lack of 

stable employment and Remy’s eventual transition from agricultural labor to more industrial work reflected the region’s continued urbanization and industrialization. Immigration 

112 By May 24, 1907, JAW wrote to C.E.S. Wood that he was having “much trouble getting a man for 

Branchville.” C.E.S. Wood Papers, Collection of The Huntington Library, San Marino, California.

113 1910 United States Census, Islip, Suffolk, New York, Roll T624_1082, Page 3B, Enumeration District 1369. 

The census lists Remy as a servant with the occupation of chauffeur and Mary O’Boyle as a boarder with the 

occupation of waitress.

114 William Remy Marriage Record, Connecticut State Department of Health; Hartford, CT; Connecticut Vital 

Records—Index of Marriages, 1897–1968; 1920 United States Census, Meriden Ward 5, New Haven, 

Connecticut, Roll T625_190, Page 8B, Enumeration District 293; 1930 United States Census, Meriden, New 

Haven, Connecticut, Page 5A, Enumeration District 0169.

115 “Carl L. Remy” Obituary, Bennington Banner, May 3, 1972. The couple did not have any children. See also 

1920 United State Census, Manhattan Assembly District 11, New York, New York, Roll T625_1204, Page 1A, 

Enumeration District 814. 

116 Louise Remy Marriage Record, June 14, 1916, Connecticut State Department of Health; Hartford, CT; 

Connecticut Vital Records—Index of Marriages, 1897–1968; 1920 United States Census, Bridgeport Ward 3, 

Fairfield, Connecticut, Roll T625_174, Page 2A, Enumeration District 16; 1930 United States Census, Bristol, 

Hartford, Connecticut, Page 20B, Enumeration District 0097. Louise sometimes appears in records with the first 

name Dorothy.

117 Harry Naylor Death Record, June 12, 1925, Connecticut State Department of Health; Hartford, CT; 

Connecticut Vital Records—Index of Deaths, 1897–1969; 1930 United States Census, Bristol, Hartford, 

Connecticut, Page 20B, Enumeration District 0097; Dorothy L. Remy Marriage Certificate 41239, October 27, 

1934, New York State Department of Health; Albany, NY, USA; New York State Marriage Index; 1940 United 

States Census, Bristol, Hartford, Connecticut, Roll m-t0627-00502, Page 66A, Enumeration District 2-28.

118 Bridgeport, Connecticut, City Directory (1914), 1219; Bridgeport, Connecticut, City Directory (1915), 1246; 

Bridgeport, Connecticut, City Directory (1917), 1556; Bridgeport, Connecticut, City Directory (1918), 1134; 

Bridgeport, Connecticut, City Directory (1919), 1150; 1920 United States Census, Fairfield, Fairfield, 

Connecticut, Roll T625_177, Page 24B, Enumeration District 495; Bridgeport, Connecticut, City Directory 

(1920), 1064; Bridgeport, Connecticut, City Directory (1921), 1117; Paul Remy, Connecticut Military Census of 

1917, Hartford, Connecticut: Connecticut State Library.
41

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

from eastern and southern Europe and limited labor protections also meant that Remy 

faced stiff competition for work, especially as an aging man in an era before Social Security. 

The Remys may have received financial assistance from their sons; Carl listed his parents as 

dependents on his 1917 draft registration.119 At some point in the 1920s, Paul and Johanna 

moved to New York City, possibly to live closer to Carl.120 Paul passed away in December of 

1930 at the age of 83.121 Johanna moved in with her widowed daughter in Bristol, 

Connecticut, and passed away three years later on December 30, 1933.122 The couple are 

buried next to each other in Bristol’s West Cemetery.123

Paul Remy lived to see the impacts of industrialization first in Germany in the 

mid-19th century, and then again in New York and New England in the early 20th century. 

His time at Weir Farm may have been the most settled era in his life, working alongside 

Johanna, who found herself laboring as a farm wife after growing up in the tenements of 

New York City. While existing documentation cannot explain why the Remys left 

Branchville, Paul certainly could not continue plowing, haying, and harvesting by hand 

indefinitely, nor would the labor load become more manageable once his sons left the farm. 

John Ferguson Weir’s vision of William and Carl Remy continuing to work for Julian Weir 

for a second generation did not match the realities of New England labor patterns in the 

early 20th century. In many ways, the Remys’ tenure at Weir Farm existed as a moment out 

of time, looking more like the 1860s than the 1900s (for better or worse, depending on 

whether a person was plowing or painting). Meanwhile, outside of Weir Farm, industrialization transformed cities and the countryside before, during, and after the Remys’ tenancy. Ultimately, time caught up with Weir Farm and the Remys sought other ways to make 

a living while Julian Weir tried to find new tenant farmers.

119 Carl L. Remy, Connecticut, Fairfield; Roll: 1570492; Draft Board 13, United States, Selective Service System. 

World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, 1917–1918, Washington, DC, National Archives 

and Records Administration, M1509, 4582 rolls.

120 1930 United States Census, Manhattan, New York, New York, Page 9A, Enumeration District 0495. Paul and 

Johanna lived a block away from Carl and Emily Remy’s address as listed in the 1920 Census (Carl and Emily 

do not appear in the 1930 Census). 1920 United State Census, Manhattan Assembly District 11, New York, New 

York, Roll T625_1204, Page 1A, Enumeration District 814.

121 Paul Remy Death Record, December 24, 1930, Connecticut State Department of Health; Hartford, CT; 

Connecticut Vital Records—Index of Deaths, 1897–1969.

122 Johanna’s address in 1932 Bristol City Directory is the same as Dorothy’s address in 1930 Census. Bristol, 

Connecticut, City Directory (1932), 305; 1930 United States Census, Bristol, Hartford, Connecticut, Page 20B, 

Enumeration District 0097.

123 Hale Collection of Cemetery Inscriptions and Newspaper Notices, 1629–1934, Hartford, Connecticut: 

Connecticut State Library, Vol 6, 184.
42

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

Weir Farm after the Remys: 

High Turnover and Transition

Julian Weir struggled to find satisfactory replacements for the Remys until his death in 

1919. He faced many of the same obstacles that caused high turnover before the Remys. 

Richard Brown explains that “the rise of an industrial, commercial, and urban economy in 

southern New England...undermined the already fragile supply of farm labor.”124 Weir 

also enjoyed the labor of Paul, Johanna, and their sons for the price of one, and would 

struggle to find tenant farmers able to meet the Remys standard of work. Plus, in 1907 he 

purchased the Webb property adjacent to his land, which significantly increased the 

amount of land and buildings for his workers to maintain.125 Hiring and keeping farmers in 

his later years became a constant challenge, especially when the demands of his property 

required more than one tenant. 

No documentation of Branchville’s farmers exists between 1904 and 1907. In May 

of 1907, Weir wrote that “I have had much trouble getting a man for Branchville.” There 

may have been a promising Cuban gardener in August of 1907, but by December the Tobin 

family appeared in Ella Weir’s diary as the likely tenants at Branchville.126 Daniel and Mary 

Tobin were recent immigrants from Ireland who ultimately settled in Ridgefield; their son, 

Daniel Jr. would later be hired by Dorothy Weir Young for carpentry projects. Daniel Sr. 

worked on private estates as a teamster and farmer in the early 20th century until he 

acquired his own land to farm.127 He did not stay with the Weirs for long; by the summer of 

1908, Percy Alden asked if Weir had found a tenant for Branchville yet.128

George and Harriet Gressler and their daughter, Mildred, may have lived and 

worked on the site sometime around 1910 before moving to Danbury.129 Census records 

collected in April 1910, however, show that John E. Boughton lived on Weir’s Branchville 

124 Richard D. Brown, “Farm Labor in Southern New England during the Agricultural-Industrial Transition,” 

Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 99 (1) 1989: 114.

125 Weir purchased 153 acres in 1882; the estate grew to include 238 acres by his death in 1919. Deborah S. 

Gardner and Christine G. McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat: J. Alden Weir’s Farm in Connecticut,” xi, 110.

126 JAW to C.E.S. Wood, May 24, 1907, C.E.S. Wood Papers, Collection of The Huntington Library, San Marino, 

California; Percy Alden to JAW, August 13, 1907, WEFA 190; Ella Baker Weir Diary, WEFA 499. The 1907 

entries also include gifts to Windham employees Mr. Rice and Mr. Beckwith and their families.

127 1910 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut, Roll: T624_127, Page: 5A, Enumeration 

District: 0104; 1920 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut, Roll: T625_178, Page: 16A; 

Enumeration District: 153; 1930 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut, Page: 24B, 

Enumeration District: 0174; Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592.

128 Percy Alden to JAW, June 2, 1908 WEFA 190.

129 Ella Baker Weir Diary, WEFA 499, lists Christmas gifts for the “Gresler” family alongside those for the 

Adams family who lived and worked in Windham in 1910. 1910 United States Census, Danbury, Fairfield, 

Connecticut, Roll: T624_129, Page: 4A, Enumeration District: 0060 lists a Gressler family that fits a similar 

description who were farming on their own account on rented land in Danbury. 
43

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

property as a farm manager, accompanied by his wife, Elizabeth. He was 51 and she was 45. 

They were both born in the region and had two grown children no longer living with 

them.130 The Boughtons managed the Branchville farm until at least 1916.131 Despite their 

relatively long tenure, Weir’s correspondence suggested some displeasure with them. After 

firing his farm manager at Windham, he complained to his friend that he couldn’t “get a 

good man” for either of his farms.132 In 1913 he referenced “two old nut crackers” at 

Branchville who “go through the motions but accomplish less than one live man could do,” 

adding derisively that “servants are all on the same scale.”133 In 1915 the Boughtons moved 

into the Webb house, prompting Weir to remark, “I wonder if he has left the farm house in 

good condition for the State.”134 Clearly, Weir did not trust that the Boughtons properly 

maintained the caretaker’s home. 

In 1916, Weir reported to his daughter Dorothy that he received a letter from 

Boughton that was “not cheerful” and resisted Weir’s pick for a new farm hand at 

Branchville. Boughton insisted on “the great importance of having a man who could drive 

oxen,” an understandable request given the increasing rarity of skills necessary to manage 

the laborious, old-fashioned livestock and implements on Weir Farm. Weir argued that he 

could hire the man in question while continuing the search for someone who could drive 

oxen, ultimately reducing Boughton’s concerns down to an issue of racist suspicion, 

stating: “I fear Mr. B may think as [the potential hire] is an Italian, he is a dangerous one, 

but I do not think he will be more so than Mr. B.”135 From failing to be “cheerful” and 

insisting on better living quarters to challenging Weir on the management of his farm, John 

Boughton did not demonstrate the qualities of a humble tenant farmer that Weir had so 

valued in Paul Remy.

The Boughtons may have left a couple months later, as Weir wrote that the lone 

“man” at Branchville “is not very satisfactory still he is a little better than no one.”136Later 

that summer of 1916, Weir referenced a Neil McGonigle at Branchville, but by the fall of 

130 1910 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut, Roll T624_127, Page 15A, Enumeration 

District 0105.

131 For final reference to the Boughtons in correspondence, see JAW to DW, March 25, 1916, WEFA 195.

132 JAW to C.E.S. Wood, September 12, 1910, C.E.S. Wood Papers, Collection of the Huntington Library, San 

Marino, California. Previous reports suggest that Weir hired a Mr. Adams at Branchville; however, the 1910 

United States Census confirms that Adams lived and worked at Windham when he expressed frustrations with the 

farm manager, Mr. Rice (JAW to EBW, April 17, 1910, WEFA 192). Adams still worked at Windham according 

to 1920 census records; his children are also depicted in JAW’s painting The Adams Children.

133 JAW to C.E.S. Wood, May 12, 1913, C.E.S. Wood Papers, Collection of the Huntington Library, San Marino, 

California. According to Child Associates and Cynthia Zaitzevsky, “Cultural Landscape Report for Weir Farm 

National Historic Site,” a reference to “two old nutcrackers” may also be found in correspondence from JAW to 

EBW, May 9, 1913, WEFA 192.

134 JAW to EBW, April 23, 1915, WEFA 192.

135 JAW to DW, March 25, 1916, WEFA 195.

136 JAW to DW, May 9, 1916 WEFA 195.
44

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

1916 he signed a contract with Willis O. Fuller “to do the gardening and take care of the 

farm.”137 Fuller previously lived in Lebanon, Connecticut, not far from the Baker house in 

Windham. He occasionally encountered the Julian Weir in town, who repeatedly encouraged him to come work at Branchville. Weir reportedly “offered him all sorts of things” 

until, according to Fuller’s future son-in-law Bill DeForest, Fuller “finally broke down and 

came” to Branchville.138 Weir paid him 50 dollars per month, with an extra 35 dollars 

compensation for his son’s labor. He could also use the caretaker’s house, firewood, one 

gallon of milk, and “potatoes while they last.”139 At first, Fuller and his 13-year-old son, 

Charles, lived in the caretaker’s house alone. They were “‘batching it, a couple of bachelors 

keeping house there for themselves” according to Bill De Forest, which they “didn’t like...

at all, it was pretty bad.”140 When their furniture finally arrived via freight car, Fuller’s wife, 

Cora, and daughter, Lena, joined the household.141 Weir declared to his brother John that 

“at last I have a very good man at the place at Branchville and trust he may continue.”142

The Fullers stayed for two years before Willis went to work for Mike Conrey in 

Georgetown, Connecticut. By the spring of 1918, Branchville was under the stewardship of 

Frederick Shuh, who earned 65 dollars per month, plus the use of the house, wood, milk, 

potatoes, and vegetables. Weir also agreed to give Shuh a pig and pay part of the butchering 

expense. That fall, Weir also hired Charles Warren for 40 dollars per month, in addition to 

the use of the farm home, milk, wood, and potatoes. While Shuh remained in charge, Weir 

assigned plowing, harrowing, milking, and stone cutting to Warren, along with cleaning the 

home, stables and providing coal for the kitchen. Presumably, Shuh lived in the Webb 

house while Warren lived in the caretaker’s house.143 Weir’s Branchville contracts in the 

1910s confirm that his tenant farmers received part of the dairy and crops that they pro137 JAW to EBW, June 21, 1916, WEFA 192; JAW to EBW, July 23, 1916, WEFA 192; Julian Alden Weir Legal 

and Financial Records, 1887–1919, WEFA 190, Box 7, Folder 3.

138 1900 United States Census, Lebanon, New London, Connecticut; Page: 1; Enumeration District: 0451; FHL 

microfilm: 1240149; 1910 United States Census, East Bridgewater, Plymouth, Massachusetts; Roll: T624_610; 

Page: 19A; Enumeration District: 1211; FHL microfilm: 1374623; 1920 United States Census, Redding, 

Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: T625_178; Page: 1B; Enumeration District: 496; 1930 United States Census, 

Wilton, Fairfield, Connecticut; Page: 8A; Enumeration District: 0225; FHL microfilm: 2339995; 1940 United 

States Census, Wilton, Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: m-t0627-00500; Page: 4A; Enumeration District: 1-225; Bill 

and Myrtle DeForest, interview with Doug DeNatale, August 7, 1989, Branchville, CT, WEFA Oral History 

Transcriptions; William H. Manning, The Genealogical and Biographical History of the Manning Families of 

New England and Descendants (Salem, MA: Salem Press), 1902.

139 Julian Alden Weir Legal and Financial Records, 1887–1919, WEFA 190, Box 7, Folder 3.

140 Bill DeForest, interview.

141 Bill DeForest, interview.

142 JAW to JFW, December 9, 1916, WEFA 197. An undated letter from JAW to JFW (WEFA 197) references 

employing “two good men for Branchville.” Child Associates and Cynthia Zaitzevsky, “Cultural Landscape 

Report for Weir Farm National Historic Site,” suggests that the letter was written in spring 1917. If so, it could 

have been referring to Willis and Charlie Fuller.

143 Julian Alden Weir Legal and Financial Records, 1887–1919, WEFA 190, Box 7, Folder 3.
45

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

duced, along with an occasional pig. They also show how Weir increased wages to remain 

competitive in New England and indicate that he needed to hire more than one worker to 

run the expanded Branchville property.144

Although Weir raised his rates over the years, workers could still earn more in 

factories than on the farm. In December of 1918, Warren left for a position that could pay 

$4.25 per day—more than double his earnings on Weir’s farm, not including food and 

housing.145 The per diem rate of his new job suggests industrial work and compares to the 

average monthly earnings of manufacturing wage earners in the United States.146 From the 

challenges of finding men to drive oxen to losing good agricultural workers to better-paying jobs, the traditional qualities of the Branchville farm that inspired Weir’s art also made 

it challenging to hire and keep help in the 1910s.

Meanwhile, Shuh remained at Branchville with his wife, Claribelle, and continued 

to serve as caretakers through the death of Julian Weir in December 1919.147 Weir’s wife, 

Ella, and daughter, Dorothy, took over management of the farm, but little is known about 

the tenant farmers they hired in the 1920s.148 One resident of the caretaker’s house may 

have been caught stealing and selling Weir family possessions.149 The Branchville property 

would enter into a new era in the 1930s, as Dorothy Weir inherited full title to the farm, 

married Mahonri Young, and sold the Webb property to her sister, Cora.150

During Julian Weir’s ownership of the Branchville property, the Remy family 

proved the ideal agricultural laborers to realize his vision of a traditional country farm. 

Their constant care of the farm’s animals, cultivation of fields using old-fashioned methods, and robust gardening ensured Remy’s continued employment for over a decade. Paul 

Remy left positive impressions on Julian Weir and his guests as he worked in the fields and 

managed the farm, while Johanna Remy accomplished significant agricultural and 

144 Average monthly earnings for Farm Laborers with Board in 1919 in New England: $46.16. United States 

Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, Bicentennial ed. 

(Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975), 163.

145 JAW to C.E.S. Wood, December 2, 1918, C.E.S. Wood Papers, Collection of the Huntington Library, San 

Marino, California; United States Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times 

to 1970, Bicentennial ed. (Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975), 168.

146 $82/month in 1918 and $97/month in 1919. United States Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the 

United States, Colonial Times to 1970, Bicentennial ed. (Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Bureau 

of the Census, 1975), 168.

147 Deborah S. Gardner and Christine G. McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat: J. Alden Weir’s Farm in Connecticut,” 132. 

Probate records list Shuh and his wife, according to Lance Kasparian and Maureen K. Phillips, “Historic 

Structures Report, Vol II-B: Caretaker’s House and Caretaker’s Garage,” 32.

148 Lance Kasparian and Maureen K. Phillips, “Historic Structures Report, Vol II-B: Caretaker’s House and 

Caretaker’s Garage,” 32. 

149 Norman F. Boas, Nod Hill Wilton, Connecticut——Reminiscences (self-published, 1996); Deborah S. Gardner 

and Christine G. McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat: J. Alden Weir’s Farm in Connecticut,” 159.

150 Lance Kasparian and Maureen K. Phillips, “Historic Structures Report, Vol II-B: Caretaker’s House and 

Caretaker’s Garage,” 32.
46

The Remy Family and Agricultural Labor at Weir Farm, 1890s–1920s

domestic labor without additional payment. The departure of the Remys back to eastern 

cities to find jobs as chauffeurs and laborers reflected the continued impact of industrialization and urbanization on labor patterns in southern New England and beyond, as Weir 

struggled to find agreeable long-term tenants that lived up to the Remys’ standards.
47

CHAPTER THREE

Domestic Workers for the Weir Family, 

1880s–1920s

A tremendous amount of domestic labor took place in the background of daily life 

in the Weir household. Every week, servants performed childcare, cooked meals, 

laundered clothes, and cleaned the home. Domestic laborers’ lives remain largely 

obscured in the historical record, often only appearing in primary sources due to their 

employers’ dissatisfaction or, in the case of Mary Hanratty, because of her uniquely long 

tenure. This chapter aims to make the hidden lives and labor of domestic laborers more 

visible by understanding how servants came to work for families like the Weirs, what their 

work entailed, and how they navigated their days in the Weir homes in New York and 

Branchville. The chapter will explore the details of individual servants when possible, 

acknowledging both their labor and their life beyond their occupation. After all, the 

servants who passed through the Weir household worked to secure their own livelihood 

while enabling the Weirs to pursue lives unburdened by hard domestic labor.

Many well-to-do women in 19th-century New England and New York hired 

domestic workers, and the Weir women were no exception. The Baker sisters likely grew up 

accustomed to servants in the home.1

 They came from an upper-class background; their 

grandmother was the daughter of a prosperous merchant and their grandfather, according 

to Dorothy Weir Young, “added to the family’s finances by wise investment” to the point 

where their son—Anna and Ella’s father—“was not obliged to earn his own living.”2

 When 

Anna and, later, Ella married Julian Weir, they continued to rely at least in part on the 

Baker family wealth. A 2009 Historic Resource Study for Weir Farm characterizes the 

family’s finances as “relying on sales of paintings, teaching fees, and intermittent gifts from 

Mrs. Baker” until she passed away in 1899. She then left her “substantial estate to Ella and 

1 The 1880 census shows one servant in the Baker household, even when all three daughters were grown. 1880 

United States Federal Census; Year: 1880; Census Place: Windham, Windham, Connecticut, Roll: 110, Page: 

337, Enumeration District: 126. The Bakers were traveling during the 1870 census and cannot be found in the 

1860 census. Anna Bartlett Dwight Baker’s correspondence references servants, and Cora hired servants as 

mistress of her household.

2 Quoted in Deborah S. Gardner and Christine G. McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat: J. Alden Weir’s Farm in 

Connecticut,” Weir Farm National Historic Site Historic Resource Study, National Park Service, US Department 

of the Interior, 2009, 35.
48

Domestic Workers for the Weir Family, 1880s–1920s

Cora” who “carefully managed the estate’s assets, meeting frequently with their lawyers 

and advisers over the years.”3

 Anna and Ella Weir contributed and managed a significant 

portion of the family finances, thereby providing the means to hire domestic help.

As ladies of the house, Anna and Ella Weir also made decisions about who to hire. 

The white, upper-class ideology of separate spheres in the 19th century asserted that the 

home was the domain of women who were responsible for keeping it clean, efficient, and 

morally pure. Despite its cultural influence, the concept of separate spheres held internal 

contradictions and rarely perfectly reflected reality. For example, domestic labor was 

incredibly arduous and not compatible with the idea that upper-class white women were 

physically and emotionally fragile. Nor did extensive housework allow time for women of 

means to pursue leisure activities and fulfill social obligations. To resolve these contradictions, white women in the early and mid-19th century often hired other, lower-class nativeborn women as domestic “help.”4

 This approach implied that wealthy ladies benevolently 

provided an opportunity for less well-off girls to learn how to perform household labor 

before or while establishing their own homes.5

However, the pool of native-born women available or willing to work as servants 

dwindled over the course of the 19th century and into the early 20th century.6

 Many 

middle- and upper-class women bemoaned the “servant problem,” or the challenge of 

finding good domestic help. In reality, many recent immigrants from Western European 

countries like Ireland, Germany, and Sweden sought work as servants in the late 19th 

century. The “servant problem” did not reflect a decrease in the pool of potential domestic 

workers, but pointed to changes in the relationship between employer and servant. A more 

transactional form of wage labor increasingly replaced the model of benevolent maternalism, especially in cities like New York where industrialization was transforming the labor 

market. White ethnic domestic workers could easily leave their employers to seek better 

pay or working conditions in other households. For example, in April 1890 Anna Weir 

wrote to her sister that she “had to get another girl in Mary’s place, as she wanted higher 

wages.”7

 Workers could also find jobs in manufacturing, where the wages were comparable 

or slightly lower than domestic service, but also offered more freedom over personal time 

3 Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat,” 106–7.

4 “White” in this historical moment usually meant “native-born” white Anglo-Saxon Protestants like the Weirs.

5 Hasia R. Diner, Erin’s Daughters in America: Irish Immigrant Women in the Nineteenth Century (Baltimore, 

MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983); Carol S. Lasser, 1987, “The Domestic Balance of Power: 

Relationships Between Mistress and Main in Nineteenth-Century New England,” Labor History 28 (1): 5–22; 

David M. Katzman, Seven Days a Week: Women and Domestic Service in Industrializing America (Urbana: 

University of Illinois Press, 1981).

6 Historians cite competition with factory jobs as a primary cause. See Diner, Erin’s Daughters in America; 

Lasser, “The Domestic Balance of Power”; Katzman, Seven Days a Week.

7 ABW to EB, April 28, 1890, WEFA 192.
49

Domestic Workers for the Weir Family, 1880s–1920s

than live-in work.8 Many middle- and upper-class women including the Weir women 

experienced high servant turnover as they struggled to maintain the power dynamic of 

earlier models.9

Both Anna and Ella Weir almost exclusively hired Irish women. Single immigrant 

women from Ireland comprised the largest group of foreign-born servants in the United 

States; in New York City alone they constituted 42 percent of all domestic workers.10 They 

became so associated with domestic labor that the “Bridget” stereotype emerged in upperclass discourse, characterizing Irish domestic servants as unruly and ignorant.11 The 

caricature dovetailed with anxiety about the “servant problem,” revealing how many 

mistresses feared that white ethnic workers—especially Irish women—were too assertive 

and unreliable. Nevertheless, women like the Weirs continued to hire single Irish women as 

they dominated the pool of available domestic servants in New York City and beyond.

A number of factors contributed to single Irish women immigrating to the United 

States and turning to domestic labor en masse. In the wake of social changes wrought by 

the Great Famine, women found few opportunities for marriage or employment in Ireland. 

Irish gender norms increasingly emphasized women’s value in economic terms, and those 

who emigrated for jobs could send money back to their families. Once in the United States, 

they found high demand for domestic servants who could speak English. While many other 

working-class groups were reluctant to work and live in other peoples’ households as 

servants, the value of the paycheck outweighed the challenges of isolation for many Irish 

women. In fact, Irish domestic workers often married later in life or not at all in order to 

continue working longer.12

8 Katzman, Seven Days a Week, 313: “When the equivalent cost of room and board are added to the annual 

earnings of domestic servants, their wages were at the same level or exceeded those of women in shops and in 

un- or semiskilled factory jobs.” See also Lara Vapnek, Breadwinners: Working Women and Economic 

Independence, 1865–1920 (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2009), 110–11.

9 Historians disagree about whether domestic service was an occupation where preindustrial norms persisted or 

another job impacted by industrialization. This study suggests a combination of both; certainly, the contract wage 

system and workers’ ability to keep looking for better jobs impacted the power dynamic between mistress and 

servant. On the other hand, the persistence of live-in service, and later DWY’s sense of obligation in hiring 

workers, shows how some traditional power dynamics between mistress and servant persevered.

10 Katzman, Seven Days a Week, 66; Diner, Erin’s Daughters in America; xiv.

11 Diner, Erin’s Daughters in America; also see Margaret Lynch-Brennan, The Irish Bridget: Irish Immigrant 

Women in Domestic Service in America, 1840–1930 (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2009).

12 Diner, Erin’s Daughters in America; Katzman, Seven Days a Week; Lynch-Brennan, The Irish Bridget. Diner 

also argues that segregation between genders and infrequent marriages in Irish society made marriage less of a 

priority for Irish women. Cultural norms rewarded making money and sending it back home.
50

Domestic Workers for the Weir Family, 1880s–1920s

Irish and other domestic servants connected with potential employers like the 

Weirs through classified ads, employment agencies and informal personal networks.13

Middle-class women usually hired one maid-of-all-work while New York’s wealthiest 

employed multiple servants with distinct roles ranging from chambermaids, laundresses, 

and waitresses to housekeepers, cooks, and scullery maids.14 The Weir family operated in 

the middle of the spectrum, hiring at least four servants in 1900 who traveled with them to 

Branchville: a cook, a waitress, a laundress, and a nurse. Information on the individual 

women hired by the Weirs remains challenging to find. Like many families, the Weirs 

experienced high turnover in their domestic staff and rarely mentioned the help by name 

in their writings. Plus, the women they hired often shared similar names with other fellow 

Irish immigrants, and many did not leave marriage or birth records because they stayed 

single. Broader knowledge about the job duties of different servants helps provide a clearer 

picture of domestic labor where evidence on individual workers is limited. The following 

section will examine the roles of the nurse, waitress, and cook as well as any known information about the women who provided those services for the Weirs in the late 19th century, before moving on to focus on what their work specifically looked like at the Weir 

residences in New York City and Branchville.

Domestic Servants, 1884–1900

Nurse

When Anna and Julian Weir welcomed their first daughter, Caroline (Caro), into the world 

on March 24, 1884, they likely hired a nurse to care for their child. Also called a nurse maid 

or nursery maid, the domestic servant tasked with childcare kept young ones clean, dressed, 

and fed.15 Anna likely breastfed for at least a short time.16 She may have also hired a wetnurse to breastfeed the baby or supplemented with cow’s milk; both were common practices 

at the time.17 Regardless, the work of daily childcare primarily fell to the Weirs’ servants. For 

example, in June 1884, Anna wrote to her sister that a woman named Ann—likely Caro’s 

nurse—wanted Anna and Ella’s mother to know that “with her low chair she has a splendid 

13 Katzman, Seven Days a Week; Vapnek, Breadwinners, 114–16. For example, a newspaper clipping in one of 

Julian Alden Weir’s notebooks consists of a classified ad announcing a “Nurse and Seamstress” available for hire 

with city references. WEFA 445, Box 1, Envelope 8.

14 Deborah Fairman Browning, 1992, “Toilers Within the Home: Servants’ Quarters in Nineteenth-Century New 

England.” Journal of American Culture 15 (1): 93–98; see also Katzman, Seven Days a Week.

15 Appendix III in Lucy Maynard Salmon’s Domestic Service, Civic Club of Philadelphia, November 1895.

16 Artwork by Julian Alden Weir depicting Anna breastfeeding includes Julian Alden Weir, Mother and Child, 

ADW at Branchville, Pastel, 13 1/4 × 9 1/2 in, before 1892 (Private Collection); Julian Alden Weir, Anna D. Weir, 

Pencil on Paper, 5 1/2 × 3 in, n.d. (Private Collection).

17 Janet Golden, A Social History of Wet Nursing in America; Jacqueline H. Wolf, “Low Breastfeeding Rates and 

Public Health in the United States,” American Journal of Public Health 93, no. 12 (December 2003): 2000–2010. 
51

Domestic Workers for the Weir Family, 1880s–1920s

lap, so there is no danger of the baby’s falling off.”18 Ann did not last long in the Weir household, as Anna complained of trouble finding a nurse in the fall of 1884 and again in the 

summer of 1885.19 By the time that the Weirs spent the following summer of 1886 in 

Branchville, they hired “an extra housemaid” in June, and by August, Anna wrote that “I like 

the two girls I have very much, indeed they do as nice as possible.”20 At least one of the 

women hired by Anna Weir likely attended to the needs of two-year-old Caro.

As the Weir family grew, so too did the nurse’s responsibilities. Julian Jr. was born 

on January 30, 1888, and passed away 13 months later of diphtheria and pneumonia.21

Dorothy arrived on June 18, 1890, and Cora was born on January 29, 1892. Anna died in 

February 1892, shortly after delivering Cora. With Anna’s passing, her sister Ella Baker 

largely took over the task of managing domestic help, including nurses. While Julian Weir 

left for Chicago to paint murals in the Manufacturers and Liberal Arts Building for the 

1893 Columbian Exposition, Baker and her mother watched over his children with the help 

of a nurse named Elizabeth. In September of 1892, Baker wrote to Weir reporting an 

incident in which Cora—still under a year old—accidentally threw herself against the bed 

and injured her tooth while under Elizabeth’s care. Baker criticized the nurse in her letter, 

claiming she was holding Cora too loosely, but ultimately admitted the situation was an 

accident. Baker conceded that Elizabeth generally “takes good care of the little girl,” and 

“Mamma and I both try and watch them like the apples of our eyes.”22 For Baker, watching 

the children also meant watching the hired domestic help like Elizabeth. The gender and 

class expectations informed by separate sphere ideology meant that the responsibility for 

children and supervising domestic servants remained women’s work. While working 

through his grief, Julian Weir was not burdened by the social expectation to directly oversee his children’s care.

Ella Baker’s responsibility toward her nieces’ care likely factored into her decision 

to marry Julian Weir in October 1893. The couple continued to rely on domestic servants 

to watch their children. Mary Kane, for example, was immortalized in an 1893 painting 

reading to a young Cora Weir (see Figure 19). By 1900, the federal census listed 20-year-old 

Hellena Dunn as the family’s live-in nurse. She had immigrated from Ireland as a girl eight 

years earlier. Often the youngest of the household staff, nurses like Dunn tended to earn 

18 ABW to EB, June 1, 1884, WEFA 192.

19 Ernestine Fabbri to ABW, July 31, 1885, WEFA 191.

20 ABW to EB, August 24, 1886, WEFA 192.

21 Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat,” 68–69. See also Baby’s death, “Notices,” New York Times, March 

10, 1889.

22 EB to JAW, September 23, 1892, WEFA 190; JAW to EB, September 21, 1892, WEFA 190.
52

Domestic Workers for the Weir Family, 1880s–1920s

around $3.00 to $3.50 per week in addition to room and board.23 By the time the Weirs 

appeared in the census again in 1915, their daughters were fully grown and the family no 

longer employed a nurse.

In place of a nurse, families like the Weirs might employ a governess as a live-in 

companion and private tutor for their children as they aged beyond their infant and toddler years. Unlike servants, a governess tended to belong to the middle or upper class, 

occupying a unique role as both peer and employee. They also served as an economic 

status symbol for the employing family.24 A woman named Gertrude served as Caro Weir’s 

governess in the winter of 1889; she may have been the daughter of German socialist 

politician Karl Leibnitz.25 Gertrude taught Caro German and accompanied the family to 

Branchville, where the two went on long walks.26 By the end of December, Anna Weir 

complained to her mother that Gertrude was “perfectly useless in every way except that she 

teaches Caro.... I have stopped giving her things to do now and am quite discouraged 

talking to her.”27 Anna’s frustration suggests that she and Gertrude held different expectations of her duties as governess, with Gertrude strictly teaching German and Anna expecting her to take on more responsibility as an employee. The ambiguity surrounding 

expectations of governesses existed not just in the Weir household, but in Victorian society 

on both sides of the Atlantic as women with privilege but in need of money undertook 

educational and childcare labor.28 By March of 1890, Anna let Gertrude go and began 

seeking another governess.29 The historical record does not reveal if Anna Weir successfully 

secured additional governesses for her children.

Waitress

Whereas the nurse and governess had the specific duty of attending to children, the “extra 

housemaid” that the Weirs mentioned in the summer of 1885 fell into a broader category 

synonymous with waitress, servant, or even maid-of-all-work. All domestic servants 

worked at the beck and call of the mistress of the house, but the waitress’s catch-all duties 

required her to be even more responsive to her employers’ requests. Her duties included: 

23 Salmon, Domestic Service, Appendix III. Her wage survey on page 90 does not include nurses, but the 

Philadelphia wages in Appendix III suggest that nurses were paid comparably to waitresses. Data for New York 

City, specifically, is not available. In general, Katzman, Seven Days a Week, 313, argues that “when the 

equivalent cost of room and board are added to the annual earnings of domestic servants, their wages were at the 

same level or exceeded those of women in shops and in unskilled or semiskilled factory jobs.”

24 Jeanne M. Peterson, “The Victorian Governess: Status Incongruence in Family and Society,” Victorian Studies

14, no. 1 (1970): 7–26.

25 JAW to CES Wood, January 17, 1915.

26 JAW to ABB, December 1, 1889, WEFA 198; ADB to ABB, December 12, 1889, WEFA 198.

27 ABW to ABB, December 30, 1889 WEFA 198.

28 Peterson, “The Victorian Governess,” 7–26.

29 ABW to ABB, March 3, 1890, WEFA 198.
53

Domestic Workers for the Weir Family, 1880s–1920s

serving and cleaning up after meals; dusting, sweeping, scrubbing, and generally cleaning 

all the rooms in the house; lighting fires in stoves and fireplaces; and answering the doorbell and running errands.30 For example, when the Weirs entertained guests, the waitress 

served cocktails mixed by Julian. As an adult, Caro Weir Ely recalled how the waitress 

transferred cutglass cocktail glasses from a tray of crushed ice to another tray where she 

sprinkled them with sugar and “filled them from a shaker.”31

Notably, Caro Weir Ely did not name the waitress in her recollections. Perhaps the 

high turnover of domestic staff contributed to her remembering the waitress primarily by 

her occupation. It may also reveal the degree to which domestic staff operated in the 

background of the Weir sisters’ childhoods as nameless servants rather than individuals. 

Ely documented another memory of an unnamed “new young waitress” who emerged 

from the background when she “threw her basin and pitcher out of the window” of the 

servants’ quarters on the top floor of the Weirs’ New York residence, “arousing the neighborhood and bringing two policemen running.” The officers promptly escorted the “poor 

young woman” to the hospital.32 Ely did not elaborate on the causes of the “drama,” and 

presumably the woman did not return to the Weir household.

The Weirs likely hired a waitress or housemaid in the months before they needed a 

nurse, and they continued to keep one or two on staff well into the 20th century. Ella Weir 

mentioned “Amanda the waitress” in her diary dated around 1894, and the 1900 census 

listed Agnes Johnson as a waitress in the Weir household.33 Unlike Dunn, the nurse who 

arrived in the United States as a young girl, Johnson immigrated from Ireland when she was 

around 18 years old. She followed the common trajectory of young single Irish women 

traveling to the United States and working as domestic servants. At 30 years old, she also 

reflected the broader trend of Irish servant women marrying later in life, if at all. 

Waitresses received comparable wages to nurses, around $3.00 to $3.50 per week, and 

many sent portions of their earnings back to their families in Ireland.34

30 Katzman, Seven Days a Week, 122; Salmon, Domestic Service.

31 Caroline Weir Ely, 11 East 12th Street (Privately printed, 1969).

32 Caroline Weir Ely, 11 East 12th Street (Privately printed, 1969).

33 Ella Baker Weir Diary, WEFA 2518, Box 45, Folder 41; 1900 United States Federal Census; Year: 1900; 

Census Place: Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Page: 4; Enumeration District: 0094.

34 Salmon, Domestic Service, Appendix III and page 90; see also Diner, Erin’s Daughters in America; LynchBrennan, The Irish Bridget; Katzman, Seven Days a Week.
54

Domestic Workers for the Weir Family, 1880s–1920s

Cook

The cook, meanwhile, usually commanded slightly higher wages than waitresses and 

nurses, given the specialized labor required to keep families like the Weirs fed to their 

satisfaction.35 The constant work of making breakfast, lunch, and dinner from scratch 

required a robust skill set. Cooks needed to know how to make soup stock; how to roast, 

boil, and broil meats; how to dress and cook poultry; and how to cook eggs, fish, and 

vegetables. Unless families relied on local bakeries, cooks also served as in-home bakers, 

making bread, biscuits, muffins, and griddle cakes.36 Plus, cooks kept supplies of tea, coffee, 

and desserts ready. Food production also required working and cleaning the stove, sinks, 

and utensils as well as maintaining the kitchen, cellar, and ice chest.37 Mistresses and cooks 

often worked together to develop meal plans and grocery lists.38 Cooking food was arduous, constant, and critical labor; if middle-class families could not afford multiple servants, 

they usually tried to at least keep a cook.39

Given their value, finding and keeping a good cook concerned not just the Weir 

women, but Julian, too. In the summer of 1886, Weir interrupted his time at Branchville to 

travel to New York City and find a new cook. The previous hire had negotiated a competitive monthly wage of 17 dollars but was reportedly “a bad character and took to cider like a 

duck to water.”40 Her apparent alcoholism both depleted the family’s reserves of cider and 

meant that she failed to meet their expectations of propriety.

The challenge to find and keep a good cook continued through the winter of 1887, 

when Anna Weir wrote to her mother and sister of her disappointment with her cook, who 

“cannot remember things.”41 By 1900, the federal census listed Mary Govern as the Weirs’ 

cook, a single 41-year-old Irish immigrant who had lived in the United States for 32 years.42

Although the census listed Govern’s name, correspondence among the Weirs never named 

the cooks that lived and worked in their homes. They only mentioned the cook when they 

35 Salmon, Domestic Service, Appendix III and page 90. They earned about 50 cents more per week than nurses 

and waitresses.

36 Salmon, Domestic Service, Appendix III; see also Katzman, Seven Days a Week.

37 Salmon, Domestic Service, Appendix III.

38 Katzman, Seven Days a Week; see also evidence in Chapter 5 of DWY planning meals with her cook, Mollie 

Gleason.

39 Katzman, Seven Days a Week.

40 JAW to EB, July 14, 1886, WEFA 192. He refers to the cook as “the one which we were pay [sic] $17,” 

perhaps suggesting that she had negotiated a higher than normal wage.

41 ABW to ABB, January 11, 1887, WEFA 198; ABW to EB, January 17, 1887, WEFA 192.

42 1900 United States Federal Census; Year: 1900; Census Place: Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Page: 4; 

Enumeration District: 0094.
55

Domestic Workers for the Weir Family, 1880s–1920s

were unhappy with her work, and even then they referred to her by her occupation rather 

than by name. Despite the importance of the cook’s work, from the Weirs’ perspective she 

still operated on the periphery of their lives unless causing a disruption. 

Laundress

The 1900 census listed a fourth and final servant living with the Weirs: Alice Hughes, the 

laundress. Her responsibilities included washing, ironing, and mending clothes for the 

three girls, two adults, and fellow servants in the household. Laundry at the turn of the 

century remained physically strenuous work, and yielded wages similar to the cook’s and 

more than a waitress or nurse.43 Historian David Katzman describes how laundresses 

needed to coordinate “at least four separate washes—white, coarse white, flannels, and 

colored clothes” with “an appropriate number of tubs and amount of heated water.”44

Ironing also required a great deal of manual labor, constantly lifting and replacing hot 

irons. Hiring a laundress dedicated to the time-consuming work of cleaning clothes 

allowed for a more expansive wardrobe than working-class families like the Remys across 

the road at Branchville, who fit laundry duties into an already full weekly routine.

Like the other three domestic servants working for the Weirs in 1900, laundress 

Alice Hughes immigrated from Ireland.45 She was 32 years old and single when she stayed 

with the Weirs. Earlier census records suggest that she may have been previously employed 

as a servant by another New York City family at the age of 25.46 Many of the Weir’s servants 

likely came to them with previous experience, and given the high rate of turnover in the 

Weir and other upper-class New York households, they likely moved on to other employers, as well. Sometimes domestic servants followed their friends and families to other 

households. For example, Mary Theresa Hickey may have been one of the Weir’s laundresses for a time, joining her sister Kathleen on the staff or vice versa.47

43 Salmon, Domestic Service; both the table and appendix shows comparable wages between the cook and 

laundress.

44 Katzman, Seven Days a Week, 124–25.

45 1900 United States Federal Census; Year: 1900; Census Place: Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Page: 4; 

Enumeration District: 0094. The 1900 census lists fewer details about Hughes compared to the other Weir 

servants.

46 1892 New York State Census, New York State Education Department, Office of Cultural Education, New York 

State Library, Albany, NY.

47 Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by 

Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions. The Knoche family’s 

personal collection included a formal portrait photograph of Mary Hanratty, suggesting that the two women may 

have been acquainted, perhaps even overlapping in their employment for the Weirs. Mary Hanratty. Knoche 

Family Photograph Collection, HP01370. For another example of connections among servants that extend 

beyond working for the same employer for a time, see Rosetta Prunty and Mary Collins in Chapter 5. The two 

servants worked together for the Burlinghams. Years later, Collins served as a witness for Prunty’s naturalization.
56

Domestic Workers for the Weir Family, 1880s–1920s

Space and Work in New York City and Branchville

While working for the Weirs, domestic servants spent most of their days moving through 

the Weir residences in New York City and Branchville, as well as the Baker family home in 

Windham, Connecticut.48 The Weirs spent most of the winters in their home at 11 E 12th 

Street in New York, while spending stretches of the summer and early fall in each 

Connecticut location. Over time, the family spent increasing amounts of time in 

Branchville.49 Servants were generally based out of New York and hired there, but they 

accompanied the Weirs on their retreats to the countryside, as well. Comparing and contrasting what workers’ labor looked like in the different domestic spaces in New York and 

Branchville will illuminate the contours of their daily lives and show how trips to Weir 

Farm impacted the staff’s routines.

When the Weir family traveled between locations, the servants often arrived before 

the Weir women to prepare the home. For example, in January 1895 Julian reported from 

New York City to his wife Ella—still in Branchville—that he supervised the cleaning of the 

carpet, furnace, and curtains. He also ordered a new chandelier for the hall and ensured 

that disinfectants were put in the closet. Domestic workers played a key role in preparing 

the home; Julian remarked that “the three girls are at work and were here all day yesterday.”50

Servants also arrived in advance of family stays at Branchville. In 1892, Julian Weir 

warned Ella Baker that the cook’s room and other bedrooms were “simply alive” with some 

sort of pest that likely arrived in the servants’ trunks. He suggested that the bugs spread 

while the domestics made the beds.51 In preparing the Branchville home, the workers 

tasked with cleaning were also identified as the source of unsanitary conditions. Employers 

often expected servants to maintain the same level of hygiene as them, without using the 

same facilities. After all, servants usually lived in segregated quarters, with less space than 

their employers and limited access to bathrooms and running water.52

In New York City, the domestic staff lived on the top floor of the Weir’s three-floor 

row house. The second floor had a family bathroom with a bathtub, toilet, and a wash 

basin—quite possibly with indoor plumbing—though servants may not have been allowed 

48 According to Caroline Weir Ely, “Grandmother’s Attic,” in Lest We Forget (privately printed, 1965), the 

servants were included as part of the household that traveled to Windham. However, Mary Hanratty’s letter to 

Caroline Weir on March 20, 1910 (WEFA 283, Addendum box 1, Folder 13) mentioned that the family went to 

Windham without her. Regardless, how the domestic servants navigated the shared family space in Windham 

falls outside the purview of this study. The New York City apartment and Branchville farm were both run by the 

Weirs, not their relatives, so all of the domestic servants would travel with them and not join an existing 

household with their own servants. 

49 Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat,” 66, 85.

50 JAW to EBW, January 10, 1895, WEFA 192.

51 JAW to EB, August 4, 1892, WEFA 192.

52 Katzman, Seven Days a Week, 108–10; Browning, “Toilers Within the Home,” 93–98.
57

Domestic Workers for the Weir Family, 1880s–1920s

equal access to the room and its amenities.53 At the very least, the women working for the 

Weirs kept basins and pitchers in their rooms. Caro Weir Ely remembered that, “the servants [sic] rooms were small and, I suppose, cold.”54 The main source of heat in the house 

came from a coal-fired Baltimore heater, also known as a Latrobe Stove, in the basement.55

Coal grates in fireplaces also kept rooms warm throughout the house, and possibly in the 

top floor as well. Given Ely’s comment, however, it is likely that the servants needed to keep 

warm with the heat that rose from the lower levels. 

Similarly, in Branchville, domestic workers probably slept in the attic. The 1900 Platt 

alterations expanded the top level and added dormers, but the space remained sparsely 

appointed.56 The chimney bypassed the attic, so the servants did not benefit from a fireplace 

to keep warm.57 Some of the workers may have lived on the second floor before the 1900 

expansions. Analysis of the building suggests that “the northwest bedroom was divided into 

two rooms at this time to accommodate nurses for the children and possibly a servant.”58

The attic did not include a bathroom, but one with indoor plumbing was added to the 

second floor in 1900.59 Expanding the plumbing system in 1900 involved adding a water 

tank to the attic—the servants’ quarters—to service the new bathroom, as well as the basement, kitchen, and pantry sinks.60 As with the Weir home in New York, the servants may or 

may not have been allowed to use the family bathroom on the second floor. They may have 

been relegated to using basins and chamber pots, or perhaps an outhouse on the property.

Whether in New York City or Branchville, domestic workers did not spend much 

time in their living quarters. They worked 7 days a week and 10 to 12 hours a day, with most 

days starting before sunrise and continuing well into the evening. Workers may have had 

one evening off per week in addition to part of the day on Sunday. Many mistresses often 

frowned upon their servants hosting visitors in the home during on or off hours.61 In New 

York City, then, women could use their time off to leave the premises and visit friends or 

family and participate in other social activities. Many domestics took Thursday evenings 

53 Wealthy families had indoor plumbing as early as the 1840s, and by the early 20th century water closets were 

even required in tenement houses in New York City.

54 Caroline Weir Ely, 11 East 12th Street (Privately printed, 1969).

55 Caroline Weir Ely, 11 East 12th Street (Privately printed, 1969).

56 The attic was “roughly furnished” around 1888, according to Marie L. Carden and Richard C. Crisson, “Weir 

Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir Complex,” Weir Farm National Historic Site, Wilton, 

CT [draft], 40.

57 Janice Hodson, “Weir House Kitchen Historic Furnishings Report and Implementation Plan,” Weir Farm 

National Historic Site, Wilton, CT, 5.

58 Carden and Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir Complex,” 40.

59 Carden and Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir Complex,” 51, 225.

60 Hodson, “Weir House Kitchen Historic Furnishings Report and Implementation Plan,” 5, 51–55.

61 Katzman, Seven Days a Week, 110–14.
58

Domestic Workers for the Weir Family, 1880s–1920s

off, which became a popular night for dances among the Irish in the city. It is harder to 

ascertain how servants spent their personal time at Branchville, given their isolation from 

their New York communities and the practical obstacles to traveling into town or engaging 

in social activities in Ridgefield or Wilton. In New York and perhaps even more so in 

Branchville, household staff had little space and time to themselves.

In addition to Thursday breaks, Irish women often attended Catholic mass on 

Sunday mornings, if possible.62 Julian Weir’s grandson, Charles Burlingham Jr., conveyed 

the following image of Sundays in the Weir household:

My grandfather was of Scottish ancestry, and I’m sure back [then they were] 

some stern Presbyterian stock, and they’d have Sunday prayers, every one down 

on your knees in the living room, including the cook, poor lady—who was 

probably Irish and not Protestant at all—but they’d come in the living room, 

and he would read a short service, and they would say prayers together, and 

then everybody’d have to get dressed up in a bib and tucker, and they’d go off to 

church, there was to be no card-playing, and no novel-reading, and no nothing 

on Sunday.... He didn’t work himself on Sunday, it was a Sabbath.63

Burlingham suggested that the Catholic servants were expected to participate in Protestant 

prayers, but were most likely exempt from the demand to rest. They may or may not have 

been able to participate in their own religious services while the Weirs attended church, but 

their labor throughout the rest of the day certainly enabled the Weirs to respect the Sabbath. 

On a typical workday, domestic workers hired by the Weirs woke up before dawn in 

their small, cold quarters and used the back stairs to access the rest of the house. The New 

York home and—before alterations in 1900—the Branchville residence had separate 

staircases for the help, further hiding their movement and labor from the Weirs.64 The 

nurse would go to the nursery, located on the second floor in both the New York and 

Branchville residences. Before 1900, the nurse may have slept in the room next door to the 

nursery in Branchville, perhaps due to limited space or maybe to be more responsive to the 

needs of the youngest Weir children.65

Meanwhile, the cook would wake up and descend to the kitchen to have breakfast 

prepared by 7:30 a.m.66 In New York, the kitchen was located in the basement and, according to Caro Weir Ely, contained a “large iron stove,” “two big ovens,” a hot water heater, 

“an enormous metal sink” with “a wooden drainboard beside it,” and an “oak table and 

62 Lynch-Brennan, The Irish Bridget, 126–42; Katzman, Seven Days a Week, 114–15; see also Diner, Erin’s 

Daughters in America.

63 Charles Burlingham, interview by Doug DeNatale and Cathie Barner, March 17, 1989, WEFA Oral History 

Transcriptions.

64 Carden and Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir Complex,” 26, 40, 50; 

Caroline Weir Ely, 11 East 12th Street (Privately printed, 1969). 

65 Carden and Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir Complex,” 40.

66 Dorothy Weir Young, The Life and Letters of J. Alden Weir (Yale University Press, 1960), 169.
59

Domestic Workers for the Weir Family, 1880s–1920s

chairs.”67 In Branchville, the kitchen sat on the first floor and by 1900 housed a large, black 

cookstove with “eight big burners and a huge warming oven” that could run on either coal 

or firewood.68 The cook likely started her day with the complex job of lighting the stove. 

First, she prepared the stove by closing the draughts, removing the top of the range and 

brushing off the ashes into the grate, and then replacing the covers and dumping the grate. 

Then, after the ashes settled, she would remove the covers again, add kindling to the 

bottom of the grate, open the draughts, light the kindling, and replace the covers. Once the 

wood started burning, she would periodically add additional firewood or coal until the fire 

steadily burned before closing the draughts again.69

The fire in the stove needed to be tended all day, not dwindling too low or becoming too hot. Plus, the cook needed to strategically manage heat levels for different uses. 

For example, heating large amounts of water for bathing, cleaning, and washing 

demanded a hotter stove than cooking required.70 Different recipes certainly required 

different heat levels, as well. If relying strictly on coal with no firewood, the stove would 

need to be kept hot overnight and immediately addressed in the morning. The appliance 

likely kept the kitchen warm in the winter, and uncomfortably hot in the summer months 

when the Weir family spent the most time at Branchville. The cook worked around the 

stove throughout her workday, retrieving food from the cellar and ice box, preparing 

meals, and keeping the kitchen and its utensils clean from use and from the ashy residue 

that coal and fire stoves produced.71 By 1900, the cook could use indoor running water for 

cooking and cleaning; before then, she may have used a hand pump or perhaps needed to 

retrieve water from the well.72

After the cook prepared the food, the waitress delivered it to the Weir family. In 

New York City, the waitress transported the meals herself or used the building’s dumbwaiter to bring food to the studio for breakfast and to the dining room for other meals. 

Waitresses also attended to daily tea in the parlor and cocktails in the same space on special 

67 Caroline Weir Ely, 11 East 12th Street (privately printed, 1969).

68 Hodson, “Weir House Kitchen Historic Furnishings Report and Implementation Plan,” 6.

69 Description of lighting stove summarizes quote from Carlotta Norton Smith, The Homemaker: Her Science 

(New York, 1905), in Katzman, Seven Days a Week, 128.

70 Katzman, Seven Days a Week, 124. Even a hot water heater like in the New York City kitchen only held small 

amounts of water.

71 Katzman, Seven Days a Week, 124–28.

72 Carden and Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir Complex”; Hodson, 

“Weir House Kitchen Historic Furnishings Report and Implementation Plan.” 
60

Domestic Workers for the Weir Family, 1880s–1920s

occasions.73 At Branchville, a butler’s pantry sat between the dining room and kitchen 

where the waitress could prepare and clean dishware. When the Weirs hosted larger parties, the caretaker’s wife may have assisted the waitress with her duties.74

Aside from attending to the Weir family’s meals, servants were tasked with keeping 

the homes in New York and Branchville clean and warm. The waitress or general housemaid 

likely took the lead on these jobs. In New York City, the maid brought coals to individual 

rooms and kept the fires warm. Caro Weir Ely fondly recalled that “in cold weather there 

was always a coal fire burning in the grate” in the nursery.75 Notably, she remembered the 

cozy warmth but not the labor of the domestic servant responsible for keeping the rooms 

heated. The Branchville residence likely relied more heavily on firewood, which was more 

readily available on the country property. Most rooms there had fireplaces or stoves that 

needed to be maintained on cold days and nights.76 Maids balanced daily tasks like maintaining fireplaces, cleaning and lighting kerosene lamps, serving meals, and making beds 

with weekly housekeeping chores like sweeping, scrubbing, and dusting (see Figure 20).

Finally, while little information sheds light on what laundry looked like at the Weir’s 

New York residence, in Branchville the laundress would spend her day in the basement and 

outside.77 Two laundry tubs were installed in the basement in 1900 and connected to the 

new plumbing system.78 After handwashing and wringing loads of laundry there, workers 

would dry garments and linens on a clothesline outside. They would then return inside for 

the laborious task of ironing. 

In his painting, The Laundry, Branchville, Julian Weir depicted a clothesline strung 

between trees and draped with mostly white fabric (see Figure 21). In this rare instance, the 

work of domestic servants visibly extended beyond the home and into the outdoor landscape that so often served as the subject of Weir’s paintings. Most of the servants’ work took 

place on the margins of his life, or in spaces that he did not frequently visit, such as the 

basement, kitchen, and nursery. The seeming distance between Weir and those who worked 

73 Caroline Weir Ely, 11 East 12th Street (privately printed, 1969). The studio in the Weirs’ New York residence 

was not strictly reserved for painting, especially while the Weir children were growing up. Caro writes in 11 East 

12th Street that “there was a round eight-legged table...in the studio (used for breakfasts)” and Dorothy Weir 

Young later recalled that “by my childhood in the nineties the studio, although it still kept its name, had long 

since ceased to serve as such. Instead, it was used as a gathering place through the daylight hours, beginning 

when breakfast was served there at 7:30.” Dorothy Weir Young, The Life and Letters of J. Alden Weir (New 

Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1960), 169.

74 Hodson, “Weir House Kitchen Historic Furnishings Report and Implementation Plan,” 8. See Chapter 5 for 

examples of Betty Bass, the caretaker’s daughter, assisting Mollie Gleason with serving meals. However, this 

might also be the result of fewer live-in servants during the Young years.

75 Caroline Weir Ely, 11 East 12th Street (Privately printed, 1969).

76 Carden and Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir Complex,” 82.

77 Though they could have hired out laundry in New York City, the fact that they had a live-in Irish laundress in 

Branchville suggests that she lived with them in the city, too. Caro did not mention laundry in her reminiscences 

at all.

78 Carden and Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir Complex,” 50.
61

Domestic Workers for the Weir Family, 1880s–1920s

in his household reflected the passive—though not altogether absent—role that many men 

of his status played in domestic affairs compared to their wives.79 Class and gender defined 

who inhabited and worked in which spaces on Weir Farm, often creating segregated worlds 

on the same property. Even in his impression of the laundry at Branchville, Weir did not 

include the women responsible for hanging the garments and linens.

Change and Continuity in the 1900s–1920s

The Weir family did not continue to maintain a four-person staff into the 20th century. As 

the Weir daughters grew into young ladies, they no longer required a nurse. Additionally, 

like many middle- and upper-class families in the early 20th century, the Weirs likely 

started sending laundry to commercial establishments outside of the home.80 Their 

decreased staffing needs coincided with some financial stress starting in 1908 and again 

during World War I. They also rented out their home in Greenwich Village and moved to a 

cooperative apartment in the fashionable Upper East Side neighborhood.81 After Julian 

Weir passed away in 1919, Dorothy and Ella Weir continued to live together in apartments 

on the Upper East Side until Ella’s death in 1930. During this time from at least the 1900s 

through the 1920s, the Weir family employed Mary Hanratty as a maid-of-all work and, 

when possible, brought on an additional servant as a cook.82 Among all of the domestic 

laborers that the Weirs hired, Mary Hanratty worked for them the longest and often 

appeared in their writing by name. For example, in 1907 Ella Weir wrote in her diary that 

“Dorothy and Cora, Mary and the cook started for Branchville at 12:03.”83 The simple 

entry demonstrates how Hanratty became a visible member of the household due to her 

uniquely long tenure, whereas “the cook” remained defined by her labor.

Despite the lack of personal information about the cook in the Weir family papers, 

genealogical records reveal a glimpse into the lives of two of the cooks hired to serve Ella 

and Dorothy Weir in 1920 and 1930, respectively. For example, Mary Lavelle was born in 

Ballycastle, Ireland, in 1883 and immigrated to the United States around the age of 27. Ten 

79 Katzman, Seven Days a Week, 215, notes that “in most accounts of domestic service written by servants, the 

male figures were generally distant, shadowy figures.” Certainly, the intimate dynamics of household labor 

sometimes meant that servants risked sexual harassment and assault in addition to the physical and emotional 

challenges of long hours, manual labor, and demanding employers.

80 Katzman, Seven Days a Week, 52. This would certainly prove to be the case for DWY; see Chapter 5.

81 Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat,” 110, 130.

82 Census records from 1920 and 1930 list Hanratty and a second servant; In Seven Days a Week, Katzman notes 

that when families hired two servants, one was usually the maid of all work and the second was a cook. 1920 

United States Census, Redding, Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: T625_178; Page: 1B; Enumeration District: 496; 

1930 United States Census, Wilton, Fairfield, Connecticut; Page: 8A; Enumeration District: 0225; FHL 

microfilm: 2339995.

83 Ella Baker Weir Diary, WEFA 2518, Box 45, Folder 41.
62

Domestic Workers for the Weir Family, 1880s–1920s

years later, in 1920, she was working in the Weir household as a cook. Like many Irish 

women, she remained single and worked as a domestic worker for most of her adult life. By 

the time she sought naturalization in 1941 at the age of 57, she still worked as a servant for a 

family on Park Avenue in New York’s Upper East Side.84

Another cook, Julia Glover, left behind the clearest trail in the historical record 

compared to the rest of the Weirs’ domestic workers. Glover was born in June 1894 in 

County Cork, Ireland, the first daughter and second of at least four children born to John 

and Mary Glover.85 She attended school as a child and learned how to read and write.86

Many Irish women who eventually became domestic workers in the United States were 

similarly literate.87 When Glover sailed to America in 1921 at the age of 26, she listed her 

friend, Nelly Murphy, as her primary contact in the city.88 Irish women who immigrated 

were frequently inspired or encouraged by correspondence with friends and family stateside who could help them settle upon arrival.89 By 1929 she was working as a housemaid in 

the Upper East Side and, a year later, as a cook for Ella and Dorothy Weir.90 Naturalization 

records then show Glover working for another Upper East Side family on Fifth Avenue in 

1931, but entries in Dorothy Weir Young’s checkbooks from the early 1930s suggest that 

Glover may have returned again to her staff in some capacity.91 Glover worked for at least 

three different Upper East Side families over the course of three years, reflecting both the 

84 Mary Elizabeth Lavelle Naturalization Records. National Archives at New York City, New York, New York.

85 The youngest sibling was six months old in 1901 census; they could have had more children after that. Census 

of Ireland 1901/1911, The National Archives of Ireland, http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/search, accessed 

May 31, 2013.

86 Census of Ireland 1901/1911, The National Archives of Ireland, http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/search,

accessed May 31, 2013.

87 Diner, Erin’s Daughters in America.

88 Passenger Lists of Vessels Arriving at New York, New York, 1820–1897. Microfilm Publication M237, 675 

rolls. NAI: 6256867. Records of the US Customs Service, Record Group 36. National Archives at Washington, 

DC.

89 Diner, Erin’s Daughters in America.

90 National Archives and Records Administration; Washington, DC; NAI Title: Index to Petitions for 

Naturalizations Filed in Federal, State, and Local Courts in New York City, 1792–1906; NAI Number: 5700802; 

Record Group Title: Records of District Courts of the United States, 1685–2009; Record Group Number: RG 21; 

1930 United States Census, Wilton, Fairfield, Connecticut; Page: 8A; Enumeration District: 0225; FHL 

microfilm: 2339995.

91 The National Archives and Records Administration; Washington, DC; Petitions for Naturalization from the US 

District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1897–1944; Series: M1972; Roll: 767; Dorothy Weir Young 

checkbooks, WEFA 15592. Though Glover did not receive checks made to her, she did receive a Christmas gift 

in December 1933, suggesting she still worked for them and possibly received cash wages. A notation for $150 

wages in February 1932 lists “Mary and J,” which could reference Mary Hanratty and Julia Glover. Glover is not 

mentioned again after that.
63

Domestic Workers for the Weir Family, 1880s–1920s

high turnover and high demand for domestic servants in one of New York’s wealthier 

neighborhoods. Plus, her return to the Weir household suggests that a servant’s departure 

did not preclude future employment with the family.92

In 1931, Julia Glover became a United States citizen, with her two younger brothers 

serving as witnesses.93 Like many Irish immigrants, multiple members of her family moved 

their lives overseas and stayed connected after their arrival. Notably, Glover did not list her 

older brother as a witness; he likely stayed behind in Ireland and inherited the family 

property. Glover and her younger brothers could support their family still in Ireland with 

wages from their working-class jobs in New York City.94 Her path to citizenship as a single 

37-year-old woman indicates a permanent embrace of the life she built in New York, one 

shaped by both her labor and her familial connections.

In contrast to the many servants that spent a short time with the Weirs, Mary 

Hanratty lived and worked in the Weir household for decades.95 However, her life remains 

particularly challenging to trace through the historical record. Hanratty appeared as part 

of the Weir household in three censuses—1915, 1920, and 1930—and each time with 

different birth and immigration dates. (She was listed as 62 years old in both 1920 and 

1930!) She was likely born between 1867 and 1872 and immigrated to the United States as 

a young woman between 1888 and 1893.96 A Mary Hanratty with a comparable birth date 

arrived in Boston in 1888 with plans to work in the booming textile industry in Fall River, 

Massachusetts.97 The Mary Hanratty that ended up with the Weirs may or may not have 

spent time spinning textiles, but she did ultimately make her way to New York City and 

found work as a domestic worker. 

92 The way that Mary Hanratty disappears and reappears in the historical record as a servant for the Weirs also 

seems to confirm that domestic servants occasionally left and returned to the same household.

93 The National Archives and Records Administration; Washington, DC; Petitions for Naturalization from the US 

District Court for the Southern District of New York, 1897–1944; Series: M1972; Roll: 767. The witness names 

are the same as the younger brothers listed in the 1901 Irish census. Census of Ireland 1901/1911, The National 

Archives of Ireland, http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/search, accessed May 31, 2013.

94 Diner, Erin’s Daughters in America; Lynch-Brennan, The Irish Bridget.

95 Caro asserted that she worked for the family for nearly 40 years. Caroline Weir Ely, 11 East 12th Street

(privately printed, 1969). Calculations based on the historic record suggests Hanratty worked for the Weirs for 28 

years at least. 

96 The 1915 and 1930 censuses align the closest, listing Hanratty’s age as 44 and 62, respectively. The 1920 

census lists—probably inaccurately—Hanratty as 62 years old, which unrealistically places her birthdate around 

the year 1858. The 1920 census also contradicts Caro’s narrative in 11 East 12th Street that Hanratty joined the 

Weirs at 18 years old and worked for 40 or so years before retirement. If she retired in 1934, she may have 

started working for the Weirs around 1894. If she was 18 in 1894, she would have been born around 1876. 

Gardner and McKay in “An Artists’ Retreat,” referencing only the 1930 census, suggests that Hanratty arrived at 

the Weirs in the 1880s, which does not fit with available immigration data.

97 The National Archives at Washington, DC; Washington, DC; Series Title: Passenger Lists of Vessels Arriving 

at Boston, Massachusetts, 1820–1891, Record Group Title: Records of the US Customs Service, Record Group 

Number: 36, Series Number: M277, NARA Roll Number: 107.
64

Domestic Workers for the Weir Family, 1880s–1920s

In her reminiscences, Caro Weir Ely claimed that Hanratty started with the Weir 

family at the age of 18 and stayed for at least 40 years.98 That would mean Hanratty worked 

for the Weirs beginning in the late 19th century, but the 1900 census does not list her as a 

member of the Weir household.99 Further evidence suggests that she worked as a domestic 

laborer for another Manhattan family in 1900 before joining the Weirs.100 Meanwhile, Weir 

family records do not mention Hanratty by name until 1907. Mary Theresa Hickey and 

Hanratty may have been acquainted, perhaps even overlapping in their employment for the 

Weirs sometime before Hickey married Joseph Knoche in 1905.101 Though her start date 

remains unclear, Hanratty likely had prior work experience before spending the majority 

of her working years with the Weir family.

Once Hanratty joined the Weirs, her work initially included and exceeded the 

traditional nurse duties of taking care of young children. Caro Weir Ely fondly remembered Mary Hanratty as “our nurse and general manager” who worked alongside a cook, 

waitress, and laundress.102 Ely elaborated that Hanratty would answer the door “in her 

starched white cap and apron,” a common uniform for domestic help.103 As the Weir sisters 

grew older, Hanratty stayed on in a role that looked more like a maid-of-all-work, performing all household duties short of cooking and laundry. Hanratty likely saw many servants 

pass through the Weir home and was familiar with other long-term employees like Paul 

Remy. A Weir family photograph shows Hanratty participating in a honey harvest with 

Remy (see Figure 12).

In reminiscing about her childhood, Caro Weir Ely recalled that Hanratty “had the 

whole family on her mind, including dogs and cats—to say nothing of tame rabbits, etc. As I 

grew up, she took me to dancing school and, later, to balls at Sherry’s, and sat in the balcony no matter how long a party lasted.”104 Hanratty devoted her working life to the people 

and pets in the Weir family, which included chaperoning the sisters on their social outings. 

Family photographs show Hanratty outdoors accompanying the Weir daughters and their 

friends as well as in domestic settings (see Figures 22–24).

98 Caroline Weir Ely, 11 East 12th Street (Privately printed, 1969).

99 EB also mentioned a nurse named Elizabeth in correspondence to JAW, September 23, 1892, WEFA 190. 

100 1900 census lists Mary Henretty, born 1869 and arrived in 1888, working for the Bellard Family. 1900 United 

States Federal Census; Year: 1900; Census Place: Borough of Manhattan, New York, New York; Page: 4; 

Enumeration District: 0568; Microfilm: 1241106.

101 The Knoche family’s personal collection includes a formal portrait photograph of Mary Hanratty, suggesting 

that the two women may have been acquainted. See Mary Hanratty, Knoche Family Photograph Collection, 

HP01370.

102 Caroline Weir Ely, “Grandmother’s Attic,” in Lest We Forget (Privately printed, 1965).

103 Caroline Weir Ely, 11 East 12th Street (Privately printed, 1969); Katzman, Seven Days a Week.

104 Caroline Weir Ely, 11 East 12th Street (Privately printed, 1969).
65

Domestic Workers for the Weir Family, 1880s–1920s

Hanratty displayed sincere affection for the girls in a rare surviving letter that she 

wrote to Caro Weir in 1910.105 Caro was on a trip to Japan and had regularly sent postcards 

back to her former nurse and now “general manager.” Hanratty responded from New York, 

sharing that the Weirs were in Windham and “it has been very lonesome all week.” She 

updated Caro on Dorothy’s winter as a debutante, sharing details about boys and commenting on the social events that Dorothy and Cora attended. She also reported on a number of 

house fires in the neighborhood. She concluded: “Hoping you are very well and thanking 

you again for your very kind thoughts of sending me all the lovely cards. With a great deal of 

love and wishing you a very Happy Easter I remain very respectfully, Mary Hanratty.”

The letter evidenced a close relationship between the long-term caregiver and the 

girl she helped raise during her formative years. Domestic workers historically navigated 

the tensions between familial fondness and the economic realities that demarcated the 

boundaries of their relationships with their employers’ children. Hanratty played a significant emotional and practical role in the Weir family for many years, yet she always retained 

an inferior social position as a domestic employee. At the same time, she existed as a more 

fleshed-out individual in the Weirs’ eyes than the many short-term workers that passed 

through the household. In her later years, Hanratty even appears with her gray hair and 

white uniform in Dorothy Weir Young’s paintings, Woman in Windsor Chair Sewing and 

Ladies at Dinner (see Figures 25 and 26).

The close emotional relationship between Hanratty and the Weirs contributed to 

her staying in the household past the death of Julian Weir in 1919 and Ella Weir in 1930. 

Hanratty continued to receive wages of $32.50 per month through the middle of 1936.106

By the 1930s, domestic service looked much different than it had at the turn of the century 

when she started with the Weirs. The Irish maid became a less common feature in middleand upper-class household due to a decrease in Irish immigration, the aging out of single 

Irish domestics like Hanratty, and a second generation of Irish women in the United States 

demonstrating little interest in domestic work.107 Many Black women who moved north as 

part of the Great Migration responded to the demand for domestic labor but opted for 

live-out service or day work rather than living and working in their employers’ homes.108

105 Mary Hanratty to CAW, March 20, 1910, WEFA 283, Addendum box 1, Folder 13.

106 According to Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592, Hanratty received consistent wages of $32.50 

from March 1934 through July 1936. Toward the end of her time with the Weirs, some of Hanratty’s checks were 

addressed to Katie Noonan, and by the end of 1936 the checks to Noonan no longer referenced Hanratty. It 

remains unclear if Hanratty asked DWY to send her wages sent to a friend or family member—a common 

practice—or if Noonan replaced Hanratty. 

107 Diner, Erin’s Daughters in America; Katzman, Seven Days a Week.

108 Katzman, Seven Days a Week.
66

Domestic Workers for the Weir Family, 1880s–1920s

Hanratty represented a holdover from a different era, and people who knew Dorothy Weir 

Young in the 1930s even noted the persistence of an Irish maid in the household as an 

extension from a previous time period.109

Although Hanratty stayed with the Weir family for a long time, she was still ultimately an employee and left the household after she retired. Just as little concrete information exists about Hanratty’s life before the Weirs, her life in retirement is also obscured in 

the historical record. At least three different single women named Mary Hanratty died in 

New York in the years following her departure. Hanratty may have passed away as early as 

December 1936 or she may have lived until 1945 or 1954. Existing records provide some 

useful information on the life of the Mary Hanratty who passed away in 1936. Even if they 

do not reference the beloved Weir family maid, the sources still offer a sense of what a 

single Irish woman’s retirement looked like in New York City. 

When she passed away in 1936, Mary Hanratty lived in an immigrant neighborhood 

in the southern part of the Bronx. She left behind an estate of around $6,000, some of 

which went to her neighbors, John and Mary O’Connor, who also served as the executors 

of her estate.110 Hanratty also bequeathed money to her brother who also lived in the 

Bronx, several family members who settled in Australia, and some family who still resided 

in Ireland. She also donated money to the Chinese Mission Society of St. Columban, a 

Catholic missionary organization founded by Irish priests. The distribution of her estate 

reveals a transnational network of friends and family, from the local Irish American community in New York City, to family still living in her home country, to fellow emigrants who 

settled on the other side of the globe. 

Although a majority of Mary Hanratty’s career revolved around caring for the Weir 

children and adults, that relationship was not reciprocated in her retirement. At the end of 

her life, she remained an Irish, Catholic, working-class woman, and likely continued to 

engage with her communities after her time with the Weir family. Her identity exceeded her 

occupation, even as her domestic service greatly shaped the lives of the women she worked 

for and raised. Like the many other servants employed by the Weirs—whether known to 

the historical record or not—Hanratty’s life mattered both because of and beyond her 

domestic labor.

109 Mahonri Sharp Young, interview by Doug Seemans, August 7, 1989, Branchville, CT Weir Farm Heritage 

Trust, Weir Farm, Branchville, CT, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions: “First they were inherited servants that 

Dorothy had from—that Mrs. Weir had had...they may well have gone back to Mr. Weir—of Irish maids and 

then they went back off.” 

110 Wills for Probate, New York Times, March 11, 1937. 
67

CHAPTER FOUR

A New Era and the Bass Family, 

1929–1944

Weir Farm entered a new era in 1931 when Julian Weir’s daughter, Dorothy, 

married Mahonri Young and the two spent increasingly larger portions of 

their year at Branchville until moving there full-time during World War II.

1

During the same time period, Dorothy’s sister Cora Weir Burlingham spent most weekends 

and several summer weeks on the Webb portion of the property with her husband and two 

children. Many turn-of-the-century agricultural and domestic labor practices persisted on 

the Weir family farm through the 1930s and 1940s, and class and gender boundaries 

continued to shape how people interacted and moved through space. However, Dorothy 

Weir Young’s management of the main farm site as well as the changing labor market 

during the Great Depression and World War II also altered labor dynamics at Branchville. 

Most notably, the Youngs and Burlinghams frequently hired workers from a handful of 

interconnected local families. Whereas laborers in the previous era under Julian Weir 

tended to live more transient lives and work in segregated spaces, local families hired by 

Dorothy and Cora had members who farmed the land, some who did domestic work for 

the proprietors, and others who completed substantial construction projects on the estate. 

With some important exceptions, workers in the 1930s and 1940s tended to have family 

roots and social networks in nearby towns that existed before, during, and after their 

employment on the Weir family property.

Shifting immigration and labor patterns in the United States set the stage for hiring 

changes at Branchville. The waves of immigration from western Europe that brought 

German farmers and Irish maids to Weir Farm began to decrease near the end of the 19th 

century and were replaced by an influx of immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe. 

For example, an Italian immigrant community flourished in the town of Ridgefield, 

Connecticut, in the early 20th century.2

 Then, in the early 1920s, the United States passed 

nativist legislation that aggressively restricted immigration into the country, especially from 

1 Deborah S. Gardner and Christine G. McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat: J. Alden Weir’s Farm in Connecticut,” 

Weir Farm National Historic Site Historic Resource Study, National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, 

2009, 195.

2 Aldo P. Biagiotti, Impact: The Historical Account of the Italian Immigrants of Ridgefield, Connecticut, 

(Ridgefield, CT: Romald, 1990); Ridgefield Archives Committee, Ridgefield, Illustrated edition (Portsmouth, 

NH: Arcadia Publishing, 2004).
68

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

Asia and Southern and Eastern Europe. Second- and third-generation white ethnics 

increasingly constituted the working class in places like New York and Connecticut, along 

with Black Americans who moved North as part of the Great Migration. The wage economy driven by industrial capitalism took a catastrophic turn during the Great Depression 

and resulted in high rates of unemployment. Fewer wealthy families had the income to hire 

a large domestic staff or manage multiple estates. With the exception of some domestic 

servants, most workers hired by the Youngs or Burlinghams were not recent immigrants, 

but already lived in Connecticut and would continue to live in the region after their time 

working for Julian Weir’s daughters.

The Basses, for example, came from Windham, Connecticut, to live and work on 

the Weir family estate from 1929 to 1944 (see Figure 27). Dorothy Weir Young hired George 

Bass as the caretaker for the main farm, and his sons worked alongside him and also as 

caretakers for the Burlinghams. Meanwhile, his wife Bessie Bass raised their nine children 

and performed domestic labor and their only daughter occasionally worked as a waitress 

for the Youngs. This chapter will begin by considering how Young’s management shaped 

working conditions for the Basses and other workers in the 1930s and 1940s. It will then 

examine the Basses’ agricultural labor, evaluating how farming on the site had changed or 

not since the Paul Remy and Julian Weir years. Drawing on rich oral histories with members of the Bass family, the chapter will look at other forms of labor and sources of income 

for the family, from raising animals and taking on side jobs to working for the Burlinghams 

or waitressing for the Youngs.3

 Like Johanna Remy, Bessie Bass performed crucial, unpaid 

domestic labor as she kept her large family fed and clothed. After highlighting Bessie Bass’s 

labor, the chapter will go on to explore the Basses’ relationship with their employers, as 

well as the family’s living conditions and leisure activities. Finally, the chapter will conclude 

by assessing the changes brought by World War II that ultimately led the Bass family to 

depart Branchville for their own farm in Danbury, Connecticut.

Dorothy Weir Young as Property Manager

Just as Julian Weir’s position as a white male settler property owner set the conditions under 

which workers on his farm labored, so too did Dorothy Weir Young’s management shape 

the experience of laborers on the property in the 1930s and 1940s. Dorothy and her sisters, 

Caro and Cora, traded shares so that when their stepmother Ella passed away at the end of 

1930, Dorothy inherited the entirety of the Branchville estate.4

 She embraced the role of 

3 Weir Farm Historic Site staff and volunteers interviewed Betty, Russell, Charles, Orin, and Kenneth Bass, as 

well as Mervin’s wife, Mary Bruschi Bass Ciuccoli.

4 Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat,” 221. The fact that DW married later in life may have influenced 

her interest in managing the Branchville estate; her sisters had other estates to manage through their marriages.
69

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

caretaker of both her father’s legacy and his property. Observers noted that Dorothy, not 

her husband Mahonri Young, oversaw the finances for the property and managed workers.5

Mahonri was a sculptor, widower, and father of two grown children. Though not a practicing Mormon, he was a grandson of Brigham Young and received numerous commissions 

from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He made a living through his art, but 

did not bring a significant fortune to his marriage compared to his second wife.6

 Even 

during the Great Depression, Dorothy Weir Young received reliable income from her 

investments, having inherited substantial wealth not only through the Baker-Weirs, but also 

from her aunt Cora Baker Davis Rutherfurd Laighton, who passed away in 1929.7

 Young 

kept organized financial records documenting employee wages, property improvements and 

repairs, and other expenses associated with the Branchville estate.

Like her father, Dorothy Weir Young operated at the intersection of multiple 

identities. As a settler and descendent of settlers living on Indigenous land, she inherited 

land, wealth, and assumptions about the imperatives of property ownership. She also came 

of age during the Progressive Era as an upper-class white woman in New York City. She 

attended the prestigious Brearley School for Girls, visited Europe numerous times, and 

participated in various homefront efforts during WWI. Through the 1910s and 1920s she 

remained single with a rich social life and pursued training as an artist.8

 She was well-read, 

regularly contributed to charities, and maintained social connections across the city’s 

upper-class society.9

 As a young woman, Dorothy Weir joined a generation of women who, 

bolstered by generational wealth and racial privilege, pushed beyond separate sphere 

ideology to live dynamic independent lives in the public sphere. 

Beginning in the 1920s and for the rest of her adult life, Dorothy Weir Young took a 

leading role in preserving and managing her father’s artwork and legacy. Although she 

exhibited her own art in the 1920s and 1930s, she also spent significant time assisting with 

publications and exhibitions related to her father’s work. She corresponded regularly with 

galleries to coordinate loans and sales of Weir paintings. She also organized and transcribed her father’s letters, a project that mushroomed into her writing a biography of her 

father, entitled The Life & Letters of J. Alden Weir. She continued to work on the project 

5 Mahonri Sharp Young, interview by Doug Seemans, August 7, 1989, Branchville, CT Weir Farm Heritage 

Trust, Weir Farm, Branchville, CT, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Mahonri Sharp Young, George Lay, 

Charles Lay, Mahonri Mackintosh Young II, interview by Doug Seemans, August 7, 1989, Branchville, CT Weir 

Farm Heritage Trust, Weir Farm, Branchville, CT, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

6 DW met MMY through mutual artistic circles several times in the 1920s before marrying him in 1931. 

Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat,” 155–61.

7 Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat,” 159.

8 Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat,” 141–52.

9 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat,” 141–52.
70

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

until her death in 1947.10 The task of preserving and chronicling family history was not 

uncommon among affluent white women in the United States, and Young’s ownership and 

management of the Branchville estate clearly fell within her broader effort to commemorate her father’s memory.11 Aside from a few small construction projects and modern 

upgrades, Young did not radically renovate the property. She hired a caretaker to farm the 

land and husband a handful of animals, on a slightly smaller scale and with similar implements compared to the Remy operation at the turn-of-the-century. Like her father, she 

treated the site as a rural retreat and regularly hosted friends and family there. Unlike her 

father, however, Dorothy Weir Young did not fit the model of a gentleman farmer who 

dabbled in agriculture. She also did not seek to cultivate a romantic landscape to inspire 

her own art; rather, she stewarded the land as a valued part of her family inheritance.

Young’s maternalist approach to managing employees further contrasted from her 

father. She seemed to embrace a perceived responsibility as an upper-class white woman to 

care and provide for hired workers beyond strictly wages.12 Young routinely gave holiday 

bonuses, covered her employees’ medical expenses, and followed her stepmother’s example of purchasing gifts for workers.13 Whereas Willie and Carl Remy helped their father 

farm Weir’s land with no evidence of extra pay, Dorothy Weir Young paid the Bass children 

for full-time, part-time, and temporary labor. During the financially challenging times of 

the Great Depression, Young frequently hired members of local families in such a way that 

not only responded to changing labor patterns, but may have also reflected a sense of 

obligation to help financially support her working-class neighbors. Such an approach 

would have aligned with her documented activities and sensibilities as a wealthy white 

woman who came of age in Progressive era New York City.

While providing more material support to her employees, Dorothy’s maternalism 

also reinforced class boundaries. Charles Burlingham Jr. recalled that his aunt Dorothy 

and her sister Cora always called George Bass by his last name, “in sort of a noblesse 

10 Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat,” 152, 187.

11 See Michael Kammen, Mystic Chords of Memory: The Transformation of Tradition in American Culture (New 

York: Vintage, 1993). Ridgefield Archives Committee, Ridgefield, 81 highlights another Ridgefield woman with 

a story similar to Young: “Miss Mary L.B. Olcott was the mistress of Casagmo [an estate in Ridgefield] after the 

death of her father.... An ardent feminist, she was active in the woman’s suffrage movement, and in her later 

years devoted herself to genealogy, gardening, and the breeding of prize poodles, game birds, and swans at 

Casagmo.”

12 Beginning in the late 19th century, middle- and upper-class women emphasized their feminine respectability 

and maternal morality as a guiding framework and justification for increased civic activities. This maternalism 

continued to inform women’s volunteerism and activism into the Progressive Era through clubs like the New 

York Junior League, of which DW was a long-term member. Molly Ladd-Taylor defines maternalism in part as 

“a uniquely feminine value system based on care and nurturance,” which characterizes DWY’s approach to 

employee management at Weir Farm. See Molly Ladd-Taylor, “Toward Defining Maternalism in U.S. History,” 

Journal of Women’s History 5, no. 2 (Fall 1993): 110–13.

13 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; Mary Bass Ciuccoli, interview by Darla Shaw, November 

13, 2000, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.
71

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

oblige way.”14 In oral histories, members of the Bass family commonly referred to the 

Weir-Young residence on the property as, “the big house,” which loomed large in a physical sense in addition to housing their wealthy employer.15 While Dorothy Weir Young 

maintained her class status in opposition to those she paid, her records do not communicate the same level of perceived ethnic and racial superiority that appeared more commonly in Julian Weir’s correspondence. However, Young left behind less voluminous 

correspondence and also hired far fewer recent immigrants due to changing population 

patterns. Altogether, her class-based maternalism combined with her propensity to preserve the general form and function of the Branchville property defined the conditions 

under which the Bass family worked as caretakers from 1929 to 1944. 

The Bass Family as Caretakers

The Basses that served as long-term caretakers for Dorothy Weir Young were a white 

Anglo-Saxon Protestant farming family with roots in eastern Connecticut and Rhode 

Island. George Bass was born on February 6, 1890, to English immigrants Edward Bass and 

Mary Ally Holt Bass, who farmed their own land in Windham, Connecticut.16 George grew 

up farming alongside his older sister, Mary, who ultimately inherited the property when 

their father passed away in 1910 after falling off a ladder.17 The following year, George Bass 

married Bessie Mabel Cooper of nearby Chaplin, Connecticut. She was born on July 4, 

1892 in Newport, Rhode Island, to Bessie (Betsey) Matthewson Cooper and George 

Cooper, both of whom were born in New England. Her father painted houses and died 

14 Charles Burlingham, interview by Doug DeNatale and Cathie Barner, March 17, 1989, WEFA Oral History 

Transcriptions.

15 “The big house” was also a term used on Southern United States plantations and on estates in Ireland owned 

by the Anglo-Irish class.

16 1920 United States Census, Census Place: Windham, Windham, Connecticut; Roll: T625_198; Page: 11A; 

Enumeration District: 351; 1930 United States Census, Census Place: Wilton, Fairfield, Connecticut; Page: 8A; 

Enumeration District: 0225; Bessie Bass Morabito, interview by Michelle Gutmann, November 4, 1999, WEFA 

Oral History Transcriptions; Charlie Bass, interview by Michelle Gutmann, December 1, 1999, WEFA Oral 

History Transcriptions; Orin Bass, interview by Michelle Gutmann, December 2, 1999, WEFA Oral History 

Transcriptions; Darla Shaw, “Life on Weir Farm as Told by the Sons and Daughter of George and Bessie Bass,” 

March 2020. In collaboration with the Bass family, Dr. Darla Shaw put together an informal but thorough family 

history of the Basses in her capacity as volunteer for the Weir Farm National Historical Park. Although a valuable 

secondary source, the manuscript does not include direct citations of primary sources. While covering similar 

stories that Shaw describes, this chapter prioritizes and cites primary source evidence, including transcripts from 

oral histories conducted through Weir Farm National Park, genealogical records, and Dorothy Weir Young’s 

checkbooks. Where Shaw’s manuscript provides relevant information beyond existing primary sources, that will 

be noted in the footnote. 

17 1910 United States Census, Census Place: Windham, Windham, Connecticut; Roll: T624_144; Page: 13B; 

Enumeration District: 0590; Charlie Bass, interview by Michelle Gutmann, December 1, 1999, WEFA Oral 

History Transcriptions; Shaw, 2020.
72

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

shortly after she was born—also from falling off a ladder.18 Bessie Mabel Cooper moved to 

Chaplin, Connecticut, around 1903, when her mother married a Frank B. Hall, a day 

laborer who submitted an advertisement seeking a wife.19 Bessie married George Bass at a 

Methodist parsonage on March 22, 1911, and, according to the announcement in the 

Hartford Courant, the couple planned to “make their home at Windham, where Mr. Bass, 

conducts a large farm.”20 Bass continued to work as a hired farmer for landowners like 

Alfred Abbe and Frank Barber in the Windham area through the 1910s and 1920s. By 1929, 

their household included six children: Mervin (16), George Albert (14), Edward (11), 

Bessie, who preferred to be called Betty (8), Russell (6), Orin (3), and Charles (3) (see 

Figures 28–31).21 Bessie’s widowed mother, Betsey Hall, also lived with the family.22

Dorothy Weir likely connected with the Basses through networks in Windham, 

where the Baker family estate resided. Oral histories with members of the Bass family assert 

that Weir persuaded George Bass to come work for her.23 Russell Bass remembered the 

family’s move to Branchville, “all crammed into a car or truck” with their belongings, “him 

sitting with a pig at his feet.”24 By all accounts, George and Bessie Bass were hard workers. 

George’s children remember him working from dawn until dusk, often with them working 

beside him.25 Charles Burlingham Jr., who spent his childhood weekends and summers 

across the street, remembered George Bass as a “a formidable, bandy-legged, old tough, 

18 Charlie Bass, interview by Michelle Gutmann, December 1, 1999, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Orin 

Bass, interview by Michelle Gutmann, December 2, 1999, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Shaw, 2020.

19 1910 United States Census, Census Place: Chaplin, Windham, Connecticut; Roll: T624_143; Page: 4B; 

Enumeration District: 0571; Charlie Bass, interview by Michelle Gutmann, December 1, 1999, WEFA Oral 

History Transcriptions; Shaw, 2020.

20 Hartford Courant, March 23, 1911, 19.

21 1920 United States Census, Census Place: Windham, Windham, Connecticut; Roll: T625_198; Page: 11A; 

Enumeration District: 351; 1930 United States Census, Census Place: Wilton, Fairfield, Connecticut; Page: 8A; 

Enumeration District: 0225; Shaw, 2020. The Bass family includes three generation of women named Bessie, and 

two generation of men named George. To distinguish between them, this chapter will refer to the youngest Bessie 

as Betty (which she preferred), her mother (George Bass’s wife) as Bessie or Bessie Mabel, and the eldest Bessie 

as Betsey (in accordance with several census records). George and Bessie Bass’s son will be referred to as 

George Albert.

22 1920 United States Census, Census Place: Windham, Windham, Connecticut; Roll: T625_198; Page: 11A; 

Enumeration District: 351; 1930 United States Census, Census Place: Wilton, Fairfield, Connecticut; Page: 8A; 

Enumeration District: 0225.

23 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, interview by Michelle 

Gutmann, October 23, 1999, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Bessie Bass Morabito, interview by Michelle 

Gutmann, November 4, 1999, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

24 Bass family members interview notes, interview by Maria Abonnel, May 31, 2006, WEFA Oral History 

Transcriptions.

25 Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview by Michelle Gutmann, December 10, 1999, WEFA Oral History 

Transcriptions; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, interview 

by Michelle Gutmann, October 23, 1999, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Shaw, 2020.
73

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

elderly gent.”26 Meanwhile, Bessie Bass cooked, cleaned, and managed a household that 

expanded to include two more children born at Branchville: Clifford and Kenneth 

(see Figure 32).

Through the 1930s, Dorothy Weir Young paid George Bass a competitive 85 dollars 

per month to run the farm; the average monthly agricultural worker in Connecticut earned 

50 dollars in January 1940.27 In his final three years at Branchville in the early 1940s, his pay 

increased to 95 dollars per month.28 During that time, farm wages across the country 

increased due to worker shortages during World War II.

29 Orin Bass believed that his father 

“did not get half of what he was supposed to get,” because he would only use one week of 

his four weeks’ vacation each year and refused to take money for anything sold off the 

property. Orin recalled that the contract between George Bass and Dorothy Weir Young 

stated that George should have received half of any sales from farm, but he “was a proud 

Yankee” who “wouldn’t take something for nothing.” According to Orin, George “thought 

it was [Dorothy Weir Young’s] house, her property, her wood and he was just being paid to 

work there.”30 From his son’s perspective, George Bass took pride in adhering to his 

perceived role as an at-will employee on Dorothy Weir Young’s land.

George Bass’s oldest son, Mervin, worked with his father as an assistant caretaker 

until 1941, earning anywhere from 60 to 75 dollars per month.31 Mervin married Mary 

Bruschi in 1934, and commuted from their residence in Ridgefield to the farm site every 

day. Mary recalled that he worked every other Sunday because someone needed to be on 

site to milk the cows.32 As part of his duties, Mervin traveled to town to pick up groceries 

26 Charles Burlingham, interview.

27 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; United States Department of Labor, “Wartime Wages, 

Income, and Wage Regulation in Agriculture,” Bulletin No. 883, 1946; United States Department of Labor, 

“Handbook of Labor Statistics,” 1927–1990. The 1940 Census lists George Bass’s annual income as $4680, more 

than four times what Dorothy paid him over the course of one year. The census also states he did not have other 

income sources. For comparison’s sake, on the same census page, a carpenter made $1,700/year, and a dentist 

and a stock broker both made $5,000/year. The record also lists Mervin and Eddie Bass’s income as astonishingly 

high ($3,640 and $3,420, respectively). George Albert’s $532 annual income makes more sense, given that he 

had worked only 28 weeks in the previous year. 1940 United States Census, Wilton, Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: 

m-t0627-00500; Page: 4A; Enumeration District: 1-225.

28 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592.

29 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; United States Department of Labor, “Wartime Wages, 

Income, and Wage Regulation in Agriculture,” Bulletin No. 883, 1946 shows that average farm wage rates 

increased during the war; in Connecticut they increased to an average of $106 in January 1946. 

30 Orin Bass, interview by Michelle Gutmann, December 2, 1999, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

31 According to Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592, Mervin Bas earned $65/month from January 

1932 to May 1932. No entries with his name appear from June 1932 to May 1933; perhaps stopped working for 

Young for a time or perhaps she paid him in cash. Payments resume at $60/month from June 1933 to July 1935 

and $65 from August 1935 to June 1937. From July 1937 to August 1939 he earned an extra $10 each quarter, 

and then increased to $75/month from September 1939 to November 1941. Mary Bass Ciuccoli remembers him 

getting paid $65/month in her oral history.

32 Mary Bass Ciuccoli, interview.
74

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

after the Youngs ordered them.33 Dorothy Weir Young also hired Mary Bruschi Bass to 

perform housework and laundry and paid for the medical expenses associated with the 

birth of their two children.34 Mary’s domestic work will be discussed in more depth in 

Chapter 5, but notably Dorothy Weir Young’s financial arrangement with the Bass family 

expanded beyond George over time to include both Mervin and Mary Bass.

Under the stewardship of George and Mervin Bass, the Weir family property 

continued to function as a working farm. Like the Remys and other tenant farmers before 

them, the Basses cultivated fields, harvested crops, cared for animals, and assisted with 

gardening. Historian Jack Larkin remarks that “traditionalism and continuity” characterized farm operations during the Dorothy Weir Young years.35 Reflecting her broader 

inclination to preserve her father’s property and legacy, Young did not aggressively pursue 

modern farming practices on the site. Rather, the rhythm and labor of farm life continued 

to resemble the late 19th century. A few minor changes included consolidating the scale of 

crop farming, updating a few implements, and introducing a truck purchased by George 

Bass. The infamous oxen no longer resided on the property, and the Youngs slightly 

expanded the dairying operation. Although Mahonri Young drew many sketches of the 

Branchville landscape, neither he nor Dorothy managed the site for the purpose of artistic 

inspiration like their predecessor. The Basses were tasked with maintaining and continuing 

the existing estate as a self-sustaining farm and retreat.

The Basses farmed less acreage than their predecessors. Jack Larkin notes that 

“tillage fields and pasturelands were allowed to retreat into scrub woodlands,” a common 

trend in a region with declining agricultural activity.36 They likely did not grow small grains 

like rye or oats. They did, however, plant and harvest potatoes in the $25 lot cleared by Paul 

Remy and John Ferguson Weir in 1899.37 In the open lot they grew corn and hay for animal 

feed.38 They also managed two vegetable gardens for Dorothy Weir Young in addition to 

their own (see Figure 33).39 The introduction of a manure spreader made the process of 

33 Mary Bass Ciuccoli, interview.

34 Mary Bass Ciuccoli, interview.

35 Jack Larkin, “The Weir Farm: Working Agriculture and the Vision of Rural Life in New England 1860–1940,” 

an essay prepared as the agricultural history component of the Cultural Landscape Report for the Weir Farm 

National Historic Site. Draft, 1996, 57, based on MMY’s drawings.

36 Larkin, “The Weir Farm: Working Agriculture and the Vision of Rural Life in New England 1860–1940,” 

54–55.

37 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, interview by Michelle 

Gutmann, April 29, 2000, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

38 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 2000 interview; Charlie 

Bass, interview, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions. 

39 Bessie Bass Morabito, interview; Orin Bass, interview.
75

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

fertilizing all of the fields more efficient.40 Instead of using shovels to throw manure on the 

fields, the manure spreader could evenly distribute it onto the ground through a cylinder 

on the back of a customized wagon box.41 The Basses stockpiled the manure next to the 

barn before applying it to corn fields, hay fields, and the gardens (see Figure 34).42

Apart from manuring, corn planting and harvesting looked much like it did during 

Remy years. In the spring, the Basses planted the corn in wide rows created by either a 

one-horse or hand cultivator to remove weeds and hill up dirt around the stalks. 

Cultivating the corn required periodic hoeing as depicted in a sketch by Mahonri Young’s 

sketch, “Branchville August 1939” (see Figure 35).43 In the fall, the Basses likely picked the 

corn by hand and stored it in the corn crib to dry out. Then, they removed the kernels using 

a corn sheller and fed them into a corn grinder to crush the kernels into feed.44

After spreading manure, planting hay also followed the same process that it did at 

the turn of the century: plowing, harrowing, seeding, and more harrowing. Charles Bass 

remembered rotating the hay crops between red clover and buckwheat to help maintain 

the health of the soil.45 The Basses may have persisted in using the same handheld cradle 

scythes wielded by Julian Weir’s employees, or they may have utilized a horse-drawn 

mowing machine, or both. Horse-drawn mowing machines were already widespread in 

Connecticut by the late 19th century, and for the Basses to still not have access to one by 

the 1930s or 1940s would have been exceedingly rare.46 Orin Bass mentioned a mowing 

machine in an oral history, and Mahonri Young depicted a mowing machine in one of his 

sketches as well as a painting entitled, “Rowen,” referring to the second cutting of a hay 

40 Larkin, “The Weir Farm: Working Agriculture and the Vision of Rural Life in New England 1860–1940,” 

55–56. In 1943, Mahonri Young wrote to friend Jack Sears, “Again it is Spring. Bass the farmer and his son are 

out spreading manure on the gardens.” Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat,” 195.

41 Robert L. Ardrey, quoted in Larkin, “The Weir Farm: Working Agriculture and the Vision of Rural Life in 

New England 1860–1940,” 55–56.

42 Larkin, “The Weir Farm: Working Agriculture and the Vision of Rural Life in New England 1860–1940,” 43, 

60; Orin Bass, interview specified that the manure pile was located on the far north side of the barn. MMY’s 

sketch (Figure 34) is misleadingly entitled, “Bringing in the Hay.”

43 Larkin, “The Weir Farm: Working Agriculture and the Vision of Rural Life in New England 1860–1940,” 60: 

“It is more likely that it depicts cultivation, with the worker hoeing around the corn plants for the fourth and final 

time in the cultivation sequence.”

44 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 2000 interview.

45 Charlie Bass, interview.

46 Larkin, “The Weir Farm: Working Agriculture and the Vision of Rural Life in New England 1860–1940,” 26.
76

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

field (see Figures 36 and 37).47 Yet other evidence suggests that the Basses continued to 

employ handheld scythes, as well. Russell Bass recalled using a scythe on the farm as a 

youth, and Mahonri Young sketched an image of workers—likely the Bass men—wielding 

scythes in an open field at Branchville (see Figure 38).48

After cutting the hay, the Basses used a spring-steel horse rake similar to what the 

Remys used to collect dried hay and form windrows (see Figure 39).49 Then, they loaded the 

hay into wagons and hauled it to the barn. They would bring the wagon in the south side of 

the building, unhitch the horses, and lead them out the north door while leaving the wagon 

full of hay behind (see Figure 40).50 The Basses would then pitch the hay into the loft above 

the animals where it could be forked down to feed livestock as needed.51 Haying required 

intensive labor, and Dorothy Weir Young frequently hired on additional members of the 

Bass family in addition to George and Mervin during the harvest. Russell Bass remembered 

“helping bring in hay” as a boy and Young noted paying George Albert, Edward, and 

“Skippy” Bass for haying at various points over the course of the 1930s and 1940s.52

Oxen, already old-fashioned during the Weir and Remy years, finally disappeared 

as beasts of burden from the site. In the early 1930s, George Bass purchased a truck for five 

dollars from Connery Brothers that he used for transportation and some farm operations.53

However, the Basses primarily relied on horses to drive implements, wagons, and even an 

47 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 2000 interview. Their 

mention of a mower could refer to a push lawn mower, which may be what the Bass sons used when they mowed 

lawns for neighbors. Larkin is hesitant to confirm or deny the existence of a mower, partly because Mahonri 

Young did not always accurately title his sketches. For example, BYU 832070266 is titled “Mowing at 

Branchville” but clearly shows a horse rake in a field where the hay is already cut. For this reason, and due to the 

imprecision of Young’s sketches, Larkin is not fully convinced that “Mowing the Orchard” depicts a mower. 

Combined with the more detailed, Rowen, however, it seems very likely that the Basses used a mowing machine. 

Larkin, “The Weir Farm: Working Agriculture and the Vision of Rural Life in New England 1860–1940.”

48 Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview. Mahonri M. Young’s Danbury Fair: Man with Scythe may also have 

been inspired by the Basses.

49 Larkin, “The Weir Farm: Working Agriculture and the Vision of Rural Life in New England 1860–1940,” 55; 

Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview. Orin Bass mentions a “hay tedder” in the 1999 family interview, possibly 

referring to the hay rake or referencing an additional implement; there is no other evidence of an additional 

implement. Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview.

50 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, second part of interview 

by Michelle Gutmann, April 29, 2000; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and 

Bessie Morabito, interview by Michelle Gutmann, October 23, 1999.

51 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, second part of 2000 

interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview.

52 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview. “Skippy” was likely a 

nickname for one of the Bass sons or perhaps a close relative.

53 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview. The 

Bass family also owned a number of other cars for personal use. See Lance Kasparian and Maureen K. Phillips, 

“Historic Structures Report, Vol II-B: Caretaker’s House and Caretaker’s Garage,” National Park Service, US 

Department of the Interior, 2008, 34.
77

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

improvised snow plow.54 They always kept at least a pair of horses for farm work; the 

Youngs owned two Belgians named Bill and Charlie when the Bass family left in 1944.55

According to Charles Bass, an earlier Buckskin horse named Dan “dropped dead while 

pulling the load of wood,” and “the other horse was hitched to it and had to drag it back” 

out of the woods.56 Dan’s death speaks to the tremendous amount of literal horsepower 

required for routine farm labor. 

Along with horses, the barn on the Weir-Young property housed Jersey and 

Guernsey dairy cows.57 Many of the cows were named Bessie or Mabel after Bessie Mabel 

Bass.58 Orin Bass asserted that they never kept more than four cows at once, whereas 

Mahonri Young’s son from a previous marriage, Mahonri Sharp Young, remembered the 

Youngs owning “seven cows or something like that...a whole barn full.”59 Yet another 

source suggested 12 dairy cows on site.60 While she did not likely maintain a dozen cows 

consistently, Dorothy Weir Young did invest in an expanded dairy operation compared to 

her father. She updated the milking room with new stanchions and a cement floor in 

1931.61 Members of the Bass Family milked the cows by hand into a bucket every morning 

at eight o’clock, and probably a second or third time later in the day, as well. Half of the 

milk was stored in large skimmer pans in the basement of the Young home. The Basses 

kept their share in the woodshed near their house in a tank where cream could rise to the 

top and milk could be dispensed through a spigot at the bottom (see Figures 1 and 41).62

Bessie Bass took on the laborious task of making butter by churning the cream, squeezing 

out the buttermilk, and then adding “the right amount of salt to make cakes out of it” 

according to Russell Bass.63

54 Charlie Bass, interview.

55 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 2000 interview; Charlie 

Bass, interview. The Burlinghams also had Nina, a Shetland pony, that the Bass children sometimes rode, 

according to Charlie Bass.

56 Charlie Bass, interview.

57 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview.

58 Orin Bass, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 

1999 interview.

59 Bass family members interview notes.

60 Orin Bass, interview; Mahonri Sharp Young, interview.

61 Maureen K. Phillips, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. II- A: Outbuildings,” Weir Farm National 

Historic Site, Wilton, CT [draft]. Lowell, MA: US Department of the Interior, NPS, Northeast Cultural Resources 

Center, Building Conservation Branch, 1998, 43; Dorothy Weir Young, “Branchville Book,” 1927–1946, Weir 

Family Papers, Diaries, Ledgers and Notebooks, Box 7, WEFA 482.

62 The multipurpose shed contained a woodshed, doghouse, and a cold bin. Bass family members interview 

notes; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview; 

Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview; Orin Bass, interview. 

63 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, second part of 2000 

interview; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview.
78

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

The cows grazed in the pasture across the road from the barn; they reportedly 

loved to eat poison ivy below the stone wall there.64 Orin Bass also recalled allowing cattle 

to graze in the hay fields after the second mowing.65 One cow roaming in a mowed hay field 

accidentally slipped into a spring on the rocks and drowned; a young Charles Bass encountered the scene and remembered a snake coming out of the dead animal’s mouth.66 In the 

summer, the cows stayed out at night and came through the south side of the barn; in the 

winter, the Basses brought the cattle to the water trough and then through the south door 

of the barn for exercise. Charles remembered shoveling the snow out of the barnyard by 

hand during a blizzard in 1934 so that animals had room to walk around.67

Both Dorothy Weir Young and George Bass were involved in buying and selling 

cows to maintain the small herd. In 1938, Young submitted a classified advertisement for 

three Guernseys ready for immediate sale due to being “overstocked.”68 Orin Bass recalled 

a cattle dealer from Norwalk named Miller who “stuck” George Bass in his business 

dealings. George “said nothing” and “was very quiet waiting for the right opportunity.” He 

later sold a heifer to Miller, who afterward discovered that she only had three working 

faucets. According to Orin, “he didn’t come on the property for a year. He couldn’t take his 

own medicine.”69 Once in a while, according to Charles Bass, a calf was slaughtered, but 

Orin remembered selling most calves to the peddler.70

The Youngs financed a slightly expanded dairying operation due to a shared enthusiasm for cows’ romantic aesthetic and dairy products. Mahonri Sharp Young asserted that 

his father and stepmother “loved looking at [the cows] and having them in the landscape 

just as part of the decoration.”71 The Youngs kept their portion of cow’s milk in large 

skimming pans, where the cream would come to the top and curdle, making a kind of 

sour-milk cheese. According to Russell Bass, Mahonri would “come down for breakfast 

and scoop that lard stuff off and eat it for breakfast.”72 Dorothy may have had an interest in 

64 Bass family members interview notes.

65 Orin Bass, interview.

66 Charlie Bass, interview; Orin Bass, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, 

and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview.

67 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview; Bass 

family members interview notes; Orin Bass, interview.

68 Dorothy Weir Young, “Branchville Book,” 1927–1946, Weir Family Papers, Diaries, Ledgers and Notebooks, 

Box 7, WEFA 482.

69 Orin Bass, interview.

70 Charlie Bass, interview; Orin Bass, interview.

71 Mahonri Sharp Young, interview.

72 Orin Bass, interview; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview; Spero Anargyros, interview with M. Lewis 

Dittmore Jr., June 1976.
79

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

cheese-making, as well.73 The cook made butter and, in collaboration with George Bass, ice 

cream. Mary Bruschi Bass remembered them making ice cream twice a week, and 

Mahonri’s grandson Charles Lay recalled enjoying ice cream as a child at the stone table 

during afternoon teatime.74 Watching grazing cattle and savoring homemade dairy products contributed to the charm of staying in Branchville for the Young family and required 

significant labor by the Basses and the Youngs’ cook.

The other major job for the Basses involved caring for the orchard on the property. 

They sprayed the apple trees with pesticide three times per year, “when the petals peaked 

and when the petals fell” or else there would be “too many bugs” according to Orin Bass.75

When mixing the spray, George Bass followed recommendations published in booklets by 

the Connecticut State College Extension Service and the Connecticut Agricultural 

Experiment Station.76 For example, handwritten notes in one of the booklets indicate that 

George mixed 40 gallons of spray for apple trees that consisted of water, dry lime sulfur, 

lead arsenate, and nicotine sulphate. The booklet also contained spray recipes for peach, 

pear, and cherry trees—all of which existed on the Weir family estate.77 After mixing the 

spray, the Basses would load the barrel of liquid onto a horse-drawn wagon. Orin remembered sitting in the wagon and pumping the pump while his father sprayed the trees with a 

high-pressure hose.78 In the fall, the Bass family—including the women—would pick the 

apples and store them in the root cellar under the Young studio (see Figure 42).79 Apples 

were also sent to a cider mill on Route 7 to be pressed. Subsequent cider barrels resided in 

the basement of the big house.80

73 Larkin makes this assertion on page 55, but does not cite his evidence. Larkin, “The Weir Farm: Working 

Agriculture and the Vision of Rural Life in New England 1860–1940,” 55.

74 Mahonri Sharp Young, George Lay, Charles Lay, Mahonri Mackintosh Young II, interview; Bass family 

members interview notes; Mary Bass Ciuccoli, interview.

75 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview; Orin 

Bass, interview.

76 WEFA 15501—–WEFA 15504.

77 WEFA 15501; Bessie Bass Morabito, interview. Lead arsenate was the leading recommended pesticide for 

apple trees until the 1940s, when DDT was released as the more safe and effective option. Toxic byproducts of 

lead arsenate are still in the soil today, creating environmental concerns particularly when people develop homes 

and subdivisions where historic orchards were located. See Ernie Hood, “The Apple Bites Back: Claiming Old 

Orchards for Residential Development,” Environmental Health Perspectives 114, no. 8 (August 2006): A470–76. 

The Burlinghams also had grapes; the Basses may or may not have sprayed them, as well. Margaret (Peg) 

Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by Jamie Peters and Dr. 

Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie 

Morabito, 1999 interview; Orin Bass, interview; Child Associates and Cynthia Zaitzevsky, “Cultural Landscape 

Report for Weir Farm National Historic Site,” Brookline, MA: Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 

National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, 1996.

78 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview; Orin 

Bass, interview. 

79 Charlie Bass, interview.

80 Orin Bass, interview.
80

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

Additional Labor and Income

Cultivating and harvesting crops, managing livestock, dairying, and caring for orchards all 

fell under the caretaker responsibilities led by George and Mervin Bass, with the occasional 

assistance from other members of the Bass family. The Bass family also engaged in additional agricultural labor beyond caretaker duties to secure supplemental food or income. 

For example, George Bass cultivated his own vegetable garden, and the Basses raised various 

animals near the caretaker’s house. They raised two pigs each year in pens behind the 

caretaker’s garage, growing them over the summer and then slaughtering them in the winter 

(see Figure 1).81 After killing the pigs, Bass and one or more of his sons would cook the 

carcasses in a cauldron on blocks over a hot fire. After the hair began separating from the 

skin, they would use a scraper to remove the rest of the hair off the hides.82 Then, George 

Bass used a butchering knife to gut and divide the carcass.83 The Basses split each pig with 

the Youngs.84 In December 1943, Mahonri Young wrote to his friend Jack Sears that “we 

have just killed our pig. At this moment he is laying on the floor in my etching room cut-up 

and frozen stiff.” The next winter he wrote to Sears that Dorothy and their cook, Mollie 

Gleason, made a number of pork dishes that impressed friends, including head cheese, 

“patty de porc,” and pork cake, a fruit cake made with pork fat instead of butter.85

In addition to pigs, the Bass family grew their own chickens. They collected eggs 

and butchered the birds for their own food and for sale.86 Dorothy Weir Young regularly 

paid George—and, for a time, Edward—Bass for eggs at a rate ranging from 45 to 60 cents 

per dozen.87 Charles Bass remembered him and his siblings selling chickens for pin, or 

spending, money. They each had at least one chicken under their care; at one point Charles 

grew as many as 35 chickens to sell for pin money.88 In the early 1940s, Dorothy Weir Young 

converted her icehouse into a chicken coop; Russell Bass did not remember her keeping 

81 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 2000 interview; Bass 

family members interview notes; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview. Oral histories place the pig pen “at the 

corner” of the current-day visitor’s parking lot, though there is some ambiguity as to which corner, and which 

side of the slope. Figure 1 locations represent best estimates based on a thorough review of oral history 

transcripts. 

82 Bass family members interview notes; Orin Bass, interview.

83 The Bass family donated the knife to Weir Farm Historic Site. See WEFA 15487.

84 Bass family members interview notes; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview.

85 MMY to JS, December 17, 1943, BYU 1058, Sears, 1; quoted in Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat”; 

MMY to JS, January 24, 1944, BYU 1058, Sears, 1; quoted in Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat” and 

referenced in Larkin, “The Weir Farm: Working Agriculture and the Vision of Rural Life in New England 

1860–1940.”

86 Charlie Bass, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 

2000 interview; Bass family members interview notes.

87 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592.

88 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview.
81

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

chickens before then.89 The Basses likely cared for the Youngs’ chickens in addition to their 

own. Kenneth Bass recalled that his brother “Eddie used to carry 200 pounds of feed all the 

way up the driveway all the way to the chicken house over his shoulders.”90 Mahonri Sharp 

Young remembered his father and Dorothy growing their own chickens, which “probably 

cost four times what the chickens cost at the A&P.”91 Whereas Mahonri Sharp Young 

believed that nostalgia inspired the Youngs to keep animals despite the financial loss, the 

Basses raised their own poultry out of necessity. Russell noted the benefit of living on a 

farm during the Great Depression; activities like butchering and selling chickens helped 

ensure that the large family had enough to eat.92

In addition to chickens, the Bass family raised pheasants, guinea hens, turkeys, 

pigeons, and rabbits in pens east of Nod Hill Road, leaving behind stone foundations still 

visible today (see Figure 1).93 To access the pens, the Basses built stairs down the steep slope 

behind the caretaker’s garage and constructed a wooden bridge across the adjacent wetland area.94 A nearby duck pond—likely utilizing the wetland area—boasted as many as 150 

ducks at one time. The Bass boys also trapped muskrat, skunk, and mink and sold the furs 

at Bert’s garage on Route 7 for pin money. They caught squirrels that Bessie Bass made into 

squirrel pie and squirrel soup.95 Beyond the animals raised and trapped for food and 

money, farm cats worked the site and were allowed inside the caretaker’s house, where a 

young Kenneth Bass once tried to cut a cat’s whiskers off.96

The panoply of animals cared for by the Basses on the Weir-Young farm included 

several beloved dogs. As part of her reimbursements to George Bass for incidentals each 

month, Dorothy Weir Young included entries for Hank, her black and white bird dog. 

89 Bass family members interview notes; Dorothy Weir Young, “Branchville Book,” 1927–1946, Weir Family 

Papers, Diaries, Ledgers and Notebooks, Box 7, WEFA 482; Maureen K. Phillips, “Weir Farm, Historic 

Structures Report, Vol. II—A: Outbuildings,” Weir Farm National Historic Site, Wilton, CT [draft]. Lowell, MA: 

US Department of the Interior, NPS, Northeast Cultural Resources Center, Building Conservation Branch, 1998.

90 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview.

91 Mahonri Sharp Young, interview.

92 Bass family members interview notes.

93 Child Associates and Cynthia Zaitzevsky, “Cultural Landscape Report for Weir Farm National Historic Site,” 

Brookline, MA: Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, National Park Service, US Department of the 

Interior, 1996, 284; Marie L. Carden and Richard C. Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The 

Site and Weir Complex,” Weir Farm National Historic Site, Wilton, CT [draft]. US Department of the Interior, 

NPS, Northeast Region, Northeast Cultural Resources Center, Building Conservation Branch, 1998, xl.

94 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview. The 

stairs and bridge are not extant. A causeway still exists nearby, though Bass family members remembered it 

functioning as a dam rather than a walkway.

95 For more on squirrel dishes, see Rebecca Rupp, “Time to Savor the Squirrel (Again)?,” National Geographic, 

accessed January 6, 2022, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/time-to-savor-the-squirrel-.

96 Charlie Bass, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 

1999 interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 2000 

interview; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview; Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592.
82

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

Hank accompanied the Youngs hunting and lived in their Branchville home as a pet; the 

Basses likely interacted and cared for him periodically.97 The Basses also kept their own 

farm dogs—usually Collies—that were typically not allowed inside but resided in the 

woodshed’s doghouse and kept guard over the caretaker’s house and its inhabitants (see 

Figure 41).98 Orin Bass remembered one of their dogs attacking the ragman.99 As a puppy, 

another dog named Rex bolted toward the chickens one night and came back with the seat 

of a man’s pants.100 Rex’s protective tendencies also resulted in him putting his teeth on 

Dorothy Weir Young and leaving a black-and-blue mark; after that, Young insisted that Rex 

leave the property. The Bass sons later learned that the dog found another home.101

Beyond caring for animals, the Basses secured extra income by cutting ice from Weir 

Pond in the winter. Especially before reliance on electric refrigerators, the Youngs maintained an icehouse to keep perishables cool. The Basses also kept ice in their woodshed for 

cold storage.102 Retrieving ice remained as dangerous a task, as it was at the turn of the 

century. The frozen surface could get as thick as eight inches, but it did not always freeze 

evenly because of the springs that fed the pond.103 The Basses would sometimes send out the 

horses onto the pond first to make sure the ice was safe enough to traverse.104 Then, the 

older siblings would “put a hole in the ice, chop it in and then we’d use these ice saws to cut 

the ice into cakes of different sizes,” according to Charles Bass.105 They would then tip the 

ice cakes and pull them up onto the surface and haul it into the wagon. They wore grips on 

their shoes to help prevent slipping on the ice and falling into the potentially deadly water.106

Despite precautions, George Albert Bass once fell into the icy pond. Orin Bass 

recounted: “They were cutting the ice and we were all there standing around on the piece 

being cut. They cut three sides and just then the other side started down. Because there was 

97 Orin Bass, interview; Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592. For a drawing of Hank, see Mahonri 

M. Young, Hank, 1945, ink on paper, Private Collection.

98 Dottie (Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview); Prince (Bessie Bass Morabito, interview); see also Charlie 

Bass, interview.

99 Orin Bass, interview. This particular dog was a setter.

100 Orin Bass, interview; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview. They refer to Rex as a police dog, perhaps 

identifying him as a German Shepherd.

101 Orin Bass, interview; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview.

102 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview; Phillips, 

“Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. II- A: Outbuildings.” 

103 Charlie Bass, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 

1999 interview.

104 Charlie Bass, interview.

105 Charlie Bass, interview.

106 Charlie Bass, interview; Orin Bass, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, 

and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview.
83

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

a spring under the water it bubbled up. We thought that the ice was thick enough but it 

wasn’t, it was only about half an inch thick. When the ice broke George went into the 

water.”107

Charles Bass remembered the incident as well, recalling that by the time George 

Albert traveled the half mile back to the caretaker’s house he was “nearly froze to death” 

and “could hardly walk because the clothes were frozen.”108 Another time, one of the 

Basses backed their truck onto the pond to load the cakes and the ice gave way underneath 

the weight. They needed to bring the horses down to pull the truck free.109

After cutting the ice and putting it into the truck or horse-drawn wagon, the Basses 

transported the ice up from the pond to pack the icehouse.110 The younger Bass brothers 

packed the cakes between layers of snow or sawdust to prevent the blocks from freezing 

together, “like you pack cheese today with paper pieces in between each slice,” according to 

Orin.111 They also packed sawdust along the walls of the icehouse for insulation.112 Charles 

remembered packing as a “tough job.”113 Dorothy Weir Young generally paid George Bass 

for ice on top of his monthly wages; for example, in January 1938, she paid him 41 dollars 

for ice cutting.114 The supply typically lasted through July, when Young then bought commercial ice to keep the icehouse cool.115 In the summer of 1937, she paid an average of 30 

dollars per month for commercial ice.116 Paying Bass an extra sum for cutting ice saved 

Young money while also serving as supplementary income for the Bass family.

The sawdust for packing ice came from cutting wood, another recurring job on the 

farm that could bring supplementary income.117 The Basses chopped wood from near the 

pond to meet their own cooking and heating needs; the stoves in the caretaker’s house 

107 Orin Bass, interview.

108 Charlie Bass, interview.

109 Orin Bass, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 

1999 interview.

110 Charlie Bass, interview; Orin Bass, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, 

and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview.

111 Orin Bass, interview.

112 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview.

113 Charlie Bass, interview.

114 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592.

115 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob 

Fox, and Bessie Morabito, second part of 2000 interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, 

Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview; Charlie Bass, interview.

116 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592. In 1933, Young paid Merle Utz an average of $10.38 for ice 

from August through November; in later years, she paid John F. Goetjen for ice during the summer months 

(July–September). 

117 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview; Charlie 

Bass, interview.
84

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

burned wood during the day and coal at night.118 The Bass boys were responsible for 

replenishing the wood box near the stove with logs stored in the woodshed.119They also 

cut wood for the Youngs and the Burlinghams.120 Charles Bass remembered earning one 

dollar per cord of wood and cutting as many as three cords of wood per day.121 Dorothy 

Weir Young’s checkbooks suggest that she paid the Basses 45 to 60 cents per hour for 

cutting wood.122 In his sketches, Mahonri Young captured the process of sawing wood at 

various stages, from chopping felled trees to cutting logs into firewood using a saw and 

sawhorse (see Figures 43 and 44).123 The men featured in the images are all almost certainly members of the Bass family. By November 1943, the Basses may have used a 

gas-powered chainsaw for the chore.124

Like many other tasks on the farm, chopping wood proved to be a dangerous job. In 

the winter, the Basses transported wood using a large bobsled drawn by horses. One time, 

the chain that held the wood in place broke, with Orin Bass still standing on top of the pile 

steering the horses. Orin was able to stop the horses as the logs started to roll off without 

getting seriously hurt.125 In the early 1940s, however, George Bass suffered a permanent 

injury when he lost fingers on his right hand in a sawing accident.126 According to one story, 

after he was released from the Danbury Hospital where they could not reattach his fingers, 

he immediately went to the barn to see if he could still effectively milk cows.127 Charles Bass 

118 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview; Orin 

Bass, interview.

119 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview; Charlie 

Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 2000 interview.

120 Charles Burlingham, interview: “Mr. Bass and his cohorts would come down and cut the firewood and burn 

the brush and so forth.”

121 Charlie Bass, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 

second part of 2000 interview. The transcription reads, “We cut wood for three dollars a quart—four by four by 

eight. We got three dollars a quart. No! a dollar a quart. We would get three dollars for cutting three quarts.” A 

quart is a term for one-quarter of a cord. However, a four-by-four-by-eight pile of wood constitutes a cord, not a 

quart. The transcription is inaccurate, as Charles is clearly discussing cords of wood.

122 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592.

123 Larkin, “The Weir Farm: Working Agriculture and the Vision of Rural Life in New England 1860–1940.” See 

also Mahonri M. Young’s sketches Sawing Wood (BYU 83207064) and Farmyard (BYU 832070637). 

124 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592, include an entry from November 1943 that lists $2 paid to 

George Bass for “gas for cutting wood.”

125 Orin Bass, interview.

126 Bass family members interview notes suggests Bass lost one finger; Charlie Bass, interview says “fingers”; 

Shaw, 2020, specifies four fingers as does Charles Burlingham, interview.

127 Bass family members interview notes. Shaw, 2020, suggests that Bass did not consider going to the doctor; 

however, Dorothy Weir Young’s checkbooks include a January 1942 entry for an X-ray for Bass. Dorothy Weir 

Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592.
85

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

recalled that his father subsequently “improvised a strap around his wrist so that he could 

still cut wood and milk the cows.”128 George Bass’s livelihood depended on his ability to 

navigate hazards and meet the physical demands of agricultural labor.

Like the Basses, the Youngs used firewood during the day and coal at night. The 

Basses were responsible for bringing and lighting firewood in the main residence and 

Mahonri’s studio as part of their daily work.129 George and Mervin even drove periodically to New York City in a 1937 station wagon to deliver wood to Dorothy and Mahonri’s 

Gramercy Park apartment.130 Back at Branchville, Dorothy initially preferred to keep the 

fireplaces burning during the colder months even if she was out of the house. After a spark 

coming out of one of the chimneys started a fire on the roof in the spring of 1942, however, George reportedly refused to build indoor fires at the main residence unless Dorothy 

was present.131

In addition to haying, trapping furs, and cutting wood, the Bass boys took on a 

range of odd jobs through the 1930s and 1940s for supplemental income. They collected 

bottles and returned them to stores in Branchville for deposit money.132 During berrying 

seasons, Dorothy Weir Young offered 15 cents per basket of blueberries or blackberries 

collected on the property.133 She hired Edward to wash windows, tend the garden, and 

complete other similar tasks on the grounds throughout the 1930s. Orin chauffeured Young 

in her 1937 Ford “Woody” station wagon and Russell polished copper around the fireplaces.134 Charles cleaned Mahonri’s studio for a time.135 Beyond the Weir family estate, George 

Albert, Russell, Charles, and Orin mowed lawns for neighbors like the Rhuls, Casteras, 

Mrs. Erlick, and J. J. Jones.136 Russell worked for Joseph Pinchbeck, the florist in Ridgefield, 

and George Albert did plumbing work for Clayton Webb.137

128 Charlie Bass, interview.

129 Orin Bass, interview.

130 Charlie Bass, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 

1999 interview.

131 Orin Bass, interview; Dorothy Weir Young, “Branchville Book,” 1927- 1946, Weir Family Papers, Diaries, 

Ledgers and Notebooks, Box 7, WEFA 482.

132 Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview.

133 Orin Bass, interview.

134 Charlie Bass, interview; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview; Orin Bass, interview; Dorothy Weir Young 

checkbooks, WEFA 15592; Lance Kasparian and Maureen K. Phillips, “Historic Structures Report, Vol II-B: 

Caretaker’s House and Caretaker’s Garage,” National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, 2008, 34.

135 Charlie Bass, interview.

136 Charlie Bass, interview (Rhul, Casteras, Erlick); Orin Bass, interview (Rhul); Russell and Kenneth Bass, 

interview (J. J. Jones).

137 Charlie Bass, interview; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview; Orin Bass, interview. Russell worked in the 

rosehouse. Shaw, 2020 also mentions that Orin Bass worked for Pinchbeck, though that is not confirmed in 

Orin’s oral history.
86

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

Three of the Bass brothers in succession took on the caretaker position for the 

Burlingham property. George Albert filled the role first for a time in the 1930s.138 By 1940, 

Edward served as caretaker and enjoyed a particularly friendly relationship with Cora Weir 

Burlingham based on their shared enthusiasm and gift for horticulture.139 Edward went 

into the military after the attack on Pearl Harbor, and Charles stepped in as caretaker for 

the Burlinghams before entering the service himself.140

The Burlinghams did not run a fully operational farm like the Youngs; they did not 

grow crops or raise dairy cows. Their barn primarily housed Charles Burlingham Sr.’s 

cars, as well as a pony for their two sons to ride.141 They may have raised chickens at one 

point and had a pen for dogs.142 The Bass men possibly helped care for the few animals 

owned by the Burlinghams and certainly assisted with cutting firewood and burning 

brush.143 They may have also mowed lawns, although Charles Burlingham Sr. also enjoyed 

taking on that activity.144 Otherwise, Cora Weir Burlingham likely tasked her caretaker 

with helping to manage her impressive gardens. She may have cultivated vegetable gardens, as depicted in Mahonri Young’s sketches, which required workers to plow, plant, 

manure, and weed (see Figure 45).145 Charles Bass also recalled taking care of the compost 

138 Charlie Bass, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 

1999 interview; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview. Based on existing sources, George Albert Bass may have 

worked for the Burlinghams sometime in the 1930s until they arranged employment for him out west. He ended 

up hitchhiking and riding the rails back home to Connecticut, and by 1940 was living with his parents and 

working for Clayton Webb. Eddie Bass likely worked for the Burlinghams after George left for the West. 1940 

United States Census, Wilton, Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: m-t0627-00500; Page: 4A; Enumeration District: 

1-225; National Archives at St. Louis; St. Louis, Missouri; WWII Draft Registration Cards for Connecticut, 

10/16/1940–03/31/1947; Record Group: Records of the Selective Service System, 147; Box: 23.

139 Charlie Bass, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 

1999 interview; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview.

140 Charlie Bass, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 

1999 interview; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview. Charlie’s 1943 Draft Card lists his employer as the Gilbert 

and Bennett Wire Manufacturing Company; he may have worked for the Burlinghams part-time. National 

Archives at St. Louis; St. Louis, Missouri; WWII Draft Registration Cards for Connecticut, 10/16/1940–

03/31/1947; Record Group: Records of the Selective Service System, 147; Box: 23.

141 Child Associates and Cynthia Zaitzevsky, “Cultural Landscape Report for Weir Farm National Historic Site,” 

Brookline, MA: Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, National Park Service, US Department of the 

Interior, 1996; Charles Burlingham, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, 

and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview; Charlie Bass, interview; Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary 

Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007.

142 Child Associates and Cynthia Zaitzevsky, “Cultural Landscape Report for Weir Farm National Historic Site.”

143 Charles Burlingham, interview; Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph 

Albert Knoche, interview by Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007.

144 Charles Burlingham, interview.

145 Child Associates and Cynthia Zaitzevsky, “Cultural Landscape Report for Weir Farm National Historic Site” 

suggests that Cora did not do much vegetable gardening until her Victory Garden during WWII, yet both Larkin 

and the Cultural Landscape Report identify Cora’s vegetable gardens in Mahonri Young’s 1930s sketches. 

Larkin, “The Weir Farm: Working Agriculture and the Vision of Rural Life in New England 1860–1940.”
87

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

heap.146 Plus, Burlingham had a greenhouse and a “sunken” flower garden that required 

significant labor.147 Although Burlingham frequently visited the property on the weekends 

and engaged in substantial garden work herself, the constant upkeep may have justified 

paying extra help.148

George and Bessie’s only daughter, Betty, did not partake in the outdoor farm work 

or odd jobs like her brothers due to gendered expectations that she assist her mother with 

domestic duties. She did, however, earn supplementary income by waitressing and cleaning 

for both the Youngs and the Burlinghams.149 For example, in August 1939, Dorothy Weir 

Young recorded paying Betty Bass $19.20 for one week and 12 hours of work.150 Bass 

recalled that “when their maids would go away, they would want me” to help. Although 

Bass did not cook, she recommended her cousin from Windham who would travel to 

Branchville and work in the kitchen while Betty served the food.151 Bass remembered that 

Mahonri Young’s guests usually embraced a more casual dining style, helping themselves to 

dishes placed on the table. When the Youngs entertained Dorothy’s more refined friends 

and relatives, however, Bass “had to serve them entirely differently,” usually delivering food 

individually.152 From waitressing and gardening to cutting ice and wood, the Basses augmented their family income through an assortment of part-time and temporary work.

Domestic Labor

Keeping the many members of the Bass family fed, clothed, and cared for as they labored in 

Branchville required a tremendous amount of unpaid domestic work by Bessie Bass. In the 

early 1930s, she underwent the physical labor of bearing children, delivering both Clifford 

and Kenneth in the caretaker’s house.153 In addition to raising her own nine children, her 

household frequently included extended family. Her mother lived with them until 1932, 

and nephew Frank Bass often visited from Windham for extended periods of time. Frank 

146 Charlie Bass, interview.

147 Child Associates and Cynthia Zaitzevsky, “Cultural Landscape Report for Weir Farm National Historic Site.”

148 Charles Burlingham discusses his mother’s enthusiasm for gardening; she later hired a full-time gardener to 

assist, so it stands to reason that is what she hired the Bass boys for, as well. See also Charlie Bass, Kenneth 

Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview.

149 Bessie Bass Morabito, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie 

Morabito, 1999 interview.

150 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592, include payments to Bessie (Betty) Bass once or twice a year 

throughout the 1930s as well an entry in May 1941 to Bessie Webb, using her new married last name.

151 Bessie Bass Morabito, interview.

152 Bessie Bass Morabito, interview. See also Figure 27.

153 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview; Charlie 

Bass, interview. Clifford was born in 1931 and Kenneth in 1934.
88

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

even called George Bass, “Pop,” and some neighbors thought he was one of George and 

Bessie’s sons.154 She nursed her children when they fell ill; both the measles and mumps 

made unwelcome appearances in the Bass home.155 On a normal day she managed routine 

household chores, directing her children to help wash dishes, weed gardens, mop floors, 

and accomplish other tasks.156 She particularly relied on her daughter, Betty, to assist with 

more domestic tasks than her sons.157 If the children ever misbehaved, however, the role of 

disciplinarian went to her husband.158

Laundry remained a constant and laborious household job. Some laundry appliances became common fixtures in American homes by the 1930s and reduced the amount 

of back-breaking labor required of hand laundry, but they did not fully eliminate the 

physical demands of the task. When the Basses moved to Branchville in 1929, the caretaker’s house did not have electricity. For a time they had a laundry set up in the all-purpose 

woodshed, likely consisting of two large wooden or galvanized tubs and a hand-cranked 

wringer. The wringer was an appliance with adjustable, rubber-covered rollers that pressed 

water out of clothes after washing.159 Motorized wringers required less labor than handcranked wringers, which in turn still saved substantial energy compared to wringing 

clothes out by hand. Yet wringers carried their own risks. When Betty Bass was 10 or 11 

years old around 1930 or 1931, she was wringing clothes in the woodshed on the Fourth of 

July, enviously watching her brothers shoot off fireworks. She became so distracted that her 

finger got caught in the wringer and her parents rushed her to the doctor’s office.160

Aside from the hand wringers, laundry without electricity in the 1930s looked very 

similar to laundry at the turn of the century. Bessie and Betty Bass still needed to haul water 

for the tubs, using one for washing and one for rinsing. They would add soap—either 

store-bought or homemade—to the wash basin and stir with a paddle, possibly even scrubbing the clothes on a washboard.161 Then they put the clothes through the wringer, into the 

rinse tub, and through the wringer again. After that, clothes still needed to be line-dried 

and ironed. Without electricity, Bessie likely used stove-heated irons like her predecessors.

154 Orin Bass, interview; Charlie Bass, interview; 7.

155 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview.

156 Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview.

157 Bessie Bass Morabito, interview.

158 Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview.

159 Woman’s Institute of Domestic Arts and Sciences, Laundering and Dry Cleaning: Home Laundering. Dry 

Cleaning (Scranton, PA: The Woman’s Institute of Domestic Arts and Sciences, 1931), 10–11.

160 Bessie Bass Morabito, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie 

Morabito, 1999, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 

2000, interview.

161 Woman’s Institute of Domestic Arts and Sciences, Laundering and Dry Cleaning: Home Laundering. Dry 

Cleaning, 22–23.
89

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

Dorothy Weir Young updated the caretaker’s house with electricity in 1932. 

Sometime thereafter, the laundry set up was moved into the house, on the first-floor 

hallway in front of the bathroom and at the foot of the stairs.162 The Basses collected their 

dirty clothes at the bottom of the staircase, and sometimes the boys would leap from the 

top of the stairs into the pile of laundry.163 With access to electricity, the Basses now used a 

washing machine instead of a hand-cranked wringer.164 The machine may have simply 

consisted of a motorized wringer, or perhaps it also featured an agitator in a permanent tub 

with a drain in the bottom that could be connected to the home’s plumbing system.165

Clean clothes still dried on a clothesline, but electricity also meant that the Basses could 

use electric irons. Betty remembered ironing as her chore when she returned from school 

each day.166 Even with the advances in laundry technology, cleaning clothes and linens for a 

family of 11 or more demanded a substantial amount of work from Bessie and her daughter, to the point where George often helped his wife by putting clothes on the line after he 

completed his farm work.167

In addition to raising children and washing laundry, Bessie Bass kept her family 

fed. She used a wood-burning stove in the kitchen that always remained warm, even in the 

summer.168 According to Orin Bass, she “banked the fire at night with coal and then 

burned wood all day to cook on.” 169 Logs of hardwood like oak, hickory, birch, and maple 

were stored behind the stove near the window of the kitchen.170 Bessie did not need to 

haul water from the well for cooking, but pumped water by hand in the kitchen.171 She 

cooked meals using the animals raised or trapped on the farm as well as vegetables grown 

in the garden. Betty remembered that “if my mother had made a soup, we would eat that 

for both meals. If we didn’t like it, we had to learn to eat it.”172 She also made pies from the 

162 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview; Room 

104 on floor plan in Lance Kasparian and Maureen K. Phillips, “Historic Structures Report, Vol II-B: Caretaker’s 

House and Caretaker’s Garage,” National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, 2008.

163 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview; Charlie 

Bass, interview.

164 Charlie Bass, interview; see also Bessie Bass Morabito, interview and Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, 

Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview.

165 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview; Bessie 

Bass Morabito mentioned that her mother had two tubs, even inside the house. 

166 Bessie Bass Morabito, interview.

167 Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and 

Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview.

168 During the winter, the stove was a main source of heat along with a potbelly stove in the living room.

169 Orin Bass, interview.

170 Orin Bass, interview; Bessie Bass Morabito, interview.

171 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview.

172 Bessie Bass Morabito, interview.
90

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

berries picked by her children, butter from the farm’s dairy cows, and even made homemade bread for a time.173 Dorothy Weir Young sometimes paid to enjoy the butter and 

bread that Bessie Bass made.174 Eventually, the Basses began buying bread from the Home 

Pride truck that periodically stopped by on its route.175 To build a reserve for the winter 

months, Bessie canned fruit and vegetables including string beans, blueberries, pears, and 

peaches.176 They eventually gained a refrigerator that helped with food preservation, as 

well.177 Bessie’s hard work ensured that her large family had enough to eat through the 

years of the Great Depression and laid the foundation for the Bass family to successfully 

serve as long-term caretakers of Weir Farm.

Cross-Class Relationships

A complex set of cross-class and interpersonal dynamics shaped the relationships between 

members of the Bass family and the Youngs and Burlinghams. The younger Bass children 

who survived to share oral history testimony at the turn of the 21st century spoke kindly of 

Dorothy Weir Young and suggested that their father worked with her on positive terms. 

Russell said that Young “seemed all right” and Kenneth remembered that they “were always 

respectful” to Young “because we had to be.”178 Most of the Bass children worked for 

Young incidentally as part of their family duties or on a temporary basis, as with Betty’s 

waitressing or the boys’ berry collecting and fireplace polishing. Orin Bass worked more 

directly for her as an assistant caretaker after his older brothers left Branchville during 

World War II. He communicated disappointment that his father did not earn more money 

for his labor and, as her chauffeur, expressed frustration that she was “always leaving late 

for the train.”179 Mervin’s wife Mary, however, proved particularly effusive about Dorothy 

Weir Young’s generosity and kindness toward her young children.180 Gender, employment 

role, and personal experiences clearly impacted the differing ways members of the Bass 

family responded to Dorothy Weir Young’s maternalist management style.

173 Orin Bass, interview; Bessie Bass Morabito, interview.

174 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592.

175 Bessie Bass Morabito, interview; Charlie Bass, interview.

176 Charlie Bass, interview; Bessie Bass Morabito, interview. Charles: “We kept [the cans] in that little back room 

off the dining room in the little closet where it was cooler.”

177 Charlie Bass, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 

1999 interview; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview.

178 Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview.

179 Orin Bass, interview.

180 Mary Bass Ciuccoli, interview.
91

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

Beyond her role as property owner, Dorothy Weir Young also paid members of the 

Bass family to pose for her in her capacity as an artist. She painted Edward holding his 

two-year-old brother Clifford in the fall of 1933 for three dollars and fifty cents (see Figure 

46).181 She also paid Mary Bruschi Bass about five dollars on two occasions in September 

1935, likely for her to pose in “Seated Girl Reading Newspaper” (see Figure 47).182 Betty 

Bass remembered posing for Young, as well.183 The paintings featuring the Basses fit 

Young’s broader tendency to paint portraits, domestic scenes, and still life. Edward, 

Clifford, Mary, and Betty all sat for Young in her residence at Branchville, suggesting a level 

of familiarity between the subjects and their painter. At the same time, Young likely did not 

spend any amount of significant time in her employees’ residence, especially if she sought a 

serene domestic background for her art. Even as she continued her practice of liberally 

embracing opportunities to pay the Basses small supplementary sums of money, the environment in which she painted the Basses reveals persistent class divisions between her and 

her employees.

Compared to Dorothy Weir Young, Mahonri Young elicited a wider range of 

reactions from the Bass family. Russell Bass believed Mahonri “to be all right as far as I was 

concerned.”184 Betty Bass, however, did not remember Mahonri as a kind man. She recalled 

that he “would kind of belittle you in front of people...once in awhile, in my words, he 

would give you a little dig.”185 He reportedly treated her father that way and also seemed 

irritable with women like herself and even Dorothy Weir Young.186 Orin Bass acknowledged Mahonri’s impressive artistic skill but similarly shared that “he tried to lure the 

help” with sarcastic comments when he had guests around. For example, after George Bass 

lost his fingers in the wood-cutting accident on the property, Mahonri remarked, “See, you 

aren’t going to be such a great milker as you were before, are you?”187 On another occasion, 

Mahonri made an unwelcome recommendation for obtaining dry wood for his studio. 

George Bass responded by cutting logs from a frozen poplar tree for Young’s studio, which 

resulted in “a stream of water running across the studio” when Young tried to burn the 

wood in his fireplace. Orin recalled: “That was how my father would get back at him. He 

would take everything but then when the time was right he would step right in. Mahonri 

never made a remark about dry wood gain. It worked.” 

181 Bessie Bass Morabito, interview.

182 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; The image fits Mary Bass Ciuccoli’s oral history memory 

that Dorothy “had me sitting in an upstairs bedroom in an old rocking chair holding a newspaper and reading it. I 

had on a blouse, a skirt, and a green sweater with designs on it.” Mary Bass Ciuccoli, interview.

183 Bessie Bass Morabito, interview.

184 Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview; Bass family members interview notes.

185 Bessie Bass Morabito, interview.

186 Bass family members interview notes.

187 Orin Bass, interview; Bass family members interview notes.
92

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

Betty and Orin’s recollections suggest that George Bass had a more tense relationship with Mahonri than he did with Dorothy. While his personality, class status, and 

contingent employment precluded George from immediately responding to Mahonri’s 

slights, he asserted himself through calculated efforts. Charles Bass recalled that his father 

and Mahonri sometimes had conflicting opinions and were both stubborn. He remarked 

with a chuckle: “I’m not quite sure who ever won.”188

Like Dorothy, Mahonri Young depicted the Bass family in his artwork. He sketched 

and painted numerous outdoor scenes at Branchville that featured men laboring. Given the 

time frame of the drawings and the jobs represented, most of the unnamed subjects were 

almost certainly members of the Bass family.189 Like Julian Weir before him, Mahonri 

Young portrayed workers as part of a nostalgic agricultural landscape. He drew men 

wielding scythes, chopping wood, and pitching hay but never, for example, showcased the 

Basses’ truck. Young’s style differed from Weir’s in his fascination with the male form and 

physical movement. Considered a Social Realist artist, his broader work focused on sculpting working-class laborers, boxers, and Indigenous people.190 He resisted abstract and 

surreal art forms and tended to work on subjects that emphasized nostalgic and idealized 

visions of masculinity.191

For example, in the 1910s Mahonri Young received commissions to contribute to 

dioramas of the Hopi, Navajo, and Apache at the American Museum of Natural History. He 

even traveled to the Southwest to study and sketch his subjects. Although Indigenous 

people survived in that region and across the United States throughout the 20th century 

and into the present day, creating exhibits for a natural history museum of different 

Indigenous “types” reinforced popular, harmful myths that Indigenous people were “noble 

188 Charlie Bass, interview.

189 In one sketch, he does name Mr. Bass digging for parsnips. See Figure 33.

190 Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat”; “Mahonri Young,” Smithsonian American Art Museum, accessed 

August 7, 2021, https://americanart.si.edu/artist/mahonri-young-5524; “Mahonri Young,” Weir Farm National 

Historical Park (US National Park Service), accessed August 7, 2021, https://www.nps.gov/wefa/learn/

historyculture/mahonriyoung.htm.

191 MMY considered surrealism and abstract expressionism a greater threat than Communism, according to 

Wayne Kendall Hinton, “A Biographical History of Mahonri M. Young, a Western American Artist,” ProQuest 

Dissertations Publishing, 1974.
93

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

savages” on the cusp of “vanishing” from the American landscape. His drawings and 

sculptures of Indigenous people nostalgically positioned them in opposition to seemingly 

inevitable American conquest and “civilization.”192

Mahonri Young’s interest in culture that he saw disappearing in the face of modern, 

civilizing influences also related to his love of prize fighting. His son recalled that Young 

loved to sketch boxers in New York City and “knew all the old prizefighting lore.”193 The 

“Manly Art,” as Young and many of his contemporaries called it, emerged in industrial 

cities as a way for working-class men to impose ritual and assert control over their bodies 

at a time of chaotic change and little personal autonomy in manufacturing settings. 

Historian Elliott Gorn argues that by the late 19th century, however, prizefighting increasingly became less of an oppositional working-class cultural expression and more of a 

source of vicarious entertainment for the bourgeoisie.194 Young’s fascination with prizefighting echoed an early-20th-century yearning for idealized visions of masculinity that 

emphasized physicality, strength, and violence rather than the comfortable, bureaucratic, 

and “effeminate” influences of modern life for the middle and upper classes.195 Young 

represented prizefighters as paragons of manliness in bronze sculptures like “Right to the 

Jaw,” “On the Button,” and “The Knockdown,” all of which depicted sportsmen in motion 

as they artfully deployed taut, well-defined muscles (see Figure 48).196

Mahonri Young’s drawings and sculptures of laborers further demonstrate how he 

romanticized working-class men’s physicality. In his early career he sculpted many different “types” of laborers in action: “The Shoveler,” “The Pavers,” “Foundryman,” “The Hod 

Carrier,” “The Sower,” “The Steamfitter,” and “Wood Chopper.”197 Whereas Young 

192 Norma S. Davis, A Song of Joys: The Biography of Mahonri Mackintosh Young, Sculptor, Painter, Etcher 

(Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1999); Steven D. Lavine, Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and 

Politics of Museum Display, 2nd printing edition (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books, 1991); Gail Bederman, 

Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880–1917, Women in 

Culture and Society Edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996); Jeffrey Ostler and Nancy Shoemaker, 

“Settler Colonialism in Early American History: Introduction,” The William and Mary Quarterly 76, no. 3 

(2019): 361–68, https://doi.org/10.5309/willmaryquar.76.3.0361; Patricia Nelson Limerick, The Legacy of 

Conquest: The Unbroken Past of the American West, illustrated edition (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 

1987). The dioramas have since been destroyed.

193 Charles Burlingham, interview.

194 Elliott J. Gorn, The Manly Art: Bare-Knuckle Prize Fighting in America (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 

2010).

195 Bederman, Manliness and Civilization.

196 Other sculptures and etchings of prize fighters include On the Button, The Knockdown, Beat Him to the 

Punch, Two Boxers and a Referee, Main Street Gym, Loser Exits, Revising Boxer between Rounds, Study for in 

His Corner, Knocked-Out Boxer. See also Davis, A Song of Joys.

197 See also Woodcutter with Hooked Axe, Man Digging, Tired Out. While in Paris in the 1920s, he also sculpted 

at least two working-class women: a Lobsterwoman and a Breadwoman.
94

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

depicted both Black and white prizefighters in his art, he tended to represent the typical 

laborer as a white man. He even personified “Agriculture” and “Industry” as strapping 

white men with for the 1939 World’s Fair. 

Mervin Bass stood as Mahonri Young’s model for the “Agriculture” sculpture, 

sharpening a scythe with bare, muscular arms and a lean body (see Figure 49).198 Although 

the theme of the fair emphasized “the building of a better world of tomorrow with the tools 

of today,” Young decidedly showed Bass with a traditional tool of earlier days. His style of 

depicting men in motion also meant, ironically, that Mervin needed to stand in one position for long periods of time, a sharp contrast to his normal day working and moving 

around the farm. When asked what Mervin thought of posing, his wife Mary Bruschi Bass 

Ciuccoli later remarked that “It was tedious. He used to hate it!”199 Young’s sculptures, 

sketches, and paintings of the Bass men using traditional agricultural methods fit with his 

broader practice of observing workers and idealizing physical labor. He did not adopt the 

role of gentleman farmer like Julian Weir did, but rather positioned himself as an artist 

documenting the honorable, physical labor of the white working-class man. According to 

his grandchildren, Young “loved the person who...had to work for what he got...that’s 

why he did the studies, in so many cases, of the working man.”200

The bodies of the Bass men were further immortalized in Mahonri Young’s magnum opus, the This Is the Place monument. Young acquired a commission sponsored by the 

Utah State Legislature to craft a landmark commemorating the declaration by his grandfather, Brigham Young, that the Mormons would settle in the Salt Lake Valley after their 

forced migration across the continent. Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Wilford 

Woodruff stand at the peak of the structure above a depiction of Orson Pratt and Erastus 

Snow arriving in the valley and large bas-reliefs of the caravan of settlers that made the 

trek. The monument also depicts fur traders, Spanish explorers, the Reed-Donner party, a 

Catholic missionary, and Washakie, a Shoshone leader who joined the Church of Jesus 

Christ of Latter-Day Saints.201 This Is the Place celebrates colonization of Indigenous land 

by situating the Mormons as the culmination of a noble progression of Europeans and 

Euro-Americans to the West.202

198 Charlie Bass, interview; Davis, A Song of Joys; Lois Street, “The Statue of Mervin Bass,” The Ridgefield 

Press, November 9, 2000. Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592 includes an entry for “M Posing” for 

$2.80 in July 1938, around the time Mahonri was working on the sculpture. 

199 Lois Street, “The Statue of Mervin Bass,” The Ridgefield Press, November 9, 2000.

200 Mahonri Sharp Young, George Lay, Charles Lay, Mahonri Mackintosh Young II, interview.

201 Davis, A Song of Joys; Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat.”

202 Young was reportedly very proud of his “pioneer” heritage. See Davis, A Song of Joys, and Spero Anargyros 

and Maria Ester Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996.
95

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

The monument displays many standing, sitting, and walking bodies with muted 

musculature and movement compared to Young’s images of laborers and prizefighters. 

Still, Mahonri Young paid some of the Bass men to pose for him, using their farmers’ 

bodies as a template for the idealized settlers. Although the Bass family oral histories do not 

entirely agree, it seems likely that some combination of George, Mervin, and George Albert 

worked as models.203 Charles Bass suggested that Young depicted their arms and legs in his 

rendering of a man wielding an axe, possibly referring to the Reed-Donner Party frieze.204

If so, they inspired the rare image on the monument of a shirtless man grasping an axe 

mid-swing and baring his muscular back, a nod to Mahonri’s history of depicting strong, 

working men in motion. 

The Basses interacted with their maternalist employer, Dorothy Weir Young, on 

unequal but generally positive terms and more often bristled at Mahonri Young, who 

disrespected them in action and idealized them in his art. Young’s grandchildren through a 

previous marriage visited Branchville on occasion, playing with the youngest Bass sons 

and, on one spring day in 1942, accompanying George Bass “on the high seat of the 

[manure] spreader as proud as a peacock.”205 Meanwhile, the Basses spoke kindly of their 

neighbors and occasional employers, Cora and Charles Burlingham Sr., but did not interact 

with them often. Betty vaguely remembered Cora as a “sweet lady.”206 Charles Bass 

described Cora as quiet and enthusiastic about her flower garden, but “other than working 

for her just doing different odd things, I really didn’t know her that well.”207 Like Dorothy 

Weir Young, the Burlinghams extended well-intentioned maternalist generosity toward the 

Basses, from providing opportunities for supplemental income to passing along their boys’ 

outgrown shoes and clothes. Cora’s brother-in-law, Dr. Robert Burlingham, also treated 

Charles Bass’s abscessed ears at no charge.208

The limited ways that the Bass children interacted with the two Burlingham boys 

more starkly reveal the class distinctions between the caretaker family and the Weir sisters’ 

families. Charles and Orin Bass did not recall playing with the Burlingham boys, and Betty 

remarked that they “were not allowed to go out of the yard that much...naturally, people 

203 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999, interview says 

Mervin and Eddie; Charlie Bass, interview says George and George Albert; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview 

and Shaw, 2020 both say Mervin, George, and George Albert; Darla Shaw, 2020; Dorothy Weir Young 

checkbooks, WEFA 15592 includes an entry in July 1938 for Georgie (Albert) Bass with a note, “M posing 

2.80.”

204 Charlie Bass, interview.

205 Ken and Russell, interview; Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat,” 195.

206 Bessie Bass Morabito, interview.

207 Charlie Bass, interview.

208 Charlie Bass, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 

1999 interview.
96

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

with money don’t want the caretaker’s children running around.”209 Orin remembered 

riding the Burlingham’s pony, but only while the family was away in New York City.210

Charles Burlingham Jr., on the other hand, recalled playing with Clifford Bass, who was his 

age and younger than Betty, Charles, or Orin Bass: “[Clifford] used to come over and we’d 

get in all sorts of trouble together. I remember he introduced us to dandelion wine one time 

in the woodshed behind his family’s house. I think we must have been about eleven.... I 

think the first obscenities we ever heard came from the mouth of Clifford Bass, and we 

were horrified. And we learned them, of course, but we were horrified.”211

According to Charles Burlingham Jr., Clifford introduced him to a rougher lifestyle 

than he was familiar with as the son of a prominent New York City lawyer. 

Aside from occasional interactions in Branchville, the Bass boys and the 

Burlingham boys experienced very different childhoods due to their class status. The Weir 

estate existed as a weekend and summer retreat for the Burlingham children when they 

weren’t at boarding school or at home in New York City. Burlingham Jr. indicated that, as 

children, he and his brother had access to the entire property. He recalled, for example, 

sneaking into the barn to give the horses oats against the wishes of George Bass, who would 

“come rushing in” and “yell at us.”212 The Basses, in contrast, lived on the site full time but 

their parents did not own the land, so they were not always allowed across the street from 

the caretaker’s home unless they were working. They attended the local public elementary 

school in Wilton; some pursued secondary education but not everyone graduated from 

high school.213 For example, Charles graduated from Ridgefield High School, but Orin left 

after the tenth grade at the age of 16 to assist his father at the farm full time.214 Russell 

similarly attended Bedford Jr. High in Westport until the tenth grade, at which point his 

father provided the option to either go to school or find work, and Russell chose work.215

Unlike the Burlinghams, the Basses’ lives were oriented around labor.

209 Bessie Bass Morabito, interview. Charlie Bass interview and Orin Bass interview also say that they didn’t play 

with the Burlingham boys.

210 Orin Bass, interview.

211 Charles Burlingham, interview.

212 Charles Burlingham, interview.

213 Bessie Bass Morabito, interview; Orin Bass, interview.

214 Orin Bass, interview.

215 Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview.
97

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

Lifestyle and Leisure

Compared to the Burlinghams and the Youngs who usually kept at least two residences, the 

Bass family of 10 or more lived in the cramped quarters of the caretaker’s house. The top 

floor was arranged into three bedrooms: the parents slept in their own room along with 

Betty when she was younger; a second room was occupied by Betsey Hall, then Mervin, 

then Betty; and the rest of the Bass brothers slept in the third room.216 The building had 

one indoor bathroom equipped with a toilet, tub, and running water. Without a water 

heater, however, cold water needed to be manually warmed over a kerosene heater. The 

Basses also used an outhouse and, at night, a shared chamberpot that they euphemistically 

called the honeypot. During the winter, the kitchen stove along with a potbelly stove in the 

living room served as the main source of heat in the home. Indoor temperatures got so cold 

at night that the Basses sometimes woke up to a quarter-inch of frost on the inside of the 

windows; even the glass of drinking water that Bessie kept upstairs would freeze. Before 

the home was wired with electricity in 1932, the family relied on kerosene lamps for lighting. Charles remembered doing his homework by lamp light at the dining room table.217

The introduction of electricity to the caretaker’s house in 1932 altered the Basses’ 

standard of living. They transitioned from an ice box to a refrigerator, from hand wringer 

to washing machine, from kerosene lamps to electric lights, and from a crystal battery radio 

to an electric radio.218 Other changes to the caretaker’s home included the addition of 

lightning rods in the 1940s. Prior to that, according to Charles Bass, “every time we had a 

storm the lightning would hit the telephone and just—bang!—blew it off the wall.”219

Although living in a rural area, the Basses frequently visited nearby towns to socialize. Orin remembered riding into Ridgefield to get ice cream at Ancona’s grocery store, 

where the proprietor was a “jolly man” who “told us jokes.”220 Mervin met his wife by 

socializing with other young people in front of Ancona’s store.221 Occasionally the Bass 

216 The top floor is currently two bedrooms; the larger was split into two. See Kasparian and Phillips, “Historic 

Structures Report, Vol II-B: Caretaker’s House and Caretaker’s Garage.” See also Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, 

Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview; Mary Bass Ciuccoli, interview.

217 Bessie Bass Morabito, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie 

Morabito, 1999 interview; Kasparian and Phillips, “Historic Structures Report, Vol II-B: Caretaker’s House and 

Caretaker’s Garage.”

218 Charlie Bass, interview.

219 Dorothy Weir Young, “Branchville Book,” 1927–1946, Weir Family Papers, Diaries, Ledgers and Notebooks, 

Box 7, WEFA 482; Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, 

Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview; Orin Bass, interview; Kasparian and Phillips, 

“Historic Structures Report, Vol II-B: Caretaker’s House and Caretaker’s Garage.”

220 Orin Bass, interview; see also: Biagiotti, Impact.

221 Mary Bass Ciuccoli, interview.
98

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

children might go to the movies in Norwalk or Danbury.222 Russell and Kenneth discussed 

attending fairs and traveling to square dances.223 Socializing may have involved drinking 

alcohol for George Albert, who, according to Charles Burlingham Jr., got in trouble with 

the law on occasion for being drunk and disorderly.224 Betty remembered being particularly 

eager to leave the farm site and interact with more people, so she joined a church choir in 

Georgetown.225 Aside from Betty’s singing, the Bass family did not actively regularly participate in a church community, a contrast to white ethnic working-class families in the area.226

Aside from trips to town, the Basses spent most of their childhood leisure time 

outside. They often went fishing and swimming in Weir Pond and enjoyed jumping and 

diving into the water.227 One time a local friend, Vincent DeForest, took a near-fatal deep 

dive into the pond.228 Other neighbor boys and playmates included the Webbs who lived 

down the road. Charles recalled playing with Dave Webb, George Albert worked with 

Clayton Webb, and Betty later married Francis Webb.229 Betty’s father built her a dollhouse 

but, as the lone girl among eight brothers, she did not have many girl friends to play with 

growing up.230 She may have joined her brothers, however, in games of cards, croquet, or 

horseshoes.231 The Basses also rolled down hills and played baseball.232 In the winter, the 

children enjoyed sledding and ice skating (see Figure 50).233 The Basses frequently hosted 

relatives from Windham in Branchville, and always enthusiastically celebrated the Fourth 

of July with fireworks and a large dinner, in part because it also happened to be Bessie 

Bass’s birthday.234 Although the Basses oriented their lives around labor, they also engaged 

in childhood play and found opportunities to socialize with friends and family. 

222 Bessie Bass Morabito, interview; Charlie Bass, interview.

223 Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview.

224 Charles Burlingham, interview: “Georgie Bass was, I remember, constantly in trouble. He was drunk and 

disorderly, he was in the pen up at Danbury for three months, you know, for assaulting a policeman, or being 

drunk or something.” Kenneth and Russell also mention him getting a DUI.

225 Bessie Bass Morabito, interview.

226 Shaw, 2020. For example, the McGlynns and Knoches were active in the local Catholic church, as were many 

members of the Italian immigrant community in Ridgefield.

227 Bessie Bass Morabito, interview; Charlie Bass, interview; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview.

228 Charlie Bass, interview; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview.

229 Charlie Bass, interview; Norman F. Boas, Nod Hill Wilton, Connecticut—Reminiscences (self-published, 

1996).

230 Bessie Bass Morabito, interview.

231 Bessie Bass Morabito, interview; Charlie Bass, interview.

232 Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview.

233 Bessie Bass Morabito, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie 

Morabito, 1999 interview; Orin Bass, interview.

234 Charlie Bass, interview; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview.
99

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

From the Great Depression to World War II

The Basses’ 15-year stay at Branchville encompassed the entirety of the Great Depression. 

Raising a family during a period with high rates of unemployment likely contributed to 

George and Bessie staying with Dorothy Weir Young over the long term. Charles remembered that “once in a while a tramp would come through,” and Russell recalled how 

“hobos and tramps” stayed in an area of Danbury called the Barbary Coast near the railroad and taverns.235 George Albert spent time himself as a transient laborer, “travelling, 

hitchhiking and jumping freights” across the country after leaving a job out west.236 This 

may have been after he reportedly tried joining the military but was denied because “he got 

picked up for drinking and driving” according to Russell. As a young man with less apparent enthusiasm for farm work than his brothers Mervin or Edward and some degree of 

trouble with drinking and the law, George Albert sought out other experiences during a 

period of limited employment. He later told his younger brothers stories about his travels, 

including clarifying the difference between a hobo and a tramp (one worked and one 

didn’t), recounting the threat of getting picked up to work on a chain gang, and sharing 

how folks drank black coffee to ward off hunger.237

By the time George Albert Bass was 25 years old in 1940, he lived in Branchville 

again with his family and worked for Clayton Webb as a plumber.238 Life on the farm looked 

much like it had through the 1930s. His older brother, Mervin, now 28 years old and 

married, continued to work alongside his father as an assistant caretaker. Edward was 22 

years old and exploring his love of horticulture as caretaker for the Burlinghams. Nineteenyear-old Betty helped her mother with domestic duties while her brothers Russell, Orin, 

and Charles—also in their teens—picked up odd jobs. Outside of chores and school, 

eight-year-old Clifford and five-year-old Kenneth likely spent most of their days playing.

After more than a decade of relative stability, life for the Bass family would change 

drastically over the course of the next five years. George Albert, who had been previously 

rejected by the military, was drafted in 1940 as part of the United States’ first peacetime 

conscription.239 Betty left the household when she married her neighbor, Francis Webb, on 

235 Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview. This may be the area where George Albert got into trouble with the law. 

Charles Burlingham, interview mentioned George Albert Bass spent time in the Danbury jail for assaulting a 

police officer or being drunk and disorderly.

236 Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview, mentions that the Burlinghams may have secured the job out west for 

George Albert Bass.

237 Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview.

238 George Albert Bass’s draft card lists Clayton Webb as his employer and the 1940 census lists his occupation as 

laborer, not farmer. 1940 United States Census, Wilton, Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: m-t0627–00500; Page: 4A; 

Enumeration District: 1–225; National Archives at St. Louis; St. Louis, Missouri; WWII Draft Registration Cards 

for Connecticut, 10/16/1940–03/31/1947; Record Group: Records of the Selective Service System, 147; Box: 23.

239 Charlie Bass, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 

1999 interview; Orin Bass, interview; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview.
100

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

December 5, 1940.240 When the United States entered into World War II after the attack on 

Pearl Harbor in December 1941, Edward joined the Navy. He was later killed in action at sea 

on November 13, 1942, during the Battle of Guadalcanal.241 Russell and Charles followed 

their older brothers into the military.242 Even Mervin left Branchville, as his role of assistant 

caretaker was deemed nonessential during wartime, and started working at a nearby 

defense plant.243 Orin wanted to join the military, as well, but by then too many brothers 

were enlisted and he needed to stay in Branchville and help his father on the farm.244

Edward Bass’s death gratuity allowed George and Bessie to purchase 10 acres of 

their own land to farm on Barnum Road in Danbury, Connecticut. They left Dorothy Weir 

Young’s employ in 1944 and lived another 40 years. George Bass passed on April 19, 1983, 

and his wife followed five years later on June 10, 1988. They both survived into their 90s, 

and their 72-year marriage produced 9 children and 24 grandchildren (see the Appendix). 

Mervin Bass preceded his parents in death, passing away in 1954 at the age of 42 from a 

cerebral hemorrhage. 245 After the war he worked for the highway department and when he 

died he left behind his wife Mary and two children.246 George Albert Bass earned a purple 

heart in the war, married widow Ida Noonan in 1958, and worked at the Gilbert and 

Bennett wire manufacturing mill.247 Betty Bass had three children with Francis Webb and 

later married Peter Morabito and had two more children with him.248 Russell Bass married 

Edwina Brundage in 1957, raised one adopted son, and also worked at Gilbert and 

240 “Connecticut Vital Records—Index of Marriages, 1897–2001,” Connecticut State Library, https://www.

ctatatelibrarydata.org/marriage-records; see also Charlie Bass, interview.

241 Charlie Bass, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 

1999 interview; Orin Bass, interview; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview; National Archives and Records 

Administration. Register, World War II Dead Interred in American Military Cemeteries on Foreign Soil and 

World War II and Korea Missing or Lost or Buried at Sea. Washington, DC: National Archives and Records 

Administration; State Summary of War Casualties from World War II for Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard 

Personnel [Archival Research Catalog]; Records of the Bureau of Naval Personnel, Record Group 24; National 

Archives at College Park, College Park, MD.

242 Charlie Bass, interview; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview.

243 Mary Bass Ciuccoli, interview; Charlie Bass, interview; Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, 

Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, 1999 interview; Orin Bass, interview; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview.

244 Orin Bass, interview.

245 Ancestry.com. US, Find a Grave Index, 1600s-Current [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com 

Operations, Inc., 2012; Mary Bass Ciuccoli, interview; Charlie Bass, interview; Connecticut Department of 

Health, Connecticut Death Index, 1949–2001, Hartford, CT, USA: Connecticut Department of Health.

246 Shaw, 2020; Westport, Connecticut, City Directory, 1948. 

247 “Connecticut Vital Records—Index of Marriages, 1897–2001,” Connecticut State Library, 

https://www.ctatatelibrarydata.org/marriage-records; Danbury City Directory, 1964; Shaw, 2020; Social Security 

Applications and Claims, 1936–2007.

248 Obituary of Bessie Morabito, Danbury News Times, November 15, 2012, https://www.legacy.com/us/

obituaries/newstimes/name/bessie-morabito-obituary?n=bessie-morabito&pid=161067827; Shaw, 2020.
101

A New Era and the Bass Family, 1929–1944

Bennett.249 Charles Bass worked as a meter man for the CL&P Electric Company and lived 

with his wife, Eunice, and five children in Southington, Connecticut.250 His twin brother, 

Orin Bass, married Katherine Forster in 1965, had two children, and worked as a carpenter. After serving in the Korean War, Clifford Bass married and had two children with 

Marjorie Gamans in Connecticut before moving to Florida, marrying Patricia Huff, and 

raising four more children.251 Kenneth Bass married Dorothy Peck, had three children, and 

worked as a carpenter in Danbury.252

Betty, Russell, Orin, and Kenneth Bass all made their homes on the land purchased 

by their parents and their families continued to live there into the 21st century.253 The four 

siblings, along with Charles, revisited Weir Farm multiple times between 1999 and 2006 

and shared oral histories with National Park Service staff and volunteers. They expressed 

pride in their family’s legacy and work ethic, and their reminiscences reveal how the 

landscape of the Weir estate and their family’s labor on it shaped their memories of growing up during the Great Depression. 

Like the Remys before them, the Basses’ labor as a family unit created an era of 

relative stability and continuity on the Weir family farm. The Basses made a living tending 

the land using many traditional tools and processes, with a few concessions to modern 

farming techniques. Bessie Bass managed a large household and a cramped living space 

while many of the Bass men worked full and part-time for the Youngs and Burlinghams. 

Their employers’ maternalist management style resulted in many opportunities for supplemental income while also reinforcing geographic and social class boundaries on the property. With the Basses’ departure, the Weir family farm would enter a final era of caretakers 

and agricultural laborers.

249 “Connecticut Vital Records—Index of Marriages, 1897–2001,” Connecticut State Library, 

https://www.ctatatelibrarydata.org/marriage-records; Danbury City Directory, 1964; Shaw, 2020.

250 Southington, CT, 1951. Southington, CT: Price, Lee & Co., 1951; Shaw, 2020.

251 Beneficiary Identification Records Locator Subsystem (BIRLS) Death File. Washington, DC: US Department 

of Veterans Affairs; “Connecticut Vital Records—Index of Marriages, 1897–2001,” Connecticut State Library, 

https://www.ctatatelibrarydata.org/marriage-records; Danbury, Connecticut, City Directory, 1959; Social Security 

Administration; Washington DC, USA; Social Security Death Index, Master File.

252 Danbury City Directory, 1962; Shaw, 2020.

253 Danbury, CT, 1964. Danbury, CT: The Price & Lee Company, 1964; Shaw, 2020.

103

CHAPTER FIVE

Domestic and Other Workers, 

1929–1957

During their years at Branchville, Dorothy and Mahonri Young hired a wide range 

of workers in addition to the Bass family. With the exception of a few Irish maids 

and Mahonri’s studio assistants, many local residents of Ridgefield labored for 

the Youngs as live-out domestic workers and tradespeople. Compared to the turn of the 

century, workers at Branchville were less likely to be recent immigrants or transient 

laborers and more likely to be connected with other folks hired at the farm in different 

capacities. Dorothy Weir Young and Cora Weir Burlingham’s maternalist style of property 

ownership meant that they often returned to the same tradespeople for services, and 

frequently hired their relatives when possible. They also benefitted from reliable, highquality work performed by experienced and familiar laborers. This chapter will begin by 

discussing both the live-in and live-out domestic workers hired by the Youngs and 

Burlinghams in the mid-20th century. It will then discuss the tradespeople who worked on 

the Weir family estate, especially the Knoche Family. In a departure from covering workers 

hired by the Weir sisters, the chapter will consider the labor of Spero Anargyros and other 

studio assistants hired by Mahonri Young to assist him on the This Is the Place monument 

in his Branchville studio. Finally, the chapter will conclude with a brief overview of the 

Gully family, who resided in the caretaker’s house in the era after Dorothy Weir Young’s 

death in 1947 until a few years after the passing of Mahonri Young in 1957.

Domestic Workers

As with agricultural labor, domestic labor on Weir Farm looked similar to what it did at the 

turn of the century, with a few concessions to changing technologies and labor patterns. In 

a notable continuation from their childhoods, both Dorothy Weir Young and Cora Weir 

Burlingham continued to hire Irish maids through the 1930s and, in Young’s case, through 

the 1940s. The practice became less common into the 20th century as immigration from 

Ireland dramatically decreased, first-generation Irish maids aged out, and second-generation Irish women proved less likely to seek out live-in domestic work. Meanwhile, the 

Great Migration brought many Black women to northern cities like New York who offered 
104

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

domestic services but tended to prefer live-out arrangements.1 Mahonri Young’s children 

were largely raised by a Black housekeeper, Betsy Ann Hilton, in the years before and after 

his first wife’s death. By the time Young married Dorothy Weir, however, his children were 

grown, and Hilton had retired to be with her own family in New Jersey.2

 Dorothy Weir 

Young continued to keep at least one live-in domestic servant on staff who worked primarily as a cook, and then hired out for laundry and additional cleaning help.3

 Mahonri Sharp 

Young recalled that, at first, Dorothy employed “inherited servants” initially hired by her 

stepmother, Ella. He conveyed that she then brought on a succession of couples in the New 

York apartment before moving to Branchville full-time and relying on one maid-of-allwork: Mollie Gleason.4

The first half of the 1930s exemplified the transitional period in which Dorothy 

Weir Young continued to employ long time Weir family domestic servants. For example, 

Young consistently paid Ada Larabee 20 dollars per month until her death in January 1934, 

likely for her services at the Weir family property in Windham, Connecticut.5

 Meanwhile, 

Mary Hanratty, the beloved servant who raised Young and her sisters and worked for the 

Weir family since at least the early 1900s, continued to stay with the family through the 

death of Ella Weir. Dorothy Weir Young employed Hanratty through the mid-1930s, paying 

her monthly wages of $32.50.6

 Young may have also resumed or continued employing Julia 

Glover in the early 1930s, as well.7

 Toward the end of her time with the Weirs, some of 

Hanratty’s checks were addressed to Katie Noonan, and by the end of 1936 the checks to 

Noonan no longer referenced Hanratty. It remains unclear if Hanratty asked Young to send 

her wages to a friend or family member—a common practice—or if Noonan replaced 

Hanratty. Nevertheless, it seems certain that Mary Hanratty was kept on staff by her initial 

employer’s daughter, who also hired additional maids to keep households running in both 

New York City and Branchville.

1 Hasia R. Diner, Erin’s Daughters in America: Irish Immigrant Women in the Nineteenth Century (Baltimore, 

MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983); David M. Katzman, Seven Days a Week: Women and Domestic 

Service in Industrializing America (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1981).

2 Davis, A Song of Joys, 138, 148, 166.

3 Darcy Doyle, Charles Mahonri Lay, and Mahonri Mackintosh Young II, interview with William Russell, Weir 

Farm National Historic Site, Connecticut, January 9, 2009, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

4 Mahonri Sharp Young, interview by Doug Seemans, August 7, 1989, Branchville, CT, Weir Farm Heritage 

Trust, Weir Farm, Branchville, CT, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Darcy Doyle, Charles Mahonri Lay, and 

Mahonri Mackintosh Young II, interview with William Russell, Weir Farm National Historic Site, Connecticut, 

January 9, 2009, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

5 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; Willimantic, Connecticut, City Directory, 1930.

6 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592. Mary Hanratty received consistent wages of $32.50 from 

March 1934 through July 1936.

7 Though Julia Glover did not receive checks made out in her name, she did receive a Christmas gift in 

December 1933, suggesting she still worked for them and possibly received cash wages. A notation for $150 

wages in February 1932 lists “Mary and J,” which could reference Mary Hanratty and Julia Glover. Glover is not 

mentioned after that.
105

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

Myrtle Cogswell may have been one of the additional maids hired by Young. She 

received payments of 65 dollars in both January and February of 1932, an amount and 

frequency that suggests live-in work.8 Her next payment in April, however, indicated that 

she earned $7.25 for one day plus six and a half hours of labor, revealing a likely transition 

to live-out work. She married Homer F. Steinbaugh on December 10, 1932 and continued 

to receive occasional wages from 1934 through 1941, probably for taking in the Youngs’ 

laundry when they resided in New York City.9 Myrtle Cogswell Steinbaugh’s transition to 

live-out domestic work reflected the broader trend away from in-home laundresses during 

the Great Depression. Greater access to technology like wringers and even electric washing 

machines decreased the time and labor required to launder garments, making it more cost 

effective for wealthier families to send their laundry out. For example, Young paid 

Steinbaugh around 30 dollars per month for live-out laundry services in the late 1930s—

half of what she paid her for full-time labor in 1932.10 Meanwhile, working women like 

Steinbaugh still engaged in physically demanding labor and often laundered more than one 

family’s clothes, but could also claim more autonomy than a live-in servant. They did not 

reside in the same quarters as their employer, were not at the beck and call of their mistress, and could more reasonably marry and live with their own families.11

As Dorothy Weir Young transitioned away from familiar domestic servants, financial records on who she did hire remain spotty through the late 1930s until 1941. The only 

consistently named people in her ledger during that time were John and Adeline Pisano, 

who may have been one of the “couples” referenced by Mahonri Sharp Young that helped 

at the Youngs’ New York City apartment.12 Young likely continued to pay for at least a cook 

in addition to the couple, but she usually paid wages in cash. Oral histories recalling the 

8 Norwalk, Connecticut, City Directory, 1931 lists her as a domestic servant in Norwalk, Connecticut, further 

suggesting that Cogswell was engaged in live-in work.

9 New York State Department of Health; Albany, NY, USA; New York State Marriage Index; Dorothy Weir 

Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592. At least one entry to Cogswell Steinbaugh is noted as payment for laundry; 

her payments are usually listed in winter and correspond to when Branchville laundresses did not receive 

payments. T 1940 United States Census, New York, Bronx, New York; Roll: m-t0627-02460; Page: 4B; 

Enumeration District: 3–24 lists her residence as New York City. The Youngs also occasionally used commercial 

laundries like Bourke’s Criterion (1932–34) and Pearl White and Art Hand Laundry (1935 onward).

10 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592.

11 David M. Katzman, Seven Days a Week: Women and Domestic Service in Industrializing America (Urbana: 

University of Illinois Press, 1981). Some live-out laundresses may have also had more control over their hours 

and wages, but were also subject to the whims of the market and the challenges of what we would call the gig 

economy today. 

12 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; Dorothy Weir Young generally paid the Pisanos in the 

winters, suggesting that they were hired help in New York City. A family fitting their description appear in the 

1920 and 1930 censuses in New York City. John Pisano’s occupation is listed as a chauffeur, and they had a 

daughter, Mildred. It is possible that John and Adeline were live-out servants, perhaps a chauffeur and a maid. 

1920 United States Census, Manhattan Assembly District 9, New York, New York; Roll: T625_1201; Page: 7A; 

Enumeration District: 682; 1930 United States Census, Head of the Harbor, Suffolk, New York; Page: 2A; 

Enumeration District: 0104; FHL microfilm: 2341386.
106

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

Youngs’ life in Branchville during this time occasionally refer to a Black woman who 

worked as a cook for the couple. Orin Bass remembered how she “washed the chickens out 

with soap and water because maggots were crawling out of the chickens.” The Youngs 

preferred their poultry to sit in the basement until “it moved” with larvae, claiming it made 

the meat “nice and tender.”13 The Youngs hiring a Black domestic servant would have 

reflected changing labor patterns in New York City, but unfortunately no further documentation exists to identify the cook. In addition to paying cash, Young seemingly struggled 

with high turnover during this time; she sometimes paid employment agencies in New York 

City to assist with finding help.

In 1941, the Haviland Employment agency connected Dorothy Weir Young with 

Mollie Gleason, who became the Youngs’ sole live-in maid and cook until February 1949. 

Many people who visited and lived at Branchville remembered Gleason as a steadfast 

maid-of-all-work. Charles Burlingham Jr. described her as “a lovely, little Irish cook, who 

was a little bantam person, tiny person.”14 Mahonri Sharp Young recalled how she “was the 

cook, chief bottle washer, did all the work—chief slavey.”15 Mahonri Young’s grandchildren 

also remembered how Gleason “did everything.”16 Orin Bass referred to her as “a little Irish 

girl, forty or fifty years old at the time.”17 Short in statue, Gleason was a constant presence 

at Branchville in the 1940s and managed a substantial workload.

Mollie Gleason’s story began like many Irish maids. Born on March 19, 1889, in 

County Kerry, Ireland, she immigrated to the United States at the age of 18 on the SS 

Adriatic, arriving on November 1, 1907.18 She joined the later end of mass emigrations out 

of Ireland that brought women to the United States and into households like the Weirs to 

work as domestic servants. In 1910, Gleason worked as a cook for Irish Catholic priests at 

St. Saviour Church in Brooklyn.19 In 1920, she likely worked as a maid for the Petherbridge 

13 Orin Bass, interview by Michelle Gutmann, December 2, 1999, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Bass 

family members interview notes, interview by Maria Abonnel, May 31, 2006, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

14 Charles Burlingham, interview by Doug DeNatale and Cathie Barner, March 17, 1989, WEFA Oral History 

Transcriptions.

15 Mahonri Sharp Young, interview by Doug Seemans, August 7, 1989, Branchville, CT Weir Farm Heritage 

Trust, Weir Farm, Branchville, CT, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

16 Darcy Doyle, Charles Mahonri Lay, and Mahonri Mackintosh Young II, interview with William Russell, Weir 

Farm National Historic Site, Connecticut, January 9, 2009, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

17 Orin Bass, interview by Michelle Gutmann, December 2, 1999, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

18 Mollie Gleason petition for naturalization, National Archives and Records Administration; Washington, DC; 

NAI Title: Index to Petitions for Naturalizations Filed in Federal, State, and Local Courts in New York City, 

1792–1906; NAI Number: 5700802; Record Group Title: Records of District Courts of the United States, 

1685–2009; Record Group Number: RG 21.

19 1910 United States Census, Brooklyn Ward 22, Kings, New York; Roll: T624_971; Page: 4A; Enumeration 

District: 0570; FHL microfilm: 1374984.
107

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

family in the same borough.20 She continued to live in Brooklyn through 1930, when she 

was running a boarding house lodging five working Irish men in their 20s.21 There, she 

applied the same household skills she used as a maid: cooking, cleaning, and possibly 

laundry as well.22 When she applied for naturalization in 1933, she lived in a different 

location in Brooklyn and listed her occupation as housework.23 By 1940, she had moved on 

from Brooklyn and worked as a maid for the Farrar family on Park Avenue on the Upper 

East Side, earning an annual income of $360.24 By the time she joined the Youngs at 52 years 

of age, Gleason had managed a wide range of households, from boarding houses and 

rectories to a five-person family living on Park Avenue.

Dorothy Weir Young hired Gleason in 1941 to work primarily as a live-in cook, and 

she accompanied the couple to Branchville on temporary trips and during their permanent 

residency in the country during World War II. The two women reportedly sat down to plan 

meals regularly, collaborating on the task of food management.25 To execute the meals, 

Gleason spent significant energy managing a stove with firewood and coal, just like previous cooks and caretakers’ wives. She may have cooked with firewood during the day and 

kept the stove warm through the night with coal, or she may have exclusively used coal for 

cooking.26 Charles Burlingham Jr. remembered how Gleason kept coal in a small bucket 

and would “lift up the burner [on the stove] and throw some coal in there, put the lid back 

down and poke it around a bit.”27 At the stove, Gleason cooked food delivered from the 

grocery store by the Bass family, along with the poultry, pork, eggs, and milk that they 

20 1920 United States Census, Brooklyn Assembly District 12, Kings, New York; Roll: T625_1162; Page: 2B; 

Enumeration District: 679.

21 1930 United States Census, Brooklyn, Kings, New York; Page: 11A; Enumeration District: 0060; FHL 

microfilm: 2341247. One boarder was 30 years old.

22 See Wendy Gamber, The Boardinghouse in Nineteenth-Century America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins 

University Press, 2007).

23 Mollie Gleason petition for naturalization, National Archives and Records Administration; Washington, DC; 

NAI Title: Index to Petitions for Naturalizations Filed in Federal, State, and Local Courts in New York City, 

1792–1906; NAI Number: 5700802; Record Group Title: Records of District Courts of the United States, 

1685–2009; Record Group Number: RG 21.

24 1940 United States Census, New York, New York, New York; Roll: m-t0627-02654; Page: 6A; Enumeration 

District: 31-1310.

25 Orin Bass, interview by Michelle Gutmann, December 2, 1999, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

26 Orin Bass, interview by Michelle Gutmann, December 2, 1999, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

27 Charles Burlingham, interview by Doug DeNatale and Cathie Barner, March 17, 1989, WEFA Oral History 

Transcriptions.
108

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

produced. She also made butter and, sometimes in coordination with George Bass, ice 

cream.28 The Youngs’ reduced domestic staff and expanded reliance on the Basses meant 

that Gleason likely interacted with the caretaker’s family frequently.

Although primarily a cook, Gleason also functioned as a maid-of-all-work. She may 

have cleaned on occasions when Mary Bruschi Bass did not, and she certainly served tea, 

cocktails, and the meals that she cooked to the Youngs and their guests. She also cleaned 

the dishes. Betty Bass occasionally helped waitress and recalled how Mahonri Young’s 

dinner guests preferred to help themselves to dishes on the table while Dorothy Weir 

Young preferred a more formal experience with guests served individually. Dorothy’s 

attention to etiquette reflected her upper-class background and the social circles in which 

she participated. She depicted a meal scene at Branchville in her painting, Ladies at Dinner, 

including a domestic servant—Mary Hanratty—holding a dish from which a guest 

retrieved their portion (see Figure 26). Although the painting predated Gleason’s time at 

Branchville, it still conveys the class dynamics of dinnertime as the servant keeps her eyes 

on the prepared food at a table of refined white women. Meanwhile, those not actively 

being served look and lean toward each other as if engaging in conversation. The image 

echoes the memories of Mahonri Young’s grandchildren, who described dinner as a formal 

affair with Mahonri sporting a tie and Dorothy wearing a hostess gown.29

In contrast to Hanratty’s white outfit in Ladies at Dinner, Mollie Gleason usually 

wore a green uniform, except when she served dinner in a black dress and white apron.30

Dorothy Weir Young supplied the uniforms. In May 1943, Young paid Lena DeForest 2 

dollars and 50 cents to sew or mend Gleason’s uniform. DeForest lived locally and briefly 

resided at the Weir estate in the 1910s when her father, Willis O. Fuller, worked as a caretaker for Julian Weir.31 Dorothy Weir Young also spent $10.63 in 1943 to purchase uniforms 

at B. Altman & Co., a luxury department store in New York City. Wearing a uniform set 

Gleason apart from her employers and created a visual class distinction between people 

who occupied the same domestic space. In contrast, class boundaries for the caretaker’s 

family were not enforced via uniform, but spatially by living in a different home and primarily working outside. 

28 Darcy Doyle, Charles Mahonri Lay, and Mahonri Mackintosh Young II, interview with William Russell, Weir 

Farm National Historic Site, Connecticut, January 9, 2009, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Mary Bass 

Ciuccoli, interview by Darla Shaw, November 13, 2000, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

29 Darcy Doyle, Charles Mahonri Lay, and Mahonri Mackintosh Young II, interview with William Russell, Weir 

Farm National Historic Site, Connecticut, January 9, 2009, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

30 Mary Bass Ciuccoli, interview by Darla Shaw, November 13, 2000, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

31 For more on Fuller, see Chapter 2.
109

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

Gleason lived in the attic of the main residence at Branchville like the domestic 

servants before her.32 However, by the early 1940s the top floor boasted a bedroom, radiator heat, and a bathroom with modern plumbing. She also did not need to share the space 

with three other servants like her predecessors.33 She may have worked anywhere from 60 

to 80 hours per week, with days starting before breakfast and continuing until she finished 

cleaning up after dinner, which could take until eight or even ten o’clock in the evening.34

Gleason took the traditional Thursdays and Sunday mornings off of work while Dorothy 

arranged for Bessie Bass and Mary Bruschi Bass to fill in as necessary. Orin Bass drove 

Gleason to the train to spend her Thursdays in New York City where she could visit her 

sister, Abbie Stack, who lived in Brooklyn with her husband and four children.35 Orin also 

drove Gleason to church every Sunday.36 Like many Irish maids, Mollie Gleason maintained her Catholic religious practices and as well as familial and social networks based out 

of New York City.

Gleason earned a monthly salary that started at 65 dollars for her first year and 

increased to 70 or 75 dollars through May of 1943. The following year she received a raise 

to 80 dollars and by January 1945 she made 95 dollars per month. From 1946 to 1949 her 

income plateaued at $125 per month, which put her annual income in the top 15 percent of 

domestic service wage earners in the United States.37 On occasion she arranged with 

Dorothy Weir Young to send a portion of her wages directly to the Internal Revenue 

Service, presumably as her income tax payment. Gleason also at times requested part of 

32 Mahonri Sharp Young, interview by Doug Seemans, August 7, 1989, Branchville, CT Weir Farm Heritage 

Trust, Weir Farm, Branchville, CT, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Darcy Doyle, Charles Mahonri Lay, and 

Mahonri Mackintosh Young II, interview with William Russell, Weir Farm National Historic Site, Connecticut, 

January 9, 2009, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

33 Marie L. Carden and Richard C. Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir 

Complex,” Weir Farm National Historic Site, Wilton, CT.

34 Phyllis Palmer, Domesticity and Dirt: Housewives and Domestic Servants in the United States, 1920–1945

(Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1991), 77–81.

35 Mary Bass Ciuccoli, interview by Darla Shaw, November 13, 2000, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Orin 

Bass, interview by Michelle Gutmann, December 2, 1999, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Darcy Doyle, 

Charles Mahonri Lay, and Mahonri Mackintosh Young II, interview with William Russell, Weir Farm National 

Historic Site, Connecticut, January 9, 2009, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Mollie Gleason petition for 

naturalization;1930 United States Census, Brooklyn, Kings, New York, Page: 7B, Enumeration District: 0699. 

Patrick Stack worked as a clerk in a jewelry store in 1930; in the 1920 census he was listed as owning a grocery 

store.

36 Orin Bass, interview by Michelle Gutmann, December 2, 1999, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions. No details 

about which local Catholic church she attended; could have been in Ridgefield, Georgetown, or Wilton.

37 United States Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Women’s Bureau, “Handbook on 

Women Workers,” 1948; United States Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Women’s 

Bureau, “Handbook on Women Workers,” 1950.
110

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

her income go directly to her sister and brother-in-law in New York, as well as other 

members of her network.38 Gleason worked long, laborious hours and earned a robust 

wage that enabled her to support her relations.

Gleason stayed on with the Youngs past Dorothy’s death in May 1947. The length of 

Gleason’s employment speaks to a strong working relationship between her and Dorothy 

Weir Young. Dorothy paid Gleason well and, as with her other employees, covered certain 

medical expenses.39 In turn, Gleason put substantial time and labor into serving the Young 

family while living under the same roof. Gleason continued to work for Mahonri Young for 

another two years after Dorothy passed away, and may have continued to serve Young’s 

son, Mahonri Sharp Young, after that.40 Like Mary Hanratty, Gleason spent an extended 

length of time working for the owners of the Branchville estate and stayed employed by the 

family after the death of her initial employer. Few records exist to indicate how Gleason 

spent her later years, but she did live until the age of 78 and was buried in Saint John 

Cemetery in Queens, New York, in 1967.41

Across Pelham Lane from the Young residence where Mollie Gleason lived and 

worked, the Burlingham family also employed domestic servants. Through the 1930s and 

1940s, Dorothy Weir Young’s sister, Cora Weir Burlingham, spent most weekends and 

several weeks of summer vacation in Branchville with her husband and two sons.42 They 

likely traveled with at least some of the three domestic servants that lived with them in their 

main residence in New York City.43 For example, Jan and Clare White remembered “gorgeous lunches” served at Branchville by the cook working for the Burlinghams.44 Cora Weir 

Burlingham’s son Bill Carlin similarly recalled eating dinner after skeet shooting “every 

Saturday during the winter,” likely prepared by maids.45 In addition to a cook, the 

38 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592. Other entries included: Marie Bernherd, Catherine Keniry, 

and Margaret Kenery. Her nieces’ names were Mary and Catherine; they may have been the recipients. Gleason 

also shares a grave with Mary C. Keniry, who died in 1997. Find a Grave, (https://www.findagrave.com/

memorial/163091718/mary-c-keniry, accessed January 7, 2022.

39 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592. At least three entries reference paying Mollie Gleason’s 

medical expenses.

40 Mahonri Sharp Young, interview by Doug Seemans, August 7, 1989, Branchville, CT Weir Farm Heritage 

Trust, Weir Farm, Branchville, CT, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Mahonri M. Young Financial Records, 

WEFA 00143.

41 Ancestry.com. US, Find a Grave Index, 1600s-Current [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com 

Operations Inc., 2012, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/162054853/molly-gleason. Dorothy Weir Young 

checkbooks, WEFA 15592.

42 Bill Carlin, interview with Bill Russell, 2009, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

43 1930 United States Census, Manhattan, New York, New York; Page: 1B; Enumeration District: 0533; FHL 

microfilm: 2341301; 1940 United States Census, New York, New York, New York; Roll: m-t0627-02655; Page: 

2A; Enumeration District: 31-1318.

44 Jan and Clare White, interview with Cathy Granton, August 1994, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

45 Bill Carlin, interview with Bill Russell, 2009, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions: “I think the maids prepared 

the dinner. But I may be wrong about that. Mother was a mean cook too.”
111

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

Burlinghams probably hired nurses to assist with childcare. Cora’s other son, Charles 

Burlingham Jr., recalled a story told about him as a baby at Dorothy Weir’s wedding to 

Mahonri Young, when he was “put in the hands of some nursemaid, I suppose.”46 A third 

domestic may have served as a maid-of-all-work to help with cleaning and waitressing, 

especially if they followed the common trend of sending laundry out by then.

Like Dorothy Weir Young, Cora Weir Burlingham continued to hire Irish women as 

domestic servants. In contrast to the many single maids employed by the Weirs over the 

years, however, the 1930 United States census shows that the Burlinghams employed a 

30-year-old married woman named Mary Collins. She immigrated from Ireland seven 

years earlier and likely worked as the Burlinghams’ cook.47 Collins’ two coworkers, 

Elizabeth Burns and Rosetta Prunty, were in their 20s and remained single. Few concrete 

records exist on Burns, but Prunty was born in Longford, Ireland on September 20, 1903. 

She took the SS Celtic to America in August 1926 where she worked as a maid and remained 

single at least through 1940. When she petitioned for naturalization in 1932, Prunty listed 

Mary Collins as a witness, who was then working as a cook on Long Island.48 Although 

their paths briefly crossed in the Burlingham home, their connection clearly extended 

beyond their employment there. 

By 1940, no Irish women worked on the Burlinghams’ domestic staff. Their three 

maids—Karen M. Olsen, Maria Hellmure, and Isebel Nicoll—were Norwegian, German, 

and British immigrants, respectively. All three were single, ranging in age from 29 to 39 

years old. They earned $600 per year, less than Gleason received as maid-of-all work for 

Dorothy Weir Young, but still more than the average domestic servant.49 Cora Weir 

46 Charles Burlingham, interview by Doug DeNatale and Cathie Barner, March 17, 1989, WEFA Oral History 

Transcriptions.

47 1930 United States Census, Manhattan, New York, New York; Page: 1B; Enumeration District: 0533; FHL 

microfilm: 2341301; Rosetta Prunty Naturalization Petition, National Archives and Records Administration; 

Washington, DC; NAI Title: Index to Petitions for Naturalizations Filed in Federal, State, and Local Courts in 

New York City, 1792–1906; NAI Number: 5700802; Record Group Title: Records of District Courts of the 

United States, 1685–2009; Record Group Number: RG 21.

48 Rosetta Prunty Naturalization Petition, National Archives and Records Administration; Washington, DC; NAI 

Title: Index to Petitions for Naturalizations Filed in Federal, State, and Local Courts in New York City, 1792–

1906; NAI Number: 5700802; Record Group Title: Records of District Courts of the United States, 1685–2009; 

Record Group Number: RG 21; Rosetta Prunty Naturalization Declaration, The National Archives at 

Philadelphia; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; NAI Title: Declarations of Intention for Citizenship, 1/19/1842–

10/29/1959; NAI Number: 4713410; Record Group Title: Records of District Courts of the United States, 

1685–2009; Record Group Number: 21; 1930 United States Census, Manhattan, New York, New York; Page: 1B; 

Enumeration District: 0533; FHL microfilm: 2341301; 1940 United States Census, New York, New York, New 

York; Roll: m-t0627-02655; Page: 2A; Enumeration District: 31-1318.

49 1940 United States Census, New York, New York, New York; Roll: m-t0627-02655; Page: 2A; Enumeration 

District: 31-1318. The median wage for women domestic servants in 1946 was 373 according to United States 

Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Women’s Bureau, “Handbook on Women 

Workers,” 1948. The median wage for domestic servants in 1948 was $425 according to United States 

Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Women’s Bureau, “Handbook on Women 

Workers,” 1950.
112

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

Burlingham’s reliance on immigrant workers even as Irish maids became less available 

reflected changing labor trends. However, she did not appear to hire Black women despite 

their increasing presence in the domestic labor pool during the Great Migration.

Given their weekend trips to the country, the Burlinghams likely sent their laundry 

out in New York City and did not regularly require similar services in Branchville. The 

Youngs, in contrast, paid local women to launder their clothes during extended stays. From 

1933 into 1935, Dorothy Weir Young hired Elizabeth Knoche, the daughter of her longtime 

neighbors Joseph and Mary Knoche. Unlike live-in servants who received standard 

monthly wages, Knoche charged a daily rate and Young paid her monthly. For example, 

in 1933 and 1934, Elizabeth Knoche earned anywhere from 25 to 48 dollars per month. 

She likely charged 9 or 10 dollars per day and washed the Youngs’ laundry as frequently 

as once per week. Knoche may have taken in the laundry at her parents’ home, or she may 

have traveled to the Young home and washed clothes and linens using the large tubs in

 the basement and an outdoor clothesline.50 In 1935, around the time when payments to 

Elizabeth Knoche stopped, Dorothy Weir Young paid her sister, Theresa Knoche, 

20 dollars for a washing machine.51 Young may have purchased the machine either for the 

caretaker’s house or for her basement, and it could have ranged from a hand-cranked or 

motorized wringer to a more sophisticated set up with an agitator and drain. The prior year 

she also purchased an electric ironer for $59.50. Instead of lifting heavy stove-heated irons, 

the launderer could now sit in front of a three-foot-wide appliance and feed clothing 

through an ironing roll.52 If Young’s hired help did travel to the estate to wash clothes in the 

1930s, they had access to a more modern set up than their live-in predecessors.

By 1936, Elizabeth Knoche left her parents’ home to join the Sisters of the Blessed 

Sacrament and Dorothy Weir Young increasingly relied on Mary Bruschi Bass for both 

laundry and housecleaning. Mary Bruschi was born in Bridgeport, Connecticut, to Gino 

and Domenica Bruschi in December 1915.53 Her family later moved to Ridgefield, joining a 

thriving Italian immigrant community. Her father worked as farm laborer on a local estate 

50 Carden and Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir Complex,” 82–83; 

Darcy Doyle, Charles Mahonri Lay, and Mahonri Mackintosh Young II, interview with William Russell, Weir 

Farm National Historic Site, Connecticut, January 9, 2009, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Mahonri Young’s 

sketch, Washline and Barn (included in Larkin, “The Weir Farm”) shows a clothesline, though it’s unclear where 

it is located.

51 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592.

52 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592. The ironer still exists in Weir Farm’s collection (WEFA 

9684).

53 Mary Bass Ciuccoli, interview by Darla Shaw, November 13, 2000, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; 1920 

United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: T625_178; Page: 11B; Enumeration District: 153; 

1930 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Page: 21A; Enumeration District: 0174; FHL 

microfilm: 2339994; 1940 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: m-t0627-00498; Page: 

13B; Enumeration District: 1-124; Connecticut Department of Health. Connecticut Death Index, 1949–2001. 

Hartford, CT, USA: Connecticut Department of Health.
113

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

before transitioning to construction and later opening his own restaurant on Route 7.54

Mary met Mervin Bass while socializing at Ancona’s food store in Branchville and later 

married him on November 5, 1934, in her parents’ home. The couple lived on the third 

floor of the building next door to Gino’s restaurant.55 They welcomed a son, Robert, in 

December 1937 and a daughter, Joan, in 1944.

Dorothy Weir Young first hired Mary Bruschi in October 1934 before she married 

Mervin Bass, and then more consistently after Elizabeth Knoche’s departure from 

September 1935 through 1942. As assistant caretaker, Mervin commuted to the Young’s 

estate every morning. Mary accompanied him on Thursdays, the same day that Mollie 

Gleason usually took off to visit the city. Mary recalled that Mervin would “drop me off at 

the main house and I would stay there all day. Then he would pick me up at night and take 

me home.”56 While at the Youngs, Mary Bruschi Bass accomplished tasks that supplemented or fell outside of Gleason’s job. For example, in December 1936 she spent 10 and a 

half hours doing laundry at a rate of 3 dollars per hour and was also reimbursed for soap. 

In September 1939, Young paid Bass $24.30 for laundry and $14.15 for cleaning.57 In other 

months, Young noted paying Bass a rate of three dollars per day, possibly for cleaning or 

cooking in Gleason’s absence.58 On a typical day of cleaning, Bass dusted, swept, and 

scrubbed the upstairs bedrooms and bathrooms before working her way downstairs. She 

reportedly never cleaned the kitchen because that was Mollie Gleason’s domain.59

In later years, Mary Bruschi Bass Ciuccoli fondly described her relationship with 

Dorothy Weir Young: “When my grandfather lost $40.00 and was terribly upset, Mrs. 

Young gave me her own money to give to him. She also lent us her car to go to the photographers after our wedding and paid for the birthing expenses of my two children. When 

medical bills came due she also helped us out. On holidays Mrs. Young always gave us 

money and boxes of delicious candy. She was a very kind lady.”60

54 Aldo P. Biagiotti, Impact: The Historical Account of the Italian Immigrants of Ridgefield, Connecticut, 

(Ridgefield, CT: Romald, 1990), 237–38; 1920 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: 

T625_178; Page: 11B; Enumeration District: 153; 1930 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; 

Page: 21A; Enumeration District: 0174; FHL microfilm: 2339994; 1940 United States Census, Ridgefield, 

Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: m-t0627-00498; Page: 13B; Enumeration District: 1-124.

55 Mary Bass Ciuccoli, interview by Darla Shaw, November 13, 2000, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

56 Mary Bass Ciuccoli, interview by Darla Shaw, November 13, 2000, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

57 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592. Similarly, in January 1940, Young paid Bass $18.90 for 

laundry and $3.50 for housework.

58 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; Mary Bass Ciuccoli, interview by Darla Shaw, November 

13, 2000 mentioned that she cooked and cleaned.

59 Mary Bass Ciuccoli, interview by Darla Shaw, November 13, 2000.

60 Mary Bass Ciuccoli, interview by Darla Shaw, November 13, 2000.
114

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

She also recalled how Young would rock her daughter, Joan, as a baby and “even 

asked me to bring Joan over when I no longer worked for her.”61 Young paid Bass to pose 

for her in September 1935, likely for the portrait, Seated Girl Reading Newspaper (see 

Figure 47).62 Young most clearly demonstrated her maternalist approach to employment in 

her interactions and transactions with Mervin and Mary Bass. By paying Mervin assistant 

caretaker wages, employing Mary as part-time help while they started their family, and 

offering financial assistance and gifts to the young couple, Dorothy’s obligation to and 

relationship with her employees extended well beyond the official wages that she paid her 

primary caretaker, George Bass.

When Mervin Bass left Weir Farm to work at a defense plant during World War II, 

Mary Bruschi Bass’s availability to help Young also decreased. Young only paid Mary once 

in 1943 and on a few final occasions in 1944. During this period, Mary’s mother Domenica 

Bruschi took over laundry services.63 According to Dorothy’s checkbooks, Domenica may 

have first taken in the Youngs’ laundry a couple of times during the transition from 

Elizabeth Knoche to Mary Bruschi Bass. For example, Dorothy paid “Minnie” Bruschi 

$24.35 in January 1936 for 22.5 hours of laundry, plus the costs of soap and electricity.64

During World War II, however, she did laundry for the Youngs nearly every month from 

December 1942 to April 1944. While the earlier entries suggested that Bruschi took in the 

laundry and charged Dorothy for electricity, the later entries only include costs for labor 

and soap, leaving it unclear whether Bruschi washed clothing in her own home or at the 

Youngs. Either way, Dorothy Weir Young clearly relied on a handful of interconnected 

Ridgefield women for domestic labor.

When Domenica Bruschi stopped doing laundry for the Youngs in 1944, another 

local woman, Virginia D’Addario picked up the job and continued until January 1948. Like 

the Bruschi women, D’Addario was a member of the Italian American community in 

Ridgefield. She was born Virginia DiCamillo in Italy in 1900 and immigrated to the United 

States in 1920. She married Frank D’Addario in March 1921, and they lived on Branchville 

61 Mary Bass Ciuccoli, interview by Darla Shaw, November 13, 2000.

62 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592. 

63 United States, Selective Service System. World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, 

1917–1918. Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration. M1509, 4,582 rolls; The National 

Archives at St. Louis; St. Louis, Missouri; World War II Draft Cards (Fourth Registration) for the State of 

Connecticut; Record Group Title: Records of the Selective Service System; Record Group Number: 147; Series 

Number: M1962; Gino Bruschi Naturalization, National Archives at Boston; Waltham, Massachusetts; ARC 

Title: Naturalization Record Books, 12/1893–9/1906; NAI Number: 2838938; Record Group Title: Records of 

District Courts of the United States, 1685–2009; Record Group Number: RG 21; 1920 United States Census, 

Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: T625_178; Page: 11B; Enumeration District: 153; 1930 United States 

Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Page: 21A; Enumeration District: 0174; FHL microfilm: 2339994; 

1940 United States Census, Census Place: Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: m-t0627-00498; Page: 13B; 

Enumeration District: 1–124; Ridgefield, Connecticut, City Directory, 1966; Social Security Applications and 

Claims, 1936–2007.

64 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592, assuming Dorothy’s note, “lux,” referred to soap.
115

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

Road in Ridgefield.65 Her husband worked as a laborer at the Gilbert and Bennett wire mill 

in Georgetown, Connecticut. She raised three children and, although she lists her occupation as housewife on the 1940 census, she clearly took on laundry for the Youngs as a side 

job later in the decade. 66 She earned anywhere from 10 to 25 dollars per month, less than 

Mary Bruschi Bass or Domenica Bruschi, both of whom tended to make 20 or 30 dollars per 

month.67 Perhaps she charged a lower rate or took in less laundry than the Bruschi women, 

or perhaps her wages reflected that she did not take on additional house cleaning tasks.

From Elizabeth Knoche to Virginia D’Addario, Dorothy Weir Young hired known 

local women to do laundry and assist with housecleaning tasks that fell outside the substantial workload of her cook and maid-of-all-work, Mollie Gleason. Although Young’s employment of an Irish maid signaled a continuation of practices from her youth, the changing 

realities of domestic labor pools meant that she increasingly relied on live-out service, as 

well. Even the Burlinghams, who continued to depend on full-time servants, transitioned to 

hiring white immigrant domestics from countries other than Ireland. Whereas the majority 

of domestic servants that attended to Dorothy and Cora in their childhood where quick to 

move on for a better job in New York City, the women who increasingly attended to the 

Branchville estate in the 1930s and 1940s continued to live in the area and often held a 

connection to the next woman who did laundry or cleaned for the Youngs.

Knoches

At the center of a complex local network of Branchville domestic workers, carpenters, stonemasons and neighbors stood Joseph and Mary Knoche. A respected and prolific 

stonemason, Joseph Knoche owned 28 acres on Pelham Lane down the road from Julian 

Weir. He knew Weir as his neighbor and recommended several workers who assisted on 

Weir’s construction projects. His wife, Mary, was an Irish servant employed by Weir’s 

wife, and Knoche’s daughter, Elizabeth, took in laundry for Dorothy Weir Young. The 

Knoches were active members of the Ridgefield community and members of the local 

Catholic church frequented by many Irish and Italian families in town.68 They lived for a 

time next door to the painter, Mike McGlynn, and they were familiar with the Bass family. 

Into the 1930s and 1940s, Joseph Knoche worked on projects for Dorothy Weir Young and 

65 “Connecticut Vital Records—Index of Marriages, 1897–2001,” Connecticut State Library, https://www.

ctatatelibrarydata.org/marriage-records.

66 1930 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Page: 8A; Enumeration District: 0173; FHL 

microfilm: 2339994; 1940 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: m-t0627-00498; Page: 

14A; Enumeration District: 1-124; Ridgefield, Connecticut, City Directory, 1958; Biagiotti, Impact, 249–50; 

“Mrs. D’Addario, Native of Pescara,” Ridgefield Press, June 19, 1975.

67 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592.

68 It is possible, for example, that Mollie Gleason attended the same church as the Knoches.
116

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

built iconic stone walls for Cora Weir Burlingham. His sons, Terrance and Joseph Albert, 

completed a significant amount of carpentry work on the two properties, as well. The 

Knoche family story connects multiple aspects of labor on Weir Farm and demonstrates 

the growing interconnectedness among workers at the Branchville estate over the course 

of the 20th century.69

Joseph John Knoche was born in July 1868 in Germany on the cusp of unification. 

He attended school there until the eighth grade.70 As a teenager sometime between the 

years 1882 and 1885, he joined the same wave of emigration out of the industrializing 

country that brought Paul Remy to the United States.71 Knoche lived and worked in New 

York City for a time; possibly in a stone yard and possibly for his father’s ice and coal 

business.72 His descendants believe that he also spent a short time out west working for a 

mining operation before returning to New York.73 He became a naturalized United States 

citizen as a 30-year-old in October 1898.74 By 1900 he was living with his brother, John 

Knoche, in Ridgefield and working as a stone mason.75 Knoche married Mary Margaret 

Hickey on April 23, 1905, in Manhattan and they made their home in Ridgefield, 

Connecticut (see Figure 51). 

Mary Margaret Hickey was born in Ireland in 1879 and immigrated to the United 

States as an 18-year-old in 1897. She also joined a much larger emigration out of her country, and her records remain obscured among the many young single Irish women who left 

to find work.76 She likely worked as a domestic servant in New York City at the turn of the 

69 Joseph and Mary Ann Sheehy, interview with Rachel Boyle, March 20, 2020; Joseph and Mary Ann Sheehy, 

interview with Rachel Boyle, January 14, 2022.

70 Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by 

Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; 1940 United States 

Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: m-t0627-00498; Page: 62A; Enumeration District: 1-124.

71 1910 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: T624_127; Page: 11B; Enumeration 

District: 0105; FHL microfilm: 1374140; Macklin Reid, “Walls are stonecutter’s legacy,” Ridgefield Press, April 

9, 1998; Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by 

Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions. Some sources suggest 

he immigrated as young as 12 or 13, which does not align with genealogical sources.

72 Macklin Reid, “Walls Are Stonecutter’s Legacy,” Ridgefield Press, April 9, 1998; Margaret (Peg) Knoche, 

Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, 

November 9, 2007, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions. New York, New York, City Directory, 1886, 1888, and 

1889 list a Joseph Knoche working at 436 E 75th St. in the ice business, as a peddler, and selling coal. 

73 Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by 

Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

74 Joseph Knoche Naturalization Record, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); Washington, 

DC; Index to New England Naturalization Petitions, 1791–1906 (M1299); Microfilm Serial: M1299; Microfilm 

Roll: 20.

75 1900 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Page: 4; Enumeration District: 0094; FHL 

microfilm: 1240134. Around that time, John Knoche’s sons Joseph and John, and his nephew, Charles, all 

attended the local Ridgefield public school with Carl and William Remy. Souvenir Student List for Branchville 

Schoolhouse, 1899–1900 school year, 1900, Private Collection.

76 See Chapter 3 for more on Irish domestic workers at Weir Farm and beyond.
117

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

century, reportedly hired by the Weir family for a time along with her sister, Katherine.77

That may be how she met Weir’s neighbor, Joseph Knoche.78 After marrying Knoche and 

moving to Ridgefield, Mary was active in the local Catholic church, St. Mary’s, and raised 

four children: Elizabeth, Terrance, Teresa, and Joseph.79 The family lived at 131 Barry 

Avenue, next door to Mike McGlynn, a painter and brother to the plumber who worked on 

Weir’s home in 1911. Mary Knoche passed away in 1927 at only 48 years of age.80

At some point in the early 20th century—possibly as early as 1893—Joseph Knoche 

accumulated enough money through his stonemasonry work to purchase 28 acres on 

Pelham Lane in addition to the home on Barry Avenue. He and his family spent significant 

time on the property and was one of Julian Weir’s few neighbors in the early 20th century. 

Pelham Lane even used to be called Knoche Lane. Weir and Knoche regularly had 

friendly conversations, shared drinks on Weir’s porch, and the families were close enough 

that Weir family photograph albums include a picture of Cora Weir holding Elizabeth 

Knoche as a baby (see Figure 52).81 Julian Weir once called the fire department because he 

saw smoke on Knoche’s property and could not contact Joseph, who was actually out 

burning brush.82 Knoche recommended masons to Weir as he executed the 1911 Platt 

improvements to his property.83 Knoche likely did not work for Weir himself; at that time 

he ran his own contracting business and did not switch to exclusively doing stonework 

until later in the 20th century.84

77 Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by 

Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

78 Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by 

Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions. It may have been 

unconventional at the time for a German immigrant to marry an Irish immigrant. Notably, however, they were 

both Catholic.

79 Joseph and Mary Ann Sheehy, interview with Rachel Boyle, March 20, 2020; Margaret (Peg) Knoche, 

Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, 

November 9, 2007; 1930 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Page: 17A; Enumeration 

District: 0174; FHL microfilm: 2339994.

80 1920 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: T625_178; Page: 1A; Enumeration 

District: 153; 1930 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Page: 17A; Enumeration District: 

0174; FHL microfilm: 2339994; Find a Grave, http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi. 

81 Joseph and Mary Ann Sheehy, interview with Rachel Boyle, March 20, 2020; Joseph and Mary Ann Sheehy, 

interview with Rachel Boyle, January 14, 2022.

82 Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by 

Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

83 WEFA 448; Box 1, Envelope 11. For more, see Chapter 1.

84 Macklin Reid, “Walls Are Stonecutter’s Legacy,” Ridgefield Press, April 9, 1998; Margaret (Peg) Knoche, 

Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, 

November 9, 2007, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.
118

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

According to family and friends, Joseph Knoche embraced a strong work ethic. 

Charles Burlingham Jr. described Knoche as “a wonderful, powerful old German man with 

a great, white handlebar moustache.”85 Charles Bass recalled that “he was a quiet person; 

when he went to work he just worked.”86 His employees could not always keep up. Orin 

Bass remembered how, at around 70 years of age, Knoche fired a 60-year-old working for 

him because the laborer “was too slow.”87 Another time, he learned that his employees tried 

to collect a full day’s pay for a half day’s work, and decided to stop hiring others and 

continue his business by himself.88 Knoche never joined a union, but did collaborate with 

friends like Mr. Bloomer, who “had horses and equipment that was used to move stone for 

building projects” according to the Knoche family.89 He never used paper plans or designs, 

but created an image in his mind based on what his customers wanted.90

Knoche completed projects throughout the region, including chimneys, wells, and 

stone walls. Notable customers included Mark Twain in Redding, Connecticut, and the 

Doubledays in New York.91 He built an enduring stone foundation and fireplace at the foot 

of Nod Hill Road, but according to the Knoche family, “the man who wanted the house 

built did not have enough money to finish it, and had to abandon the project.” 92 During 

another job, Knoche suspected a wealthy client might not pay and installed a piece of glass 

in the chimney he built. When the client found that their chimney didn’t work, he secured 

payment from them before dropping a rock down the chimney and clearing the flue.93

85 Charles Burlingham, interview by Doug DeNatale and Cathie Barner, March 17, 1989, WEFA Oral History 

Transcriptions.

86 Charlie Bass, interview by Michelle Gutmann, December 1, 1999, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

87 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, interview by Michelle 

Gutmann, October 23, 1999, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

88 Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by 

Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

89 Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by 

Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; could be Thomas or 

Frank Bloomer according to Jack Sanders, “The Ridgefield Encyclopedia,” accessed August 10, 2021, https://

ridgefieldlibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Ridgefield-Encyclopedia-Updated-4–14–2020.pdf; Joseph and 

Mary Ann Sheehy, interview with Rachel Boyle, January 14, 2022.

90 Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by 

Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007 WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

91 Joseph and Mary Ann Sheehy, interview with Rachel Boyle, March 20, 2020; Joseph and Mary Ann Sheehy, 

interview with Rachel Boyle, January 14, 2022; Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe 

Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007, WEFA Oral 

History Transcriptions: Knoche built stone walls “in Ridgebury, on West Mountain across from Notre Dame, at 

the intersection of Barry Ave. and High Ridge, on the Wagner property.”

92 Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by 

Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

93 Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by 

Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.
119

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

Cora Weir Burlingham hired Joseph Knoche for several stonework projects on her 

property. He famously crafted the rubble-filled walls along Nod Hill Road and Pelham 

Lane, dubbed “The Great Wall of Cora” (see Figures 53 and 54).94 George Bass would bring 

stones from the fields and Knoche “would pick the ones he wanted,” according to Charles 

Bass.95 Knoche showed up to work every morning just after seven o’clock and used a star 

drill, hammer, and chisels to split and shape the stones, leaving behind marks that are still 

visible to the keen observer (see Figure 55).96 He then constructed the entire wall without 

cement, strategically placing stones into two laid walls filled with rubble in between to help 

with flexibility on shifting terrain. The outer wall facing the road consists of large, formal 

stones while smaller, more rounded rocks make up the wall facing inward toward the 

Burlingham property.97

Mahonri Young, given his fascination with depicting working men in his art, 

sketched Knoche and his fellow workers building the wall (see Figure 56).98 Charles 

Burlingham Jr. recalled: “Mahonri Young used to go out and sketch them, because he loved 

American laborers. He loved doing the rippling muscles and the stances and the postures of 

people building stone walls, and...he was out there with them half the time...he’d bring a 

little camp stool out and watch them, he’d draw them as they work.” Just as the Remys and 

94 Joseph and Mary Ann Sheehy, interview with Rachel Boyle, March 20, 2020; Joseph and Mary Ann Sheehy, 

interview with Rachel Boyle, January 14, 2022; National Park Service, Weir Farm: The Stone Walls, http://

npshistory.com/brochures/wefa/stone-walls.pdf; Mahonri Young, Joe Knoche Builds a Stone Wall. National Park 

Service, Weir Farm: The Stone Walls suggests that Dorothy Weir Young named the wall “The Great Wall of 

Cora”; Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by 

Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007 claimed that Mahonri Young named it; and Charles 

Burlingham, interview by Doug DeNatale and Cathie Barner, March 17, 1989 believed that either his father, 

Charles Burlingham, Sr. or Mahonri Young named the wall. The Maureen K. Philips in “Weir Farm Historic 

Structures Report, Vol. III: Burlingham Complex,” National Park Service, 1995 dates the stone wall construction 

in the 1930s, but Young’s sketch is dated 1942. Child Associates and Cynthia Zaitzevsky, “Cultural Landscape 

Report for Weir Farm National Historic Site,” Brookline, MA: Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 

National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, 1996 says that Mahonri’s Knoche sketches are not dated.

95 Charlie Bass, interview by Michelle Gutmann, December 1, 1999, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; 

Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by Jamie 

Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007 also suggests that the stones were most likely found on the 

property or maybe quarried from a quarry on Branchville Road.

96 Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by 

Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Charles Burlingham, 

interview by Doug DeNatale and Cathie Barner, March 17, 1989, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

97 Joseph and Mary Ann Sheehy, interview with Rachel Boyle, March 20, 2020; Margaret (Peg) Knoche, 

Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, 

November 9, 2007, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; National Park Service, Weir Farm: The Stone Walls, 

http://npshistory.com/brochures/wefa/stone-walls.pdf.

98 Figure 3 clearly shows the Burlingham home in the background. For another sketch of the Knoches, see 

Mahonri M. Young, Joe Knoche Builds a Stone Wall, ca. 1943, Ink, 7 3⁄4 × 10 1⁄2, WEFA AP00770. Margaret (Peg) 

Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by Jamie Peters and Dr. 

Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007, claimed that Joe stopped hiring workers by the time he built the Great Wall of 

Cora, but Young’s sketches show multiple workers. Assuming the walls were not built during World War II, the 

other workers may be Knoche’s sons.
120

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

Basses appeared in Weir and Young’s artwork, the Knoches’ physical labor and craftsmanship inspired Mahonri Young. His sketches of the stonemasons fit within his broader work 

capturing the physicality of manual labor. 

Cora Weir Burlingham took great pride in the walls built by Joseph Knoche. Charles 

Burlingham Jr. remembered how his mother considered it “criminal” for her children to 

“take a stone off of the top of one of her stonewalls and throw it somewhere.” For example, 

he once removed stones from the wall and threw them in an attempt to dislodge an oriole’s 

nest from a nearby elm tree. When his mother found out, “she made us go out in the fields 

and find as many of the stones as we could and put them back on the wall.”99

In addition to the “Great Wall of Cora,” Joseph Knoche and his sons built other 

stone structures on the Burlingham property. For example, Knoche likely constructed the 

potting shed with stones he had cut and cast aside as part of a previous project.100 He 

crafted other walls on the property, including the wall around the sunken garden. The 

Knoches also built a stone patio, a square stone structure connected to the wall between 

the barn and the woodshed, and possibly, though less likely, the stone garden terraces on 

the Burlingham property.101

Dorothy Weir Young also paid Joseph Knoche to do stonework on her property, as 

early as 1934 for unspecified stonework. She then hired him to build stone terraces for her 

gardens in 1935 and 1937, and then again in 1939 for “blasting stone in garden.”102 From 

July 1938 to January 1940, she made five significant payments to Knoche for a temple, 

though it is possible the project did not progress beyond transporting stone blocks down to 

the pond.103 She also hired Joseph Knoche for a number of repairs from 1941 to 1944. 

99 Charles Burlingham, interview by Doug DeNatale and Cathie Barner, March 17, 1989, WEFA Oral History 

Transcriptions.

100 The following sources attribute the potting shed to Knoche: Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary 

Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007, 

WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Child Associates and Cynthia Zaitzevsky, “Cultural Landscape Report for 

Weir Farm National Historic Site,” Brookline, MA: Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, National Park 

Service, US Department of the Interior, 1996, 222; Maureen K. Philips, “Weir Farm Historic Structures Report, 

Vol. III: Burlingham Complex,” National Park Service, 1995. Mary Ann Sheehy shared the story about the 

cast-off stones in Joseph and Mary Ann Sheehy, interview with Rachel Boyle, March 20, 2020.

101 Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by 

Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Maureen K. Philips, 

“Weir Farm Historic Structures Report, Vol. III: Burlingham Complex,” National Park Service, 1995; Child 

Associates and Cynthia Zaitzevsky, “Cultural Landscape Report for Weir Farm National Historic Site,” 

Brookline, MA: Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, National Park Service, US Department of the 

Interior, 1996, 222; Charles Burlingham, interview by Doug DeNatale and Cathie Barner, March 17, 1989, 

WEFA Oral History Transcriptions. The Knoche family in their interview did not think that Knoche built the 

stone terraces; the two NPS reports suggest that he did.

102 Dorothy Weir Young, “Branchville Book,” 1927–1946, Weir Family Papers, Diaries, Ledgers and Notebooks, 

Box 7, WEFA 48; Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592.

103 Dorothy Weir Young, “Branchville Book,” 1927–1946, Weir Family Papers, Diaries, Ledgers and Notebooks, 

Box 7, WEFA 48; Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; “Weir Pond,” Weir Farm National Historical 

Park (US National Park Service), accessed August 8, 2021, https://www.nps.gov/wefa/learn/historyculture/

places-weirpond.htm. 
121

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

Although the carpentry work was likely executed by his son, Joseph Albert Knoche, the 

elder Knoche may have completed chimney repairs.104 Joseph Knoche’s familiarity with the 

folks living at Weir Farm also extended to the Bass family. Mary Bruschi Bass remembered 

that Knoche, or “Nappy” as they called him, made a crib for George Bass’s children, and 

Mary used the crib for her babies, as well.105

As Joseph Knoche aged, his oldest daughter Elizabeth—who did laundry for the 

Youngs—joined the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament.106 His younger daughter, Theresa 

Knoche, went to college, married Joseph Sheehy in New York City on March 2, 1946, and 

raised three children: Joseph, Mary, and Elizabeth.107 Dorothy Weir Young depicted 

Theresa in her portrait, Theresa and Tommy (see Figure 57).108 Meanwhile, Joseph 

Knoche’s sons followed the family tradition of craftwork and became carpenters. From 

1932 to February 1942, Dorothy Weir Young hired Terrance for at least one project nearly 

every year; in 1934 she paid him as many as seven times.109 The jobs ranged from small odd 

jobs paying a couple of dollars to $135 in May 1935 for carpentry work on the third floor 

bedroom in the main residence. Medium-sized projects included fixing doors, building 

shelves, and installing windows.110 Terrance’s younger brother by 10 years, Joseph Albert 

Knoche, started working on jobs for Dorothy Weir Young in the 1940s, such as fixing the 

ridge board of the house, putting a cement floor in the chicken house, or installing floors in 

the caretaker’s house after the Bass’s departure.111

Terrance and Joseph Albert Knoche may have also worked on the significant 

alterations that Cora Weir Burlingham undertook in the 1930s after she acquired the Webb 

property. In addition to hiring Joseph Knoche to complete stonework, Burlingham 

104 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592.

105 Mary Bass Ciuccoli, interview by Darla Shaw, November 13, 2000, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

106 Macklin Reid, “Walls Are Stonecutter’s Legacy,” Ridgefield Press, April 9, 1998.

107 Joseph and Mary Ann Sheehy, interview with Rachel Boyle, March 20, 2020; Margaret (Peg) Knoche, 

Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, 

November 9, 2007, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; “Connecticut Vital Records—Index of Marriages, 

1897–2001,” Connecticut State Library, https://www.ctatatelibrarydata.org/marriage-records.

108 No entries in Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592 mention paying Theresa for posing; the painting 

likely predates the checkbooks.

109 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592. Every year except 1937.

110 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; Dorothy Weir Young, “Branchville Book,” 1927–1946, Weir 

Family Papers, Diaries, Ledgers and Notebooks, Box 7, WEFA 482.

111 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; given Joseph Knoche’s focus on stonework during that time, 

it seems likely that DWY was paying his son, Joseph Albert Knoche.
122

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

collaborated with designer Nelson Breed to enlarge the residence. The addition included a 

dining room and kitchen ells; she later added a greenhouse to the kitchen and a shed to the 

barn. The Knoche brothers most likely did carpentry work on any or all of these changes.112

At the start of World War II, both Terrance and Joseph Albert Knoche officially 

worked as carpenters for local contractors Driscoll and Sweeney.113 Terrance then served in 

the war and Joseph Albert worked as a state police dispatcher.114 In 1945, the two returned 

to carpentry and went into business together as Knoche Brothers Inc. Their father passed 

away in 1949. Terrance assumed the title of president while his wife, Helen, worked as the 

company secretary. They lived in the family home at 131 Barry Avenue with their son, 

Terrance Jr. The property also housed the office and a work shed.115 Joseph Albert Knoche 

served as vice president and lived with his wife, Margaret, and son, Joseph Knoche III, on 

the Knoche land on Pelham Lane near the Burlinghams and Youngs.116 Knoche Brothers 

Inc. thrived as a business and employed so many carpenters that, at one point, one worker’s sole responsibility was to build stairs.117 They also hired Joseph Knoche III, who went 

to college for accounting and banking.118 Dorothy and, later, Mahonri Young continued to 

hire the Knoche Brothers for unspecified projects into the 1950s.119

Dorothy Weir Young hired one last Knoche in addition to Joseph, Elizabeth, 

Terrance, and Joseph Albert: Joseph’s nephew, Edward Knoche. He worked in the building 

trades like his extended family, working at various times as a bricklayer, plasterer, and 

112 Charles Burlingham, interview by Doug DeNatale and Cathie Barner, March 17, 1989, WEFA Oral History 

Transcriptions; Joseph and Mary Ann Sheehy, interview with Rachel Boyle, March 20, 2020; Charlie Bass, 

Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, interview by Michelle Gutmann, October 

23, 1999, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Maureen K. Philips, “Weir Farm Historic Structures Report, Vol. 

III: Burlingham Complex,” National Park Service, 1995; Child Associates and Cynthia Zaitzevsky, “Cultural 

Landscape Report for Weir Farm National Historic Site,” Brookline, MA: Olmsted Center for Landscape 

Preservation, National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, 1996; Bill Carlin, interview with Bill 

Russell, 2009, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Charles Burlingham, interview by Doug DeNatale and Cathie 

Barner, March 17, 1989, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

113 Terrance Knoche and Joseph Knoche Draft cards, National Archives at St. Louis; St. Louis, Missouri; WWII

Draft Registration Cards for Connecticut, 10/16/1940–03/31/1947; Record Group: Records of the Selective 

Service System, 147; Box: 220.

114 Joseph and Mary Ann Sheehy, interview with Rachel Boyle, March 20, 2020. They also mentioned that the 

Knoche brothers started their business before the war; that is not reflected in their draft cards.

115 Joseph and Mary Ann Sheehy, interview with Rachel Boyle, March 20, 2020; Ridgefield, Connecticut, City 

Directory, 1958, 1960, 1983.

116 Joseph and Mary Ann Sheehy, interview with Rachel Boyle, March 20, 2020; Margaret (Peg) Knoche, 

Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, 

November 9, 2007, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Ridgefield, Connecticut, City Directory, 1958, 1960, 

1983.

117 Joseph and Mary Ann Sheehy, interview with Rachel Boyle, March 20, 2020.

118 Joseph and Mary Ann Sheehy, interview with Rachel Boyle, March 20, 2020. 

119 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; Mahonri M. Young Financial Records, WEFA 00143.
123

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

mason.120 Relatives recalled that he worked on bridges in New York City as an engineer 

during the Great Depression.121 In May 1942, he rebuilt a chimney for Young, and in the fall 

of 1944, he helped out on the farm after the Bass family departed. He lived nearby on 

Pelham Lane and could assist with farm work and cutting wood.122

Through the 1930s and 1940s, the Youngs and Burlinghams hired a total of five 

different Knoches for jobs ranging from stone masonry and carpentry to laundry and 

agricultural labor. Joseph and Mary Knoche’s connections to the Weir family also extended 

back to the previous generation, and their grandchildren would later contribute oral 

histories and volunteer with the Weir Farm National Historical Park.123 Joseph Knoche’s 

great-granddaughter, Johanna, even worked as a National Park Service employee on the 

site in the 21st century (see Figure 58).124 The Knoche family’s persistent presence in 

Branchville speaks both to changing labor patterns in New England as well as their strong 

reputation and reliable craftsmanship. Whereas the workers and proprietors of the Weir 

estate at the turn-of-the-century were all newcomers to the area, by the 1930s and 1940s 

established relationships among families shaped economic relationships on the site.

Other Tradespeople Hired by the Youngs

Apart from the Knoches, Dorothy Weir Young hired other local tradespeople to make 

alterations to the Branchville property. Like her father, she embraced white settler assumptions regarding property ownership that required making “improvements” to the buildings 

and landscape. As established, she did not make radical changes to the property or shape 

the landscape to meet her artistic vision, but largely kept the site running as a modest farm 

and weekend retreat. Most of the projects focused on updating and repairing utility systems as well as painting and repairing the main residence and caretaker’s house. Previous 

120 1930 United States Census, Stamford, Fairfield, Connecticut; Page: 31A; Enumeration District: 0208; FHL 

microfilm: 2339995; 1940 United States Census, Stamford, Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: m-t0627-00498; Page: 

12B; Enumeration District: 1-153; Stamford, Connecticut, City Directory, 1940.

121 Joseph and Mary Ann Sheehy, interview with Rachel Boyle, January 14, 2022.

122 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe 

Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007 referenced 

Anne Knoche, Edward Knoche’s wife, who lived in a converted garage on the family property on Pelham Lane. 

Joseph and Mary Ann Sheehy, interview with Rachel Boyle, January 14, 2022, asserted that Edward owned his 

own property on Pelham Lane.

123 Darla Shaw, “The Knoche Family, Builders of Stonewalls for Weir Farm,” https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/

the-knoche-family-builders-of-stonewalls-for-weir-farm.htm; The Knoche grandkids also lugged ice from the 

pond to the ice house for the Burlinghams, according to Joseph and Mary Ann Sheehy, interview with Rachel 

Boyle, March 20, 2020. 

124 Darla Shaw, “The Knoche Family, Builders of Stonewalls for Weir Farm,” https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/

the-knoche-family-builders-of-stonewalls-for-weir-farm.htm; Joseph and Mary Ann Sheehy, interview with 

Rachel Boyle, January 14, 2022. Johanna is the daughter of Joe Albert Knoche Jr. and Patricia Sheehan. See 

family trees in appendix.
124

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

historic structures reports detail most of the alterations made on the property over the 

years; this section will focus more specifically on projects for which information exists on 

the workers who implemented the changes. Young kept a ledger tracking projects, 

expenses, and notable events at the Branchville farm in addition to her meticulous checkbooks, and those records help shed light on the workers who shaped the landscape of the 

Weir estate.

For example, as early as 1927 Young paid Charles Weitzel $1,469.82 to install 

plumbing for two bathrooms in the main residence and the bathroom in the caretaker’s 

house.125 Young hired Weitzel routinely until the end of her life, and after that Mahonri 

Young continued to pay him for plumbing projects. The son of German immigrants, 

Weitzel was born in 1895 and worked as a plumber in Ridgefield for most of his life. He 

raised three daughters and a son with his wife, Elizabeth.126 Orin Bass recalled how Weitzel 

repeatedly advised Dorothy Weir Young against turning her heat down below 50 degrees, 

which she frequently did to save money. One winter all of the pipes froze solid, broke, “and 

there was water all down through the floor” in her Branchville home. According to Bass, “it 

cost her more money to replace the pipes than to keep the furnace up to a certain temperature.”127 In addition to installing and repairing pipes as necessary, Weitzel also installed and 

performed maintenance for water heaters, radiators, and water pumps at Branchville. He 

also turned water on and off whenever the Youngs arrived or departed their country estate 

for the season.128

Plumbing projects that involved new lines required not just a plumber, but a contractor to dig trenches for laying pipe. For example, before Weitzel could install plumbing 

in 1927, Dorothy Weir Young paid another party $621.82 to dig and blast for pipes. 

Similarly, when Weitzel laid new lines to the caretaker’s house in 1943, Young paid Joseph 

Bacchioci to dig the attendant ditches. Bacchiochi was an Italian immigrant who lived in 

Ridgefield and ran his own construction company.129

125 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; Dorothy Weir Young, “Branchville Book,” 1927–1946, Weir 

Family Papers, Diaries, Ledgers and Notebooks, Box 7, WEFA 482. This interpretation of Dorothy’s inscription 

in the Branchville Book differs from that in Lance Kasparian and Maureen K. Phillips, “Historic Structures 

Report, Vol II-B: Caretaker’s House and Caretaker’s Garage,” National Park Service, US Department of the 

Interior, 2008, 65.

126 1930 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Page: 20A; Enumeration District: 0174; FHL 

microfilm: 2339994; 1940 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: m-t0627-00498; Page: 

5B; Enumeration District: 1–126; The National Archives at St. Louis; St. Louis, Missouri; World War II Draft 

Cards (Fourth Registration) for the State of Connecticut; Record Group Title: Records of the Selective Service 

System; Record Group Number: 147; Series Number: M1962; Ridgefield, Connecticut, City Directory, 1966.

127 Orin Bass, interview by Michelle Gutmann, December 2, 1999, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Dorothy 

Weir Young, “Branchville Book,” 1927- 1946, Weir Family Papers, Diaries, Ledgers and Notebooks, Box 7, 

WEFA 482.

128 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; Dorothy Weir Young, “Branchville Book,” 1927–1946, Weir 

Family Papers, Diaries, Ledgers and Notebooks, Box 7, WEFA 482.

129 Biagiotti, Impact, 227.
125

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

Young hired another Italian Ridgefieldian, Vincent Bedini, for several projects that 

also involved digging and hauling. Bedini immigrated to the United States in 1907 and grew 

his business after buying a farm on North Salem Road in 1924. He began by plowing and 

mowing with horses for pay, and then bought a truck to start hauling sand and gravel, as 

well. By 1939, he worked as a general contractor and employed 40 workers.130 Young hired 

Bedini for several projects in 1937 and 1938, including work on the artesian well and the 

pump house. An unspecified payment to Bedini in June 1938 suggested that he charged 

$0.95 per hour. Notably, Bedini repaired and reinforced Weir Pond in December 1937 for 

about $350.131

When Dorothy Weir Young installed a new fireplace in her dining room in the 

winter of 1937, she hired a handful of familiar local workers: Vincent Bedini, Terrance 

Knoche, and Mike McGlynn.132 The team represented a cross-section of Ridgefield’s 

tradespeople: first- and second-generation Italian, German, and Irish workers. She purchased the fireplace from Builders Millwork Co. Inc. for 50 dollars and paid Bedini 20 

dollars and 70 cents, possibly to transport it. Knoche built the mantel at the same time as he 

completed other carpentry projects at the house for a total of 30 dollars and McGlynn 

painted the fireplace for 8 dollars. Young hired McGlynn on other occasions, too. He 

plastered the dining room in November 1936, painted the inside of the main residence in 

April 1937, and painted the ceiling of the piazza in June 1941.133 Young repeatedly hired the 

same local tradespeople from the Ridgefield area, many of whom likely knew each other as 

neighbors and from shared projects like installing Young’s new fireplace.

The addition of a studio for Mahonri Young constituted a significant alteration to 

the landscape at Weir Farm in 1932. Young’s son-in-law and landscape architect Oliver Lay 

designed the building; he was a graduate of the Columbia University School of Architecture 

and worked at the New York City Parks Department. He was also the son of landscape 

architect Charles Downing Lay (a longtime friend of Mahonri Young) and grandson of 

130 Biagiotti, Impact, 231.

131 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; Dorothy Weir Young, “Branchville Book,” 1927–1946, Weir 

Family Papers, Diaries, Ledgers and Notebooks, Box 7, WEFA 482; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview by 

Michelle Gutmann, December 10, 1999, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions. Dorothy Weir Young paid Vincent 

Bedini a total of $372.71 in January 1938, noting “Dam at B’ville; fireplace 20.60” suggesting a $352.11 cost for 

the dam. 

132 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; Dorothy Weir Young, “Branchville Book,” 1927–1946. Weir 

also mentions “Alden,” but cannot identify him; she pays him $329 in 1930.

133 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; Dorothy Weir Young, “Branchville Book,” 1927–1946, Weir 

Family Papers, Diaries, Ledgers and Notebooks, Box 7, WEFA 482.
126

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

portrait artist Oliver Ingraham Lay. Like the architects who made alterations to the Weir 

residence earlier in the 20th century, Lay had a personal connection to the proprietors and 

occupied the same social status.134

A local Wilton building company, the Meyer Brothers, executed Lay’s plans for the 

studio at a cost of $4,648.13.135 Sons of first- and second-generation German immigrants, 

Fritz and Charles Meyer worked for local builder George Taylor before forming a partnership in 1914. Their mill stood on Wolfpit Road along the Norwalk River in Wilton for 

decades. In addition to millwork and residential construction, Meyer Brothers built 

numerous local buildings in town including the Wilton Library, the Center School, and 

the Barringer Building. The brothers were major local employers and hired up to 80 

employees at one point. As civic leaders, they organized and joined Wilton’s Volunteer 

Fire Department, created a swimming pond for local youth by damming the Norwalk 

River by their mill, donated a full basement while building Center School, and supervised 

the volunteer construction of the American Legion.136 Hiring the Meyer brothers represented yet another example of the Youngs turning to local tradespeople for construction 

projects. When the water tank on top of Young’s studio needed mending a year after 

construction, neighbor Bill De Forest remembered wielding a blow torch on a hot summer 

day to repair it.137

A few other less familiar but still local names appear in Dorothy Weir Young’s 

ledgers. For example, well before Terrance Knoche was old enough to do any woodwork, 

Dorothy Weir hired carpenter Charles Nash in 1927 to complete a project at Branchville 

property, possibly related to the installation of bathrooms.138 Another carpenter, Daniel 

Tobin Jr., worked on the caretaker’s house and the porch on the main residence in the early 

1940s. His Irish immigrant parents had lived and worked on the property as caretakers for 

Julian Weir before he was born.139 Instead of hiring McGlynn again in 1944, Dorothy Weir 

134 Gardner and McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat,” 175; Child Associates and Cynthia Zaitzevsky, “Cultural 

Landscape Report for Weir Farm National Historic Site,” 141, 146; WWII Draft Registration Cards for New York 

City, National Archives at St. Louis, Missouri, Records of the Selective Service System, 147; Mahonri Sharp 

Young, George Lay, Charles Lay, Mahonri Mackintosh Young II, interview by Doug Seemans, August 7, 1989, 

Branchville, CT Weir Farm Heritage Trust, Weir Farm, Branchville, CT, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

135 Marie L. Carden and Richard C. Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir 

Complex,” Weir Farm National Historic Site, Wilton, CT; Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; 

Mahonri Sharp Young, George Lay, Charles Lay, Mahonri Mackintosh Young II, interview by Doug Seemans, 

August 7, 1989, Branchville, CT Weir Farm Heritage Trust, Weir Farm, Branchville, CT, WEFA Oral History 

Transcriptions.

136 Russell, Wilton, Connecticut, 351–53.

137 Bill and Myrtle DeForest, interview with Doug DeNatale, August 7, 1989, Branchville, CT, WEFA Oral 

History Transcriptions.

138 Dorothy Weir Young, “Branchville Book,” 1927–1946, Weir Family Papers, Diaries, Ledgers and Notebooks, 

Box 7, WEFA 482.

139 1940 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut, Roll: m-t0627-00498, Page: 2B, Enumeration 

District 1-126; Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; Ella Baker Weir Diary, WEFA 499.
127

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

Young hired local painter Harry D. Hull to paint and paper inside the farmhouse after the 

Bass family moved out.140 Both Nash and Hull were born in Connecticut to parents also 

born in Connecticut, and so had even deeper generational roots in the region compared to 

the Tobins, Knoches, or McGlynns. 

In addition to hiring help for plumbing, heating, and construction projects, Dorothy 

Weir Young frequently paid Harry N. Perregaux for wiring and electricity needs at the 

Branchville estate. She first paid him to bring electricity to the house, barn, and caretaker’s 

house in January 1932 for a total of $707.70. From then on, she hired him nearly yearly for 

smaller projects ranging in cost from $1.50 to $40.141 Perregaux grew up in Torrington, 

Connecticut, the son of two Swiss immigrants. By the 1930s he ran his own business out of 

Ridgefield and married Ruth Miller, an insurance broker.142

Finally, a veterinarian and blacksmith also routinely appeared in Young’s financial 

records. Valentine M. Knapp ran his business out of Danbury and regularly tested and 

treated Young’s cows, horses, dogs, and cats.143 The blacksmith, Harry Thomas, lived even 

closer on Catoonah Street in Ridgefield with his wife, Minolia, and three daughters.144

Young hired Thomas two to three times per year in the 1930s, and more frequently in in the 

early 1940s. He shoed horses and smithed iron implements as needed (see Figure 59).145

Given how frequently their paths crossed, the Bass family was familiar with Thomas, and 

sometimes George Bass shoed horses when Thomas was not available.146

140 McGlynn would have been 82 in 1944 (he lived until he was 97). Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 

15592; Dorothy Weir Young, “Branchville Book,” 1927–1946, Weir Family Papers, Diaries, Ledgers and 

Notebooks, Box 7, WEFA 482; 1940 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: m-t0627-

00498; Page: 9A; Enumeration District: 1-124.

141 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; Dorothy Weir Young, “Branchville Book,” 1927–1946, Weir 

Family Papers, Diaries, Ledgers and Notebooks, Box 7, WEFA 482.

142 1930 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Page: 3B; Enumeration District: 0174; FHL 

microfilm: 2339994; 1940 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: m-t0627-00498; Page: 

63A; Enumeration District: 1-126; National Archives at St. Louis; St. Louis, Missouri; WWII Draft Registration 

Cards for Connecticut, 10/16/1940–03/31/1947; Record Group: Records of the Selective Service System, 147; 

Box: 323; Ridgefield, Connecticut, City Directory, 1966.

143 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; Dorothy Weir Young, “Branchville Book,” 1927–1946, Weir 

Family Papers, Diaries, Ledgers and Notebooks, Box 7, WEFA 482.

144 1920 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: T625_178; Page: 14A; Enumeration 

District: 153; 1930 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Page: 1A; Enumeration District: 

0174; FHL microfilm: 2339994; 1940 United States Census, Ridgefield, Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: m-t0627-

00498; Page: 16A; Enumeration District: 1-126; Ridgefield, Connecticut, City Directory, 1958.

145 Dorothy Weir Young checkbooks, WEFA 15592; Dorothy Weir Young, “Branchville Book,” 1927–1946, Weir 

Family Papers, Diaries, Ledgers and Notebooks, Box 7, WEFA 482; Charlie Bass, interview by Michelle 

Gutmann, December 1, 1999, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Russell and Kenneth Bass, interview by 

Michelle Gutmann, December 10, 1999, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

146 Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by 

Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.
128

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

Meanwhile, across Pelham Lane, Cora Weir Burlingham continued to hire help 

after the Basses departed for Danbury. For example, she hired a local man named Pete 

Green to cut wood and haul away brush from the property.147 Another worker, 

Gianvincenzo (Vinny) Marsili, worked part-time as a gardener for Burlingham for 18 years. 

Marsili immigrated from Italy as a 29-year-old in 1930, married, and raised three children 

in Ridgefield. He worked full-time for the Gilbert and Bennett Manufacturing Company 

for 28 years; he would work the night shift there and then another 4 to 5 hours for the 

Burlinghams. He weeded, pruned, and planted trees, shrubs, and flowers in Burlingham’s 

expansive gardens. During the winter he painted garden tools and kept walking paths cut 

for the Burlinghams. He also completed repairs on the stone wall along Nod Hill Road.148

Marsili would be one of the last hired workers at the Weir family estate, as few significant 

improvements took place on the property after the 1940s. Meanwhile, a very different 

category of skilled worker arrived at Branchville in the late 1940s: studio assistants for 

Mahonri Young as he sculpted the This Is the Place monument.149

Studio Assistants for This Is the Place

From 1941 to 1947, Mahonri Young crafted the This Is the Place monument in his 

Branchville studio to commemorate Euro-American settlement of Utah. For the first three 

years of the project, Young mostly worked alone creating sketch models.150 As discussed in 

Chapter 4, he paid several members of the Bass men to pose for him. He also immortalized 

his young grandson, Charles Lay, in his designs.151 However, in his advancing age Young 

required assistance with the physically demanding work of turning sketch models into 

larger-than-life casts. A young sculptor named Spero Anargyros persuaded his way into the 

position of assistant on the project and spent almost three years at Branchville aiding Young.

147 Margaret (Peg) Knoche, Elizabeth Sheehy, Mary Carty, Joe Sheehy, Joseph Albert Knoche, interview by 

Jamie Peters and Dr. Darla Shaw, November 9, 2007, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

148 Child Associates and Cynthia Zaitzevsky, “Cultural Landscape Report for Weir Farm National Historic Site,” 

Brookline, MA: Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, National Park Service, US Department of the 

Interior, 1996, 222; Notes from Meeting with Vinny Marsili, September 28, 2001, WEFA. See also Bouton 

Funeral Home, “Obituary for Gianvincenzo Marsili,” accessed August 10, 2021, https://www.

boutonfuneralhome.com/obituary/gianvincenzo-marsili. 

149 Marie L. Carden and Richard C. Crisson, “Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: The Site and Weir 

Complex,” Weir Farm National Historic Site, Wilton, CT, 331 shows an untitled sketch by Mahonri Young of 

assistants working in his studio, dated around 1938, which preceded work on This Is the Place. There may have 

been other undocumented studio assistants at Branchville prior to Spero Anargyros, or the sketch is misdated.

150 Norma S. Davis, A Song of Joys: The Biography of Mahonri Mackintosh Young, Sculptor, Painter, Etcher 

(Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1999), 220–35.

151 Mahonri Sharp Young, George Lay, Charles Lay, Mahonri Mackintosh Young II, interview by Doug Seemans, 

August 7, 1989, Branchville, CT Weir Farm Heritage Trust, Weir Farm, Branchville, CT, WEFA Oral History 

Transcriptions; Davis, A Song of Joys.
129

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

Spero Anargyros was born on January 23, 1915, in New York City to Drosos and 

Martha Anargyros. His father was a Greek immigrant who worked as a florist and raised 

two sons with Martha Carlson, a second-generation Swedish American.152 Anargyros grew 

up in the city and took an art course in high school that sparked an interest in ceramics and 

portraits. He earned a scholarship for the Art Students League of New York and met 

Mahonri Young there in the mid-1930s.153 Although he never studied with Young, they 

became friendly while Anargyros worked at a sculpture house and did castings for students 

in Young’s class.154 Anargyros continued to pursue a sculpting career, securing a federal 

commission through the Works Progress Administration to complete a bas relief sculpture 

in a New Jersey post office.155 In 1940, he was employed by the Manhattan Wax and Candle 

Company and first approached Mahonri Young requesting to assist him with the This Is the 

Place monument.156 However, Young had not yet signed a contract for the commission.157

By the time Young began working on the monument in earnest, the United States 

entered World War II and Anargyros was stationed in northern Africa, leading an ambulance unit and continuing to practice his art when possible. In 1943, he even met the 

emperor of Ethiopia and crafted his portrait bust with clay.158 In the fall of 1944, he 

returned to the United States and approached Young again about assisting with the monument, even following him to Salt Lake City to discuss the opportunity.159 Anargyros secured 

the position, and moved into the caretaker’s house at Branchville with his wife, Florence, in 

152 Spero Anargyros and Maria Ester Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996, WEFA Oral History 

Transcriptions; Social Security Applications and Claims, 1936–2007; 1930 United States Census, Manhattan, 

New York, New York; Page: 4B; Enumeration District: 0386; FHL microfilm: 2341288.

153 Spero Anargyros, interview with M. Lewis Dittmore Jr., June 1976, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Spero 

Anargyros and Maria Ester Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996, WEFA Oral History 

Transcriptions.

154 Spero Anargyros, interview with M. Lewis Dittmore Jr., June 1976, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Spero 

Anargyros and Maria Ester Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996, WEFA Oral History 

Transcriptions.

155 Spero Anargyros and Maria Ester Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996, WEFA Oral History 

Transcriptions; Gabriel Donio, “The Man behind the Missing Mural at the Post Office,” Hammonton Gazette, 

April 30, 2021, https://www.hammontongazette.com/post/the-man-behind-the-missing-mural-at-the-postoffice-042821.

156 National Archives at St. Louis; St. Louis, Missouri; WWII Draft Registration Cards for New York City, 

10/16/1940–03/31/1947; Record Group: Records of the Selective Service System, 147; Spero Anargyros, 

interview with M. Lewis Dittmore Jr., June 1976, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

157 Davis, A Song of Joys, 220–235; Spero Anargyros, interview with M. Lewis Dittmore Jr., June 1976, WEFA 

Oral History Transcriptions. In Spero’s account, Young was still raising funds.

158 Spero Anargyros, interview with M. Lewis Dittmore Jr., June 1976, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Spero 

Anargyros and Maria Ester Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996, WEFA Oral History 

Transcriptions; Davis, A Song of Joys.

159 Spero Anargyros, interview with M. Lewis Dittmore Jr., June 1976, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; Spero 

Anargyros and Maria Ester Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996, WEFA Oral History 

Transcriptions; Davis, A Song of Joys, 240
130

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

October 1944.160 He continued working at a defense plant in Tarrytown, New York, and 

commuted 35 miles every day back to Branchville at his own expense to work a second shift 

as Young’s assistant.161 He later recalled, “It was kind of rough, but to me it was one of the 

great experiences of my life, and a great education.”162

Anargyros worked six days per week for Young, shifting to full-time once he was 

able to stop working for the defense plant. The pair rarely took days off. Every day they 

took a mid-afternoon break with some tea served by Mollie Gleason, enhanced with rum, 

honey, and cream skimmed from the pans of cow’s milk in the pantry. Living in the country 

was a new experience for Anargyros, a self-proclaimed city boy. He hunted for rabbits and 

squirrels, and learned how to make “a beautiful squirrel pie.”163 He got along well with 

Dorothy Weir Young during his stay, describing her as “a wonderful woman.”164

His work in the studio required a tremendous amount of physical labor. In A Song 

of Joys, Norma Davis describes Anargyros’ job: “His first task was to make enlargements 

from the small models Mahonri used to propose the project. These were the working clay 

models that would be used by Young to add fine details. When he finished with the working 

models, they had to be enlarged to their final size. At this point, Anargyros built armatures 

covered with lathing strips, applied a layer of burlap and plaster, and then applied shellac. 

Clay could then be built up on the armatures and the enlargement transferred from the 

working models to the clay using a pointing device.”165 Anargyros completed the physical 

labor that Young could not easily accomplish in his advanced age. He also felt a sense of 

urgency to ensure the project finished on time, which would have been impossible for 

Young to do alone. Anargyros preferred to work without a shirt, explaining: “I was macho. I 

had to convince these guys it could be done...[sculpture artists] have to be an architect, 

160 Dorothy Weir Young, “Branchville Book,” 1927–1946, Weir Family Papers, Diaries, Ledgers and Notebooks, 

Box 7, WEFA 482; Bill and Myrtle DeForest, interview with Doug DeNatale, August 7, 1989, Branchville, CT. 

WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

161 Spero Anargyros, interview with M. Lewis Dittmore Jr., June 1976; Spero Anargyros and Maria Ester 

Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996; Davis, A Song of Joys, 240–46.

162 Spero Anargyros, interview with M. Lewis Dittmore Jr., June 1976, 4.

163 Spero Anargyros, interview with M. Lewis Dittmore Jr., June 1976; Spero Anargyros and Maria Ester 

Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996. In the 1996 interview, Anargyros tells a comical story: 

“I’m a city boy and when I first took a trip in the country to go on vacation with my mother who was driving. I 

looked and I said, ‘Oh Ma, look, a male cow!’ [laughter] I’m sure she almost had an accident.”

164 Spero Anargyros and Maria Ester Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996, WEFA Oral History 

Transcriptions.

165 Davis, A Song of Joys, 241; Spero Anargyros, interview with M. Lewis Dittmore Jr., June 1976, 12; Spero 

Anargyros and Maria Ester Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996, 3, 9. George Lay similarly 

described how Spero “helped with the very large sculptural pieces in working up the various initially clay 

models, and then would blow them up to the plaster casts.” Mahonri Sharp Young, George Lay, Charles Lay, 

Mahonri Mackintosh Young II, interview by Doug Seemans, August 7, 1989, Branchville, CT Weir Farm 

Heritage Trust, Weir Farm, Branchville, CT, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.
131

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

engineer, shoemaker, bootblack, everything.”166 Young’s grandson Charles Lay remembered Anargyros as “a very strong, sort of dynamic guy and he adored Mahonri and really 

enjoyed working with him.”167

Indeed, Young and Anargyros seemed to enjoy a strong working relationship. In his 

recollections, Anargyros indicated a great deal of admiration for Young and insisted on 

addressing him as “Mr. Young” when he worked at Branchville.168 In turn, he felt respected 

by Young. He recalled that, to Young, “you were another human. You weren’t a tool or a 

machine...which is what happens in a lot of studios.”169 Young encouraged Anargyros to 

leave his initials on every piece of the monument and allowed him to craft the seagull that 

would sit on top of the monument behind statues of Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, 

and Wilford Woodruff.170 Young insisted on rigorous historical accuracy in every depiction 

on the monument, and Anargyros participated in that research.171 While working, the two 

men discussed Mormon history, and Anargyros delighted in listening to Young share what 

he called “incidental knowledge...of no great import but of tremendous interest to me.”172

Young and Anargyros’ mutual respect resulted in the two men defending each other 

while fighting to secure payment for their labor. Young struggled with obtaining timely 

payments from the monument committee, and often paid Anargyros out of his own pocket. 

When the committee wanted Young to hire a less expensive assistant, Young asserted that 

Anargyros was not just a modeler, but an experienced sculptor and skilled mechanic. 

“Without him,” Young implored, “I cannot see any chance of getting the monument 

done.”173 Meanwhile, Anargyros defended Young by interrupting a meeting among members of the committee in Massachusetts, insisting that they pay Young for Anargyros’s 

wages as agreed in the contract.174 He “got tough” with the leadership because he believed 

166 Spero Anargyros and Maria Ester Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996, WEFA Oral History 

Transcriptions.

167 Mahonri Sharp Young, George Lay, Charles Lay, Mahonri Mackintosh Young II, interview by Doug Seemans, 

August 7, 1989, Branchville, CT Weir Farm Heritage Trust, Weir Farm, Branchville, CT.

168 Spero Anargyros, interview with M. Lewis Dittmore Jr., June 1976; Spero Anargyros and Maria Ester 

Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996.

169 Spero Anargyros, interview with M. Lewis Dittmore Jr., June 1976.

170 Spero Anargyros, interview with M. Lewis Dittmore Jr., June 1976; Spero Anargyros and Maria Ester 

Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996. Regarding his initials, Anargyros asserted: “he TOLD me 

to. That’s something an assistant would never ask to do.”

171 Spero Anargyros, interview with M. Lewis Dittmore Jr., June 1976, 16; Spero Anargyros and Maria Ester 

Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996, 9.

172 Spero Anargyros, interview with M. Lewis Dittmore Jr., June 1976; Spero Anargyros and Maria Ester 

Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996. 

173 Davis, A Song of Joys, 246.

174 Spero Anargyros and Maria Ester Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996. Anargyros says 

Boston might be the Cambridge meeting referred to in Davis, A Song of Joys, 247.
132

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

“they were picking on” Young.175 Ultimately, the committee agreed to paying Anargyros’s 

wages, though payments in Young’s checkbooks still suggest that the wages still came 

through his accounts.176 He paid Anargyros around $4,200 in wages in 1945, delivered in 

inconsistent sums that averaged $350 per month.177 Beginning in December, however, 

Anargyros consistently received $500 per month through the completion of the project in 

the summer of 1947.178

As part of the back-and-forth between Mahonri Young and the committee, an 

established Mormon sculptor Torleif Knaphus arrived in Branchville in 1945 to assist with 

the monument. Knaphus was a Norwegian immigrant who had completed a significant 

amount of work commissioned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, from 

temple artwork and busts of notable Utahns to the Handcart Monument in Temple Square.179

Knaphus did not easily fit into Young and Anargyros’ dynamic. Anargyros derisively 

referred to him as “a joker from Salt Lake” who “was of no use to us whatsoever. He 

wouldn’t take directions. He wanted to model the stuff the way he wanted to model.” 

Knaphus was also homesick for his family and fell physically ill with pneumonia for three 

weeks. He promptly returned to Salt Lake City.180 Young needled the committee to reimburse him for Knaphus’s 17 dollars per day wages, as well as for the housing the Youngs 

provided during his short stay.181

Mahonri Young’s checkbook also included a payment to Spero Anargyros’ wife, 

Florence “Nedra” Harrison Anargyros, for $240 in November 1945.182 She occasionally 

assisted in the studio shellacking or working on the enlarging machine.183 Working behind 

the scenes on a Mormon monument proved to be one of the more understated activities in 

her colorful life. Florence Harrison was born on December 3, 1915, in New York City to 

Florence and Leverett Roland Harrison, and lived in the city at least until she was eight 

years old. At some point her family moved to Tifton, Georgia, where she grew up and was 

named “Miss Tifton High School.” She then attended Emerson College in Boston, acted for 

175 Spero Anargyros and Maria Ester Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996.

176 Spero Anargyros and Maria Ester Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996; Mahonri M. Young 

Financial Records, WEFA 00143.

177 MMY’s income taxes list paying $4,206; adding up the checks he wrote to Anargyros totals $4,221.84.

178 Mahonri M. Young Financial Records, WEFA 00143.

179 Davis, A Song of Joys; “Torleif Soviren Knaphus,” Find a Grave, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/

138223134/torleif-soviren-knaphus. 

180 Spero Anargyros, interview with M. Lewis Dittmore Jr., June 1976; Spero Anargyros and Maria Ester 

Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996, Davis, A Song of Joys.

181 Davis, A Song of Joys, 248; Mahonri Young Income Tax Statement, 1945, WEFA.

182 Mahonri Young Income Tax Statement, 1945, WEFA; Mahonri M. Young Financial Records, WEFA 00143; 

A Song of Joys, 244.

183 Spero Anargyros and Maria Ester Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996. For photograph of 

Florence Anargyros shellacking, see Davis, A Song of Joys, 244.
133

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

a time in Florida, and then moved to New York and sought work as a model. She served as 

the inspiration for Dragon Lady in the Terry and the Pirates comic book and performed on 

horseback with the quadrille at the New York World’s Fair in 1939. Harrison married Spero 

Anargyros on October 21, 1940, and reportedly trained to become a pilot during World 

War II. She reunited with her husband when he returned from the war, and they moved to 

Branchville. After completing the monument, the couple moved to San Francisco, where 

she studied cytology. She divorced Anargyros in 1969, became a certified scuba diver, and 

briefly remarried in the 1970s. She supervised the cytology laboratory at UC San Francisco 

until her retirement in 1988, and passed away in 2004 at the age of 88.184

To meet their deadline, Young and Anargyros needed help casting the larger sections of the monument. They worked with Spero’s former employer, Alec Ettl, who ran the 

Sculpture House in New York City. Anargyros described Sculpture House as staffed by 

“technologists” who were not sculptors but still did enlarging and casting.185 Ettl founded 

the studio after immigrating from Hungary in 1883 and it remains in operation today. 

Anargyros shared an image with Norma Davis for A Song of Joys in which Mahonri and 

Spero stand in front of the “Trappers and Fur Traders group” alongside Alec Ettl and two 

of his workers: Hugo Ricardi and “Smitty” (see Figure 60). Young may have also temporar?-

ily brought on a former student and recent navy veteran, Lewis Iselin, to assist with casting.186 Although a number of workers briefly interacted with the monument-in-progress, 

from Florence Anargyros and Torleif Knaphus to Ettl and his employees, Anargyros later 

asserted that he and Young did the bulk of the work in their two-and-a-half years together.187

184 Davis, A Song of Joys; Spero Anargyros, interview with M. Lewis Dittmore Jr., June 1976, 6; Spero Anargyros 

and Maria Ester Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996; “Nedra Harrison Anargyros,” accessed 

August 10, 2021, https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Nedra-Harrison-Anargyros-model-forcartoon-2689733.php; San Francisco, California, City Directory, 1948; Social Security Applications and Claims, 

1936–2007; 1920 United States Census, Manhattan Assembly District 12, New York, New York; Roll: 

T625_1207; Page: 4B; Enumeration District: 911; New York State Archives; Albany, New York; State Population 

Census Schedules, 1925; Election District: 37; Assembly District: 12; City: New York; County: New York; Page: 

13; 1930 United States Census, Stamford, Fairfield, Connecticut; Page: 6A; Enumeration District: 0203; FHL 

microfilm: 2339995; 1940 United States Census, Stamford, Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: m-t0627-00498; Page: 

18B; Enumeration District: 1-140; Bonne Davis Cella, Fixing the Moon: The Story of the First Presidential Pilot 

and Aviation Pioneer Lt. Col. Henry Tift Myers (Macon, GA: Henchard Press, 2005); Sally Van Wagenen Keil, 

Those Wonderful Women in Their Flying Machines: The Unknown Heroines of World War Two (New York: Four 

Directions Press, 1994). In the later part of her life, she went by, “Nedra.”

185 Spero Anargyros, interview with M. Lewis Dittmore Jr., June 1976; Spero Anargyros and Maria Ester 

Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996, 10; Davis, A Song of Joys, 246; WEFA HP01152; “About 

Sculpture House,” accessed August 10, 2021, https://www.sculpturehouse.com/t-about.aspx. 

186 Davis, A Song of Joys, transcribes a letter in which Young is requesting to hire Iselin, but it does not seem that 

he ever did. Anargyros never mentioned him, he does not appear in Young’s checkbooks, and it seems that they 

used Sculpture house to cast the two large groups that Young and Anargyros needed help with: the Spanish 

Explorers (the “Escalante” group) and Trappers and Fur Traders (the “Ashley” group).

187 Spero Anargyros and Maria Ester Anargyros, interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996: “basically creating 

the sculpture was primarily between Mahonri and myself.”
134

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

While the sculptures were cast in bronze and transported to Salt Lake City, 

Anargyros assisted Young with another commission to craft a sculpture of Brigham Young 

to represent the state of Utah in the United States Capitol Building in Washington, DC. 

They completed the model before leaving for Salt Lake City to finish installation on This Is 

the Place. Anargyros oversaw most of the installation, and the two were present for the 

monument’s dedication on July 24, 1947.188 Spero and Florence Anargyros soon moved to 

California. Spero spent time in Los Angeles doing portrait busts of the cast of Morning 

Becomes Electra before returning to San Francisco and building his own studio. In his 

ensuing career, Anargyros built sculptures for the Palace of Fine Arts and the California 

State Capitol as well as medallions for commemorations of several national parks and 

statehood anniversaries.189 Like Young, Anargyros preferred realism to abstract art, once 

remarking, “There is enough beauty around us to copy.... Why try to improve on it by 

imagining things?”190

Spero and Florence Anargyros divorced in 1969. Spero was married to Barbara 

Brooks for seven years in the 1970s and then wed Maria Ester Mendez Dequiroga in 1982. 

He passed away on September 10, 2004, in San Francisco following a brief illness at 89 

years old. He effusively shared his experiences working on This Is the Place in interviews in 

1973 and 1996. He unequivocally stated, “I’m proud that I worked on it as an assistant.”191

End of an Era and the Gully Family

1947 marked a year of significant transition at Branchville. Dorothy Weir Young passed 

away in May, and This Is the Place was dedicated in June. Around that same time, the last 

long-term tenant family moved into the caretaker’s house: the Gullys.192 Mahonri Young, in 

his advanced age, took on a limited role as property owner in the following 10 years and 

spent less and less time at the estate after his wife’s death. He increasingly relied on his 

son-in-law, Oliver Lay, and Oliver’s brother George, to help manage the property.193 Young 

also paid his granddaughter, Darcy Lay Doyle, and her friend to go to the house “a lot” to 

188 Spero Anargyros, interview with M. Lewis Dittmore Jr., June 1976; Davis, A Song of Joys, 250–56.

189 “Spero Anargyros—Renowned S.F. Sculptor,” accessed August 10, 2021, https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/

article/Spero-Anargyros-renowned-S-F-sculptor-2725343.php; Spero Anargyros and Maria Ester Anargyros, 

interview by Norma Davis, June 30, 1996, 17–18; San Francisco, California, City Directory, 1948.

190 “Spero Anargyros—Renowned S.F. Sculptor,” SF Gate, accessed August 10, 2021, https://www.sfgate.com/

bayarea/article/Spero-Anargyros-renowned-S-F-sculptor-2725343.php.

191 Spero Anargyros, interview with M. Lewis Dittmore Jr., June 1976, 10.

192 Mahonri Young checkbooks, WEFA. William Gully starts getting consistently paid in 1947, which roughly 

corresponds to when the Anargyroses moved to San Francisco.

193 Deborah S. Gardner and Christine G. McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat: J. Alden Weir’s Farm in Connecticut,” 

Weir Farm National Historic Site Historic Resource Study, National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, 

2009, 200–201.
135

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

clean the place “because he did nothing.”194 Although the Burlinghams continued to own 

and manage their property, dramatically fewer workers spent time on the land than when 

Julian Weir and Dorothy Weir Young managed it. Servants did not attend to the domestic 

space and few if any tradespeople were hired to implement changes to structures or the 

landscape. “Improvement” was no longer a priority for the proprietor of Weir Farm from 

1947 to 1957, as evidenced by photographs from 1958 that show the barn in disrepair with 

detached doors and missing windows.195

Based on Mahonri Young’s weekly payments of $87.50 to William R. S. Gully from 

May 1947 to February 1948, the Gullys may have initially worked the grounds as caretakers. 

By 1952, however, the traditional arrangement of the caretaker’s family living in the farmhouse and tending the property may have shifted. A random note survived among Young’s 

financial records, entitled, “Gully Rent, 1952,” in which William’s wife, Mary, wrote: 

“Hope to have more next week, Bill only worked 5 days last week & week before.” 

Numbers jotted on the note suggest that the total rent due was $250.25. Apparently, the 

Gully family needed to find work elsewhere to afford rent and continue living in the caretaker’s house.196 Although city directories continued to list William Gully as “gardener,” he 

likely ceased substantial agricultural activities or operated at a significantly limited scale 

compared to the Basses or Remys.197 Despite the fact that the Gullys were not tasked with 

realizing a landlord’s vision of the property like their predecessors, their presence on the 

site continued to shape the landscape until they left after the death of Mahonri Young.198

William Gully Jr. was born in Danbury, Connecticut on March 2, 1904, to William 

and Martha Bell Gully. His father worked a series of working-class jobs, including driving a 

delivery wagon, working in a fur shop, and farming as a hired hand.Gully attended school 

until the fifth grade and likely started working shortly thereafter; at 16 years old he was 

employed as a hatter in Danbury. By 1930, he lived with his widowed father and three 

194 Darcy Doyle, Charles Mahonri Lay, and Mahonri Mackintosh Young II, interview with William Russell, Weir 

Farm National Historic Site, Connecticut, January 9, 2009, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

195 WEFA AHP001322, AHP01323, AHP01332.

196 Mahonri M. Young Financial Records, WEFA 00143. According to Lance Kasparian and Maureen K. Phillips, 

“Historic Structures Report, Vol II-B: Caretaker’s House and Caretaker’s Garage,” National Park Service, US 

Department of the Interior, 2008, 49: “The local Wilton City Directory listed William Gully as ‘gardener’ from 

1950–1961.”

197 Kasparian and Phillips, “Historic Structures Report, Vol II-B: Caretaker’s House and Caretaker’s Garage,” 49.

198 According to Westport, Connecticut, City Directory, 1959; Danbury, Connecticut, City Directory, 1960.
136

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

siblings in North Salem, New York, and worked in road construction.199 There, he met 

Mary M. Coulter, and the two married on October 3, 1934, in New York City.200 They 

continued to live in New Salem until at least 1940, when Gully listed his occupation as a 

farm laborer in the federal census.201 Two years later, the family had moved to Ridgefield, 

Connecticut, where Gully found a job at the Gilbert and Bennett Wire Manufacturing 

Company.202 From there, Gully connected somehow with Mahonri Young and moved into 

the caretaker’s house at Branchville after the Anargyroses moved out. 

While at Branchville, the Gullys raised three daughters and seven sons who likely 

attended Wilton public elementary school and Ridgefield High School.203 Mahonri Young’s 

granddaughter Darcy Lay Doyle remembered playing with the Gully kids when she visited. 

Grandson Charles Lay recalled visiting the barn where Mr. Gully would milk the cows and 

playfully “squirt...a little milk at you.”204 Jim Brown, a neighbor who grew up on Old 

Branchville Road, also played with the Gully children and remembered them caring for 

cows and chickens on the Weir property. Beyond that, however, he “had the idea they were 

subsistence farming, and quite a poor family.” He recalled a kitchen garden south of the 

caretaker’s house, and while they “may have sold some of what they produced...mostly 

they lived off it.” He did not believe that they owned their own farming equipment, but 

likely borrowed or shared any that they needed. Brown thought that several old, abandoned cars resided on the property during that time, possibly in the hay field to the north 

of the caretaker’s house.205 Doris Andrews’ daughter, who lived on the site after the Gullys, 

199 Social Security Administration. Social Security Death Index, Master File. Social Security Administration; 

1910 United States Census, Danbury Ward 1, Fairfield, Connecticut; Roll: T624_129; Page: 6A; Enumeration 

District: 0062; FHL microfilm: 1374142; 1920 United States Census, Danbury Ward 1, Fairfield, Connecticut; 

Roll: T625_174; Page: 15A; Enumeration District: 97; 1930 United States Census, North Salem, Westchester, 

New York; Page: 3B; Enumeration District: 0291; FHL microfilm: 2341398; National Archives at St. Louis; St. 

Louis, Missouri; WWII Draft Registration Cards for Connecticut, 10/16/1940–03/31/1947; Record Group: 

Records of the Selective Service System, 147; Box: 172; 1940 United States Census, North Salem, Westchester, 

New York; Roll: m-t0627–02811; Page: 1A; Enumeration District: 60–252.

200 “Connecticut Vital Records—Index of Marriages, 1897–2001,” Connecticut State Library, https://www.

ctatatelibrarydata.org/marriage-records.

201 1940 United States Census, North Salem, Westchester, New York; Roll: m-t0627-02811; Page: 1A; 

Enumeration District: 60-252.

202 National Archives at St. Louis; St. Louis, Missouri; WWII Draft Registration Cards for Connecticut, 

10/16/1940–03/31/1947; Record Group: Records of the Selective Service System, 147; Box: 172.

203 1940 United States Census, North Salem, Westchester, New York; Roll: m-t0627-02811; Page: 1A; 

Enumeration District: 60-252; “Obituary of Alice Ceperley,” Cornell Memorial Home,” accessed August 10, 

2021, https://cornellmemorial.com/tribute/details/8172/Alice-Ceperley/obituary.html; Norman F. Boas, Nod Hill 

Wilton, Connecticut—Reminiscences (self-published, 1996); Jim Brown, interview with Sarah Olson and Gay 

Vietzke, Weir Farm, June 14, 1994, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions; “US, School Yearbooks, 1880–2012,” 

Ridgefield High School, 1958.

204 Darcy Doyle, Charles Mahonri Lay, and Mahonri Mackintosh Young II, interview with William Russell, Weir 

Farm National Historic Site, Connecticut, January 9, 2009, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

205 Jim Brown, interview with Sarah Olson and Gay Vietzke, Weir Farm, June 14, 1994, WEFA Oral History 

Transcriptions.
137

Domestic and Other Workers, 1929–1957

recalled that the former tenants “threw all their trash down the ravine.”206 The house itself 

was also “in very poor condition” according to Jim Brown, and Orin Bass had heard that 

“the kids had knocked holes through the walls.”207 The Andrews daughter similarly recalled 

that “the walls were just a horrible mess” after the Gullys departed around 1958 and moved 

to Danbury.208

The Gullys’ decade in the caretaker’s house represented an aberration in a broader 

history of laborers creating a place for leisure and artistic work according to the vision of 

the extended Weir family. Young did not hire the Gullys to improve or preserve the property, 

and they interacted with the landscape according to their needs and with significant economic limitations. In contrast, both Dorothy Weir Young and Cora Weir Burlingham sought 

to preserve and improve their father’s estate by employing local, interconnected workers to 

farm, do laundry, clean house, repair and construct structures, and update utilities. They 

also hired domestic servants like their mother and stepmother did before them. Even Spero 

Anargyros’ manual labor as a studio assistant at Branchville helped realize his employer’s 

artistic vision, not unlike the agricultural workers and tradespeople hired by Julian Weir to 

create an idealized rural retreat at the turn of the 20th century. Weir’s vision influenced the 

evolution of the Branchville property well into the 20th century with the help of his daughters, but it could only be fully manifested and adapted through the daily labor of farmers, 

carpenters, plumbers, stonemasons, maids, and laundresses.

206 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, interview by Michelle 

Gutmann, October 23, 1999, WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

207 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, interview by Michelle 

Gutmann, October 23, 1999; Jim Brown, interview with Sarah Olson and Gay Vietzke, Weir Farm, June 14, 

1994.

208 Charlie Bass, Kenneth Bass, Orin Bass, Russell Bass, Bob Fox, and Bessie Morabito, interview by Michelle 

Gutmann, October 23, 1999; Danbury, Connecticut, City Directory, 1960.

139

Conclusion

After Mahonri Young’s death in 1957, his family sold the main residence of the Weir 

estate to Sperry and Doris Andrews, friends of Mahonri Young and fellow artists. 

While the Andrews made minor changes to the house to accommodate their 

family, they generally did not interfere with the outbuildings, landscape, or even furniture 

in an effort “to keep a lot of the spirit of the place.”1 Efforts to preserve the broader Weir 

estate accelerated in the 1960s and 1970s with the explosive growth of residential 

construction in the area. Advocacy by Cora Weir Burlingham, Doris Andrews, Bill Carlin, 

and others protected Weir Preserve, Weir Pond, and Weir Farm from encroaching 

development. The State of Connecticut acquired Weir Farm in 1986—the same month that 

Cora Weir Burlingham passed away.2 Through further advocacy, the land became a 

National Historic Site in 1990, and a National Historical Park in 2021.3

Weir Farm still exists as a site of labor. National Park Service staff and volunteers 

continue to shape the landscape, alter buildings, and interpret the legacy of the site’s 

former residents. In addition to creating a place of artistic inspiration in the spirit of Julian 

Weir, the National Park Service also continues Dorothy Weir Young and Cora Weir 

Burlingham’s work of preserving their family’s legacy and employing laborers to realize 

that vision. Preservation, like improvement, carries settler colonial assumptions about how 

to interact with land as well as judgments on which aspects of the past should be 

enshrined.4 Preserving a farm site in response to rapid social and economic change in the 

region also represents a late chapter in the continuing story of capitalism in the United 

States. From Julian Weir retreating to the countryside and painting bucolic scenes of an 

imagined pre-industrial past to Dorothy Weir Young’s relationship to local workers during 

the Great Depression, industrial capitalism operated in the background of each generation 

of Weir ownership.

1 Sperry and Doris Andrews, interview by Doug DeNatale, Weir Farm, Branchville, CT, March 16, 1989, 

WEFA Oral History Transcriptions.

2 Deborah S. Gardner and Christine G. McKay, “An Artists’ Retreat: J. Alden Weir’s Farm in Connecticut,” 

Weir Farm National Historic Site Historic Resource Study, National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, 

2009, 227–29.

3 James A. Himes, “H.R.5852—116th Congress (2019–2020): Weir Farm National Historical Park 

Redesignation Act,” legislation, January 5, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5852/

text; Monica Potts, “Sperry Andrews, 87, Painter Who Preserved Weir Home, Is Dead,” New York Times, https://

www.nytimes.com/2005/08/16/arts/design/sperry-andrews-87-painter-who-preserved-weir-home-is-dead.html. 

4 For more on the legacy of the National Park Service and settler colonialism, see Mark David Spence, 

Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks (New York: Oxford 

University Press, 2000).
Conclusion

140

The many laborers who passed through Weir Farm from 1882 to 1957 impacted the 

site and its inhabitants in different ways. As long-term caretaker families, the Remys and 

the Basses provided a period of stability for their employers and shaped the physical 

landscape as they worked to support and raise their families. Julian Weir and Dorothy Weir 

Young’s vision of the property meant that Paul Remy and George Bass relied on traditional, 

even outdated, farming methods. They succeeded in large part due to the additional help 

provided by their multiple children as well as the domestic labor accomplished by their 

wives, Johanna and Bessie. Irish servants similarly executed a significant amount of domestic work that enabled the Weir, Young, and Burlingham families to experience Branchville 

as a retreat, pursue their art, enjoy farm products, and appreciate the romantic scenery. 

Although work dominated the lives of hired laborers at Weir farm, they also valued familial 

connections and leisure activities.

Excepting tradespeople who usually resided near Branchville, workers in the Julian 

Weir era tended to be transient laborers and recent immigrants who lived and labored in 

largely segregated spaces on the estate. Domestic servants kept to the main residence, with 

tenant farmers and their families working the grounds and living in the caretaker’s house. 

During the 1930s and 1940s, however, Dorothy Weir Young often hired multiple workers 

from the same families. For examples, the Bass and Knoche families had members who did 

domestic labor for the Youngs, some who performed agricultural labor, and still others who 

worked on construction projects. Mollie Gleason’s presence as an Irish maid represented a 

notable continuation from a previous era, and Spero Anargyros’ artistic work on the site 

met the specific needs of Mahonri Young as he sculpted the This Is the Place monument. 

The overall shift in the nature of work at Weir Farm reflected changes in immigration and labor patterns over the course of the 20th century, as well as the differing 

approaches to property ownership by Julian Weir and his daughters. Whereas her father 

adopted the role of gentleman farmer and sought artistic inspiration from the landscape, 

Dorothy Weir Young—and to an extent, her sister, Cora Weir Burlingham—embraced a 

maternalist management style as she stewarded her family’s legacy. Employees responded 

in a myriad of ways to these workplace conditions. A number left after a short period of 

time, leaving their employers to complain about high turnover in correspondence with 

friends and family. Others like Mary Hanratty, Mary Bruschi Bass, or Spero Anargyros 

developed long term, friendly relationships with their employers. Some workers resisted 

interpersonal power dynamics, as when George Bass filled Mahonri Young’s studio fireplace with frozen logs. Families like the Basses and the Knoches also took great pride in 

their labor, as expressed through oral histories with their descendants. While historical 

forces like industrial capitalism as well as the particular visions of the Weir family set the 

conditions under which workers sought to make a living, workers still exercised agency 

and, through their labor, left profound impacts on the people, buildings, and landscape of 

Weir Farm.
141

Figures

Figure 1. Sketch map of the Weir estate.

Duck pond 

Woodshed 

Poultry and 

rabbit pens 

Wooden bridge 

Pig pens 

Garden 

Stairs 

‡ 

⌂

►

◊

‡ 

‡ 

‡ ‡ 

‡ 

‡ 

‡ 

‡ 

‡ 

‡ 

‡ 

‡ 

‡ 

‡ 

‡ 

⌂

⌂

⌂

⌂

◊

◊

◊

◊

◊

◊

◊

◊

◊

◊

◊

◊

◊

◊

◊

◊

► ►

►

►

►

►
Figures

142

Figure 2. Mike McGlynn’s signature behind toilet, dated June 10, 1911. 

Photograph by author, November 13, 2019.
Figures

143

Figure 3. Julian Alden Weir, Mending the Stone Wall, 

pencil, watercolor and gouache on paper, 

11 7⁄8 × 11 1⁄4, late 1890s. 

The William B. Carlin Trust.
Figures

144

Figure 4. Julian Alden Weir, New England Barnyard, 1904. 

Oil on canvas, 20 1⁄8 × 24 1⁄3 in. 

The Phillips Collection, Washington, DC.
Figures

145

Figure 5. Tommy and Carl, 

WEFA 9447.
Figures

146

Figure 6. Cora Weir and Willie Remy, 

WEFA 16389.

Figure 7. Willie, 

WEFA 16389.
Figures

147

Figure 8. Julian Alden Weir, Driving the Cows Home (original title: Haunt of the Woodcock). 

Oil on canvas, 34 1⁄4 × 24 5⁄16 in.

Mead Art Museum at Amherst College, Amherst, MA. 

Bequest of Shirley Orr Stillson. Bridgeman Images.
Figures

148

Figure 9. Julian Alden Weir, Feeding the Chickens at Branchville, 

pastel on paper mounted on canvas, early 1890s, 

20 1⁄8 × 24 1⁄4 in. 

The William B. Carlin Trust. 
Figures

149

Figure 10. Julian Alden Weir, Ploughing for Buckwheat, 1898.

 Oil on canvas, 47 × 32 1⁄2 in. 

Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh. Museum Purchase, 12.3.
Figures

150

Figure 11. Julian Alden Weir, Connecticut Grainfield, c. 1895. 

Oil on canvas, 29 × 36 in. 

Brigham Young University Museum of Art, purchase/gift of Mahonri M. Young Estate, 1959.
Figures

151

Figure 12. The Remys and Mary Hanratty Harvest Honey, 

WEFA 9451.
Figures

152

Figure 13. Julian Alden Weir, The Ice Cutters, 1895. 

Oil on canvas, 19 3⁄4 in × 23 3⁄4 in. 

Gift of Alfred H. and Nancy de C. Corbett in memory of Mrs. Gretchen H. Corbett. 

Portland Art Museum, Portland, Oregon, 92.16.
Figures

153

Figure 14. Archival photograph of Julian Alden Weir, Portrait of Paul Remy, 

oil on panel, nd. 27 × 16 in. 

WEFA 2892, Vol. 3A, pg. 249. 
Figures

154

Figure 15. Julian Alden Weir, Midday Rest in New England, 1897. 

Oil on canvas, 39 5⁄8 × 50 3⁄8 in. 

Courtesy of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Philadelphia, 

Gift of Isaac H. Clothier, Edward H. Coates, Dr. Francis W. Lewis, Robert C. Ogden, and Joseph G. Rosengarten, 1898.9.
Figures

155

Figure 16. Dorothy, Cora, Carl, Tommy, Gip and Five Turtles, 

WEFA 9447.

Figure 17. Louisa, 

WEFA 3064.
Figures

156

Figure 18. Cora Weir and Mrs. Reemy, 

WEFA 3062.
Figures

157

Figure 19. Julian Alden Weir, Cora and Mary Kane or Child and Nurse,

 oil on canvas, 1893, 38 × 30 1⁄2 in. 

Private Collection.
Figures

158

Figure 20. Unidentified Domestic Staff,

WEFA 16388.
Figures

159

Figure 21. Julian Alden Weir, The Laundry, Branchville, 

oil on canvas, ca. 1894, 30 1⁄8 × 25 1⁄4 in. 

Weir Farm Art Alliance.
Figures

160

Figure 22. Mary Hanratty in Park, 

WEFA.
Figures

161

Figure 23. Mary Hanratty in Nursery in Weir Residence, New York, 

WEFA.
Figures

162

Figure 24. Mary Hanratty with Cora Weir and friend Minere Wardwell at the Pond in Branchville, 

WEFA AHP00281.
Figures

163

Figure 25. Dorothy Weir, Woman in Windsor Chair Sewing, c.1920, watercolor, 16 7⁄16 × 12 7⁄16 in. 

Brigham Young University Museum of Art, purchase/gift of Mahonri M. Young Estate, 1959.
Figures

164

Figure 26. Dorothy Weir Young, Ladies at Dinner,

 c.1930, oil on canvas on board, 25 × 30 in. 

Brigham Young University Museum of Art, purchase/gift of Mahonri M. Young Estate, 1959.
Figures

165

Figure 27. Mr. and Mrs. Bass on 30th Anniversary, 1940, 

Bass Family Photograph Collection, HP 01029.
Figures

166

Figure 28. Mervin Bass, c. 1940, Bass Family Photograph Collection, HP 00999.

Figure 29. Eddie and Georgie Bass, ca. 1940s, Bass Family Photograph Collection, HP01010.
Figures

167

Figure 30. Bessie, Betty, Mary and Bobby Bass, 1940, 

Bass Family Photograph Collection, HP 00983.

Figure 31. Russell, Charles, and Orin Bass, undated, 

Bass Family Photograph Collection, HP01035.
Figures

168

Figure 32. Mr. and Mrs. Bass, Clifford, Kenneth, 1934, 

Bass Family Photograph Collection, HP 00990.
Figures

169

Figure 33. Mahonri M. Young, Bass Digging Parsnips, 

1942, graphite, 10 3⁄16 × 7 11⁄16 in. 

Brigham Young University Museum of Art, purchase/gift of Mahonri M. Young Estate, 1959.
Figures

170

Figure 34. Mahonri M. Young, Bringing in the Hay, 

ink, 10 3⁄16 × 7 11⁄16 in.

Brigham Young University Museum of Art, purchase/gift of Mahonri M. Young Estate, 1959.
Figures

171

Figure 35. Mahonri M. Young, Branchville August 1939, 

ink, 1939, 10 1⁄4 × 13 3⁄4 in.

Brigham Young University Museum of Art, purchase/gift of Mahonri M. Young Estate, 1959.
Figures

172

Figure 36. Mahonri M. Young, Mowing in the Orchard,

ink, 10 3⁄16 × 7 11⁄16 in.

Brigham Young University Museum of Art, purchase/gift of Mahonri M. Young Estate, 1959.
Figures

173

Figure 37. Mahonri M, Young, Rowen, 1937, 

oil on canvas, 25 1⁄4 × 30 1⁄16 in. 

Brigham Young University Museum of Art, purchase/gift of the Mahonri M. Young Estate, 1959.
Figures

174

Figure 38. Mahonri M. Young, Scythe Cutters at Branchville, 1931, 

ink, 9 3⁄16 × 11 3⁄4 in. 

Brigham Young University Museum of Art, purchase/gift of Mahonri M. Young Estate, 1959.
Figures

175

Figure 39. Mahonri M. Young, Mowing at Branchville,

ink, 9 9⁄16 × 12 1⁄8 in. 

Brigham Young University Museum of Art, purchase/gift of Mahonri M. Young Estate, 1959.
Figures

176

Figure 40. Mahonri M. Young, Haywagon in Barn, 

graphite, 8 7⁄16 × 10 9⁄16 in. 

Brigham Young University Museum of Art, purchase/gift of Mahonri M. Young Estate, 1959.
Figures

177

Figure 41. Dottie, the dog, on the porch of the caretaker’s house. 

Woodshed visible to the right. 

Bass Family Photograph Collection, WEFA HP 01107.
Figures

178

Figure 42. Mahonri M. Young, Apple Picking at Branchville,

 ink, 8 15⁄16 × 11 11⁄16 in.

Brigham Young University Museum of Art, purchase/gift of Mahonri M. Young Estate, 1959.
Figures

179

Figure 43. Mahonri M. Young, Cutting Tree at Branchville, 

20th century, ink and pastel, 19 × 13 3⁄4 in.

Brigham Young University Museum of Art, purchase/gift of Mahonri M. Young Estate, 1959.
Figures

180

Figure 44. Mahonri M. Young, Man Sawing with a Woodsaw, 

ink, 8 5⁄16 × 5 1⁄2 in.

Brigham Young University Museum of Art, purchase/gift of Mahonri M. Young Estate, 1959.
Figures

181

Figure 45. Mahonri M. Young, Branchville Garden, 1934,

 ink, 9 5⁄8 × 13 1⁄2 in. 

Brigham Young University Museum of Art, purchase/gift of Mahonri M. Young Estate, 1959.
Figures

182

Figure 46. Dorothy Weir Young, Untitled, 

From Bass Family Photograph Collection. 
Figures

183

Figure 47. Dorothy Weir Young, Seated Girl Reading Newspaper, c. 1930,

 oil on canvas, 29 15⁄16 × 27 in. 

Brigham Young University Museum of Art, purchase/gift of Mahonri M. Young Estate, 1959.
Figures

184

Figure 48. Mahonri Young, Right to the Jaw, 1926, 

bronze, 14 × 19 5⁄16 × 9 1⁄2 in.

Brigham Young University Museum of Art, purchase/gift of Mahonri M. Young Estate, 1959.
Figures

185

Figure 49. Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, 

“Art—Sculpture—Agriculture (Mahonri Young),” 

New York Public Library Digital Collections. Accessed August 8, 2021. 

https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/5e66b3e8-a838-d471-e040-e00a180654d7.
Figures

186

Figure 50. Kenneth and Ronnie Bass on sled, 1942, 

Bass Family Photograph Collection, HP 01028.
Figures

187

Figure 51. Mary Hickey and Joseph Knoche’s wedding portrait, 1905, 

Knoche Family Photograph Collection, HP01367.
Figures

188

Figure 52. Cora Holding Elizabeth Knoche, 

WEFA 3064.
Figures

189

Figure 53. Great Wall of Cora, 

NPS Photo / A. Thibault.
Figures

190

Figure 54. Great Wall of Cora Detail, 

NPS Photo / A. Thibault.
Figures

191

Figure 55. Joseph Knoche’s tools sitting on the stone patio he and his sons built for Cora Weir Burlingham, 

NPS Photo / J. Kuhnen.
Figures

192

Figure 56. Mahonri M. Young, Joe Knoche Builds a New Stone Wall II, 1942, 

etching, 11 × 15 in. 

Brigham Young University Museum of Art, purchase/gift of Mahonri M. Young Estate, 1959.
Figures

193

Figure 57. Dorothy Weir Young, Theresa and Tommy, c.1920, 

oil on canvas, 27 1⁄8 × 34 1⁄8 in. 

Brigham Young University Museum of Art, purchase/gift of Mahonri M. Young Estate, 1959.
Figures

194

Figure 58. Johanna Knoche, great-granddaughter of Joe Knoche, recreates the etching

 “Joe Knoche Builds a Stone Wall” by Mahonri Mackintosh Young, 2010. 

NPS Photo.
Figures

195

Figure 59. Mahonri M. Young, Blacksmith Shoeing a Horse, 

graphite and colored pencil, 7 11⁄16 × 10 1⁄8 in. 

Brigham Young University Museum of Art, purchase/gift of Mahonri M. Young Estate, 1959.
Figures

196

Figure 60. Hugo Ricardi, “Smitty,” Mahonri Young, Alex Ettle, and Spero Anargyros in front of full-size plaster 

casting of “Trappers and Fur Traders Group” for the “This Is the Place” Monument, 

WEFA HP1152, image courtesy Spero Anargyros.
197

Recommendations for 

Further Research

• Gender and sexuality in Dorothy Weir Young and Mahonri Young’s art 

and relationships

• Historical relationships between urban retreaters and local residents in 

Wilton and Ridgefield

• History of Weir Farm preservation efforts

• How class and race shaped life and art at Weir Farm 

• Indigenous history related to Weir Farm National Historical Park 

• Life and labor of workers at the Baker residence in Windham, Connecticut

• Lives of Anna Baker Weir and Ella Baker Weir

• Lives of Caroline Weir Ely, Dorothy Weir Young, and Cora Weir Burlingham

199

APPENDIX

Family Trees

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Remy Family Tree

Paul Remy (1847—December 24, 1930)

m. Johanna Bauer (1862—December 30, 1933), July 1, 1886

William (July 17, 1887—June 12, 1976)

m. Mary O’Boyle (1889—November 24, 1947), April 8, 1912

Carl (June 2, 1913—April 17, 1997)

Elizabeth (November 9, 1914—October 24, 2002)

Mary (May 2, 1919—December 13, 2010)

Carl (November 18, 1889—May 2, 1972)

m. Emily Rubsan, (March 30, 1892—January 14, 1972), April 1910

Louise (June 20, 1899—November 15, 1987)

m1. Harry Naylor (August 5, 1893—June 12, 1925), June 14, 1916

Bertha (1917—June 7, 1976)

Winifred (October 19, 1924—March 7, 2000)

m2. Joseph Herold (June 16, 1902—December 27, 1963), October 27, 1934

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bass Family Tree

George Robert Bass (February 6, 1890—April 19, 1892)

m. Bessie Mabel Cooper Bass (July 4, 1892—June 10, 1988), March 22, 1911

Mervin Robert Bass (June 26, 1912—September 10, 1954)

m. Mary Eleanor Bruschi (December 7, 1915—March 25, 2002), November 5, 1934

Robert

Joan

m2. Amalkri Ciuccoli (January 3, 1908—May 25, 1991), October 1, 1955

George Albert Bass (December 20, 1914—March 2, 2001)

m. Ida Heim Noonan (January 14, 1900—December 24, 1986), April 12, 1958

Edward Arthur Bass (September 26, 1917—November 13, 1942)
200

Appendix: Family Trees

Bessie (Betty) Mabel Bass (November 11, 1920—November 13, 2012)

m1. Francis Webb (March 12, 1912—unknown), December 5, 1940

Ronald

Richard

Carol 

m2. Peter Morabito (February 7, 1932—), November 26, 1960

Diane 

Janet 

Russell Cooper Bass (December 9, 1922—December 28, 2009)

m. Edwina Brundage (August 7, 1924—October 15, 1994), June 22, 1957

Russell Jr.

Orin Bass (August 19, 1925—2017)

m. Katherine Forster (December 9, 1942—unknown), June 26, 1965

Bonnie

Brian

Charles Elwin Bass (August 19, 1925—November 28, 2021) 

m. Eunice Cashman (15 April 15, 1928—February 17, 1996), June 19, 1948

Linda

Kirk

Duane

Sonja

Heidi

Clifford Earl Bass (August 22, 1931—June 23, 1986)

m1. Marjorie Gamans (October 5, 1934—December 8, 1975), August 16, 1952

Earl

William

m2. Beatrice Conklin (August 29, 1937—April 27, 1972), April 16, 1960

Clifford Jr.

Raymond

Mark

Thomas

m3. Pat Huff (January 26, 1940—January 26, 2019), May 26, 1972

Kenneth James Bass (November 1934—)

m. Dorothy Peck (November 22, 1939—), June 24, 1961

Susan

Carol

Linda
201

Appendix: Family Trees

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Knoche Family Tree

Joseph John Knoche (July 1868—May, 11 1949)

m. Mary Margaret Hickey (1879—October 5, 1927), April 23, 1905

Elizabeth (December 5, 1906—March 26, 1987)

Terrance (October 27, 1907—July 22, 1984)

m. Helen Golden (August 31, 1911—June 9, 2003), November 6, 1937

Terrance Jr. (April 27, 1940—February 9, 2013)

m1. Patricia Foley (August 18, 1943—April 6, 2006), February 4, 1961

m2. Barbara Jean Lockwood (January 3, 1943—), 26 May 1990

Theresa (April 6, 1911—December 23, 1996)

Joseph Sheehy (October 1, 1914—September 24, 1984), March 2, 1946

Joseph (March 1, 1947—)

m. Mary Ann Gagon (June 7, 1954—), July 25, 1981

Mary (January 4, 1950—)

m. Joseph Carty (March 30, 1948—), June 13, 1970

Elizabeth (July 13, 1951—)

m. Kenneth Berg (September 1949—), September 1, 1969

Joseph Albert (June 2, 1917—September 5, 1989)

m. Margaret Quinn (March 24, 1922—), April 22, 1944

Joe Albert Jr. (December 7, 1947– October 16, 2019)

m. Patricia Sheehan (December 31, 1954—), October 15, 1983

203

Bibliography

Archives and Repositories

Ancestry Library

Birth, Baptism, and Christening Records

Citizenship and Naturalization Records

City and Area Directories

Death, Burial, Cemetery, and Obituary Records

Draft, Enlistment, and Service Records

Marriage and Divorce Records

Passenger Lists

United Kingdom Census Collection

United States Federal Census Collection

Brigham Young University (BYU)

Weir Family Papers & Photographs, L. Tom Perry Special Collections 

Young Collection, Museum of Art

Proquest Historical Newspapers

New York Times, 1851–2008

Ridgefield Library

The Ridgefield Press, 1875–present

Weir Farm National Historical Park Archives (WEFA)

Artwork Slide and Transparency Reference Collection 

Copies of Weir-C.E.S. Manuscripts, Huntington Library

Dorothy Weir Young Financial Records 

Historic Photograph Collection

Mahonri M. Young Financial Records

Oral History Transcriptions

Weir Family Papers, 1746–1962
Bibliography

204

Articles

Borish, Linda J. 1995. “‘Another Domestic Beast of Burden’: New England Farm Women’s 

Work and Well-Being in the 19th Century” Journal of American Culture 18 (3): 83.

Brown, Richard D. 1989. “Farm Labor in Southern New England during the AgriculturalIndustrial Transition.” Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 99 (1): 113–19.

Browning, Deborah Fairman. 1992. “Toilers within the Home: Servants’ Quarters in 

Nineteenth-Century New England.” Journal of American Culture 15 (1): 93–98.

Izard, Holly V. 1993. “The Ward Family and Their ‘Helps’: Domestic Work, Workers, and 

Relationships on a New England Farm, 1787–1866.” Proceedings of the American 

Antiquarian Society 103 (1): 61–90.

Ladd-Taylor, Molly. “Toward Defining Maternalism in U.S. History.” The Journal of 

Women’s History, 5, no. 2 (Fall 1993): 110–13.

Lasser, Carol S. 1982. “Mistress, Maid and Market: The Transformation of Domestic 

Service in New England, 1790–1870.” Harvard University dissertation.

Lasser, Carol S. 1987. “The Domestic Balance of Power: Relationships between Mistress 

and Main in Nineteenth-Century New England,” Labor History 28 (1): 5–22.

May, Vanessa Harkins. 2008. “Working in Public and in Private: Domestic Service, 

Women’s Reform, and the Meaning of the Middle-Class Home in New York City, 

1870–1940.” University of Virginia Dissertation.

Mendel, Ronald. “Craft Labour and the Development of Trade Unionism among Building 

Tradesmen in Late Nineteenth Century New York.” Construction History 14 (1998): 

3–19.

Miller, Cody P. 2015. “‘The Farmer’s Family Must Find Compensation in Something Less 

Tangible, Less Material’: Culture and Agriculture in Maine and New England, 1870–

1905.” Maine History 49 (2): 151–76.

Ostler, Jeffrey, and Nancy Shoemaker. “Settler Colonialism in Early American History: 

Introduction.” The William and Mary Quarterly 76, no. 3 (2019): 361–68. https://doi.

org/10.5309/willmaryquar.76.3.0361.

Peterson, M. Jeanne. “The Victorian Governess: Status Incongruence in Family and 

Society.” Victorian Studies 14, no. 1 (1970): 7–26.

Taylor Phillips, Danielle. 2013. “Moving with the Women: Tracing Racialization, Migration, 

and Domestic Workers in the Archive.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture & Society

38 (2): 379–404.

Vapnek, Lara. 2008. “Cleaning Up: The Transformation of Domestic Service in Twentieth 

Century New York City.” Journal of Social History 42 (1): 209–11.
Bibliography

205

Books

Aslet, Clive. The American Country House. Yale University Press, 1990.

Barron, Seth. Those Who Stayed Behind: Rural Society in Nineteenth Century New England. 

Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Bederman, Gail. Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the 

United States, 1880–1917. Women in Culture and Society edition. Chicago: University 

of Chicago Press, 1996.

Biagiotti, Aldo P. Impact: The Historical Account of the Italian Immigrants of Ridgefield, 

Connecticut. Ridgefield, Conn: Romald, 1990.

Boas, Norman F. Nod Hill Wilton, Connecticut—Reminiscences. Self-published, 1996.

Burke, Doreen Bolger. J. Alden Weir: An American Impressionist. Newark, New Jersey: 

University of Delaware Press, 1983.

Coble, Alana Etickson. Cleaning Up: The Transformation of Domestic Service in Twentieth 

Century New York City. New York & London: Routledge, 2006.

Committee, Ridgefield Archives. Ridgefield. Illustrated edition. Portsmouth, NH: Arcadia 

Publishing, 2004.

Cummins, Hildegard, Helen K. Fuscas, and Susan G. Larkin. J. Alden Weir: A Place of 

His Own. Storrs, CT: William Benton Museum of Art, 1991.

Danbom, David B. The Resisted Revolution: Urban America and the Industrialization of 

Agriculture, 1900–1930. Iowa State Press, 1979.

Davis, Norma S. A Song of Joys: The Biography of Mahonri Mackintosh Young. Provo, 

Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1999.

Diner, Hasia R. Erin’s Daughters in America: Irish Immigrant Women in the Nineteenth 

Century. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983.

Downing, Andrew Jackson. The Architecture of Country Houses. Original publication by 

D. Appleton & Co., 1850; reprinted by Dover Publications, New York, 1969.

Dublin, Thomas. Transforming Women’s Work: New England Lives in the Industrial 

Revolution. Cornell University Press, 1995.

Ely, Caroline Weir. Lest We Forget. Privately printed, 1965.

———. 11 East 12th Street. Privately printed, 1969.

Foner, Philip Sheldon. Organized Labor and the Black Worker, 1619–1973 (New York: 

Praeger, 1974).
Bibliography

206

Gorn, Elliott J. The Manly Art: Bare-Knuckle Prize Fighting in America. 

Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2010.

Grey Osterud, Nancy. Bonds of Community: The Lives of Farm Women in NineteenthCentury New York. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991.

Grey Osterud, Nancy. Putting the Barn Before the House: Women and Family Farming in 

Early Twentieth-Century New York. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2012.

Guglielmo, Thomas A. White on Arrival: Italians, Race, Color, and Power in Chicago, 

1890–1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Hewitt, Mark Alan. The Architect and the American Country House, 1890–1940. 

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990.

Hubka, Thomas C. Big House, Little House, Back House, Barn: The Connected Farm 

Buildings of New England. Hanover: University Press of New England, 1984.

Hurt, R. Douglas. American Farm Tools: From Hand Power to Steam Power. Manhattan, 

KS: Sunflower University Press, 1984.

Ignatiev, Noel. How the Irish Became White. New York: Routledge, 1995.

Isham, Norman M., and Albert F. Brown. Early Connecticut Houses. Original publication 

1900; reprinted by Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1965.

Jacobus, Donald. Lines and Connecticut Daughters of the American Revolution. History 

and Genealogy of the Families of Old Fairfield. New Haven, CT: Tuttle, Morehouse & 

Taylor, 1930.

J. Alden Weir, An Appreciation of His Life and Works. Privately published by The Century 

Association in 1921 and then republished with added illustrations as The Phillips 

Collection, Number One. New York: E. P. Dutton & Company, 1922.

Jensen, Joan M. With These Hands: Women Working on the Land. Old Westbury, NY: 

The Feminist Press at CUNY, 1993. 

Jones, Keith Marshall III. The Farms of Farmingville: A Two-Century Story of Twenty-Three 

Ridgefield, Connecticut Farmhouses and the People Who Gave Them Life. Ridgefield, CT: 

Connecticut Colonel Pub. Co., 2001.

Kammen, Michael. Mystic Chords of Memory: The Transformation of Tradition in American 

Culture. New York: Vintage, 1993.

Katzman, David M. Seven Days a Week: Women and Domestic Service in Industrializing 

America. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1981.

Kelly, J. Frederick. Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut. Original publication 1924; 

reprinted by Dover Publications Inc., New York, 1963.
Bibliography

207

Lynch-Brennan, Margaret. The Irish Bridget: Irish Immigrant Women in Domestic Service 

in America, 1840–1930. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2009.

May, Vanessa H. Unprotected Labor: Household Workers, Politics, and Middle-Class Reform 

in New York, 1870–1940. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2011.

McCain, Diana Ross. Connecticut Coast: A Town-By-Town Illustrated History. 

Globe Pequot, 2009.

Morgan, Keith. Charles A. Platt: The Artist as Architect. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985.

Palmer, Phyllis. Domesticity and Dirt: Housewives and Domestic Servants in the United 

States, 1920–1945. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1991.

Rockwell, George Lounsbury. The History of Ridgefield, Connecticut. Ridgefield, CT: 

Priv. print. by the author, 1927.

Roediger, David R. Working toward Whiteness: How America’s Immigrants Became White: 

The Strange Journey from Ellis Island to the Suburbs. New York: Basic Books, 2018.

Russell, Robert H. Wilton, Connecticut: Three Centuries of People, Places, and Progress. 

Wilton, CT: Wilton Historical Society, 2004.

Van Raaphorst, D. L. Union Maids Not Wanted: Organizing Domestic Workers 1870–1940. 

New York: Praeger, 1988.

Vapnek, Lara. Breadwinners: Women and Economic Independence, 1865–1920. Champaign, 

IL: University of Illinois Press, 2009.

Wilson, Harold Fisher. The Hill Country of Northern New England: Its Social and Economic 

History, 1790–1930. New York: AMS Press, 1979.

Reports

Carden, Marie L., and Richard C. Crisson, Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. I: 

The Site and Weir Complex, Weir Farm National Historic Site, Wilton, CT [draft]. 

US Department of the Interior, NPS, Northeast Region, Northeast Cultural Resources 

Center, Building Conservation Branch, 1998.

Child Associates and Cynthia Zaitzevsky. Cultural Landscape Report for Weir Farm 

National Historic Site. Brookline, MA: Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 

National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, 1996.

Gardner, Deborah S., and Christine G. McKay. An Artists’ Retreat: J. Alden Weir’s Farm in 

Connecticut. Weir Farm National Historic Site Historic Resource Study. National Park 

Service, US Department of the Interior, 2009.

Hodson, Janice. Weir House Kitchen: Historic Furnishings Report and Implementation Plan. 

National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, 2015.
Bibliography

208

———. Weir Barn: Historical Summaries and Furnishings Plans: Stable, Equipment Room, 

Milking Room, Pony Stall. National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, 2015.

J. Alden Weir Farm/Weir Farm Historic District. National Register of Historic Places 

Nomination Form, 1983, updated 2017.

Kasparian, Lance, and Maureen K. Phillips. Historic Structures Report, Vol II-B: Caretaker’s 

House and Caretaker’s Garage. National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, 

2008.

Larkin, Jack. The Weir Farm: Working Agriculture and the Vision of Rural Life in New 

England 1860–1940. An essay prepared as the agricultural history component of the 

Cultural Landscape Report for the Weir Farm National Historic Site. Draft, 1996.

Phillips, Maureen K. Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. II-A: Outbuildings, Weir 

Farm National Historic Site, Wilton, CT [draft]. Lowell, MA: US Department of the 

Interior, NPS, Northeast Cultural Resources Center, Building Conservation Branch, 

1998.

———. Weir Farm, Historic Structures Report, Vol. III: Burlingham Complex, Weir Farm 

National Historic Site, Wilton, CT [draft]. US Department of the Interior, NPS, 

Northeast Region, Northeast Cultural Resources Center, Building Conservation 

Branch, 1998.